Second Tuesday of Easter

Today, we're dealing with Chris's question, "Christian, I have a question about the results of your repeated readings of the Bible. I've gone through (most) of the Bible only one time over one year. We've all re-read selected sections multiple times and have favorite passages. Considering the Bible as a whole, can you comment on how much your interpretations of certain (your choice) whole Books (or major sections thereof) changed as you re-read in different languages? 

First, let me say that I'm very thankful to have a Biblical studies question. All those theological questions were wearing my poor brain out. 

Second, is my usual response--I don't think that way. I can't separate out my thinking between what i read in the original languages and what I read in English. I read a lot of both, and different things at different times. When I'm teaching an NT book, I read that book in Greek but also in English. My Hebrew is a lot slower than my Greek. I did decide to read Judges in Hebrew when I taught it last fall. I'm still reading, now in chapter 16 out of 21 chapters.

Third, and what I think Chris may he getting at, is that there is a tremendous amount of difference between reading the original and reading a translation. I think that statement would apply equally well in regard to other languages and other literatures. The Germans are very proud of their translations of Shakespeare. I can't imagine Shakespeare in any other language than Elizabethan English. 

As Mickey Efird used to say, "All translations are bad." Definitely some are worse than others. I could add that all translations are political and theological. The translators have their own agendas, and those agendas always come out. My chief example is Romans 16:1, in which Paul writes, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, and diakonos at the church at Cenchreae. The Greek word diakonos in the NT normally means "minister." The NRSV translates it "minister" the three other times it appears in the NT referring to specific men (Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 1:7, and Colossians 4:7). There is no other possible translation given in a footnote. The exact same word, letter for letter, is used of Phoebe in Romans 16:1 but there the NRSV translates it "deacon," with a footnote that it could mean "minister." Why would the translators translate the exact same word one way when it refers to men and another way when it refers to a woman. The answer is political. The NRSV translation committee included about 1/3 of its members who are Catholic. For Catholics the idea of women ministers in the NT cannot be true, even if it is. Of course, evangelical translations like the NIV do even worse. When you read the text in the original language, you can get a much clearer understanding of what the text is actually saying. There are many, many wrong translations of individual words or whole verses. 

Translations tend to even out stylistic differences between different books and authors. The not infrequent bad grammar of Revelation is corrected in all the English translations. Mark's very simple Greek style is hardly different from Lukes beautiful classical style in English translation. In the original Greek the difference appears immediately. In poetry, which is most of the prophets, all of Psalms and the Song of Solomon, as well as various places in the NT, most notably 1 Corinthians 13  Here's the title of the Song of Solomon, in English "The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's." Here it is in transliterated Hebrew.  Say it out loud and listen to the sound of the poetry, " Shir ha-shirim, asher le schelomo." Can you hear the difference.

I feel as if I've only scratched the surface of Chris's question. Perhaps I'll have more at a later point. Tomorrow we'll return to faith journey.

Faithfully,

Christian