Translation as Interpretation: A Brief Look at Hosea

A mantra among many Septuagint scholars is that all translation is interpretation. Few scholars would disagree with this notion. Many will disagree with the degree of interpretation that takes place in a translation or what constitutes significant interpretation. But few would deny that interpretation, whether outright or subconscious, occurs in all translation.

Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, in his article “The Interpretative Element in Translation” Textus 8 (1973), 55-77 , extends this principle even further than one might expect. He claims that interpretation takes place even at the level of transliteration. Two specific instances are provided for observation. First, interpretation takes place when a perfectly understandable word that has a lexical equivalent in the receptor language is left transliterated. This could be an act of interpretation wherein the translator views the word as a technical term and believes it is necessary to leave it un-translated. Second, interpretation occurs in instances where proper nouns (names and places) function not just as specific referents but also as signs or omens that bear meaning pertinent to the story.

Hosea 1:8-9 provides a good example of the second instance. Hosea names his daughter לֹא רֻחָמָה and his son he names לֹא עַמִּי. While these are proper names, they also bear significant exegetical weight to the overall meaning of the passage when translated. לֹא רֻחָמָה is translated “Not Pitied” or “No Mercy” and לֹא עַמִּי is translated “Not My People.” The children of Hosea function as a vivid visual of God’s attitude towards Israel.

How does the Septuagint translator handle this text? Instead of transliterating these names, the translator recognized their importance to the overall meaning of the passage and translates accordingly. לֹא רֻחָמָה becomes Οὐκ-ἠλεημένην and לֹא עַמִּי becomes Οὐ-λαόσ-μου. This could just as easily have become Λωρυχαμα and Λωαμμι.

The English translations understand the dilemma: translate or transliterate?

KJV: “Now when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. The said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.”

ESV: “When she had weaned No Mercy, she conceived and bore a son. And the LORD said, “Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God.””

NET: “When she had weaned ‘No Pity’ (Lo-ruhamah) she conceived agains and gave birth to another son. Then the LORD said: ‘Name him ‘Not My People’ (Lo-ammi), because you are not my people and I am not your God.”

This is another reminder for me concerning the complexities of translation. We must be as sensitive as possible to the complexity of meaning(s) present in the parent text. The receptor language can only approximate that complexity. This does not mean that our translations are inadequate. It does mean there is a wonderful richness to the text that must be minded.

Posted in LXX | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

New Knowledge: An Alienating Force

[[This message has been approved by the family matriarch: ἀγαπῶ σε]]

My wife loves storytelling. For those of you who know her, you know that she has a flair for the dramatic. Hyperbole, she knows well. Brevity, she does not.

As we settled into a comfortable evening at her parents’ house, I found myself listening to a story she told me that afternoon. I could have listened again, like a dutiful husband, but my mind drifted.

You see, earlier that day I read Analyzing Discourse by Dooley and Levinsohn. [[This is about the moment I know you have either stopped reading, or are seriously considering it. I don’t blame you. I will keep up the narrative, but it will be peppered with linguistic talk and what not]]. In one of the chapters they wrote about a concept called chunking. The human brain, in order to create an accurate mental representation of a communicative event (translation = in order to properly understand what is being said), chunks information into smaller manageable pieces. In books, we accomplish this task by delineating parts, chapters, and paragraphs. In speech, other devices are used.

And so, instead of listening to Mary Beth’s story a second time, I decided to observe how she segmented, or chucked, the narrative. Lucky for me, lack of brevity is a major plus when conducting this experiment.

I was astounded. Dooley and Levinsohn claimed that some of the most common features used in oral chunking are the following: “and so,” “so,” and the use of intonation. At almost every strategic junction where a unit concluded and a new unit began, Mary Beth employed these devices.

At the conclusion of a unit, her intonation faded. At the beginning of a new unit, intonation raised. New units began with “and so” or “so.” I further observed that she introduced direct discourse pertaining to her speech, the equivalent of quotation marks, by saying “and I was like.” This device was also used to introduce a [[meta comment]] about the narrative. [[If you aren’t sure about what constitutes a meta comment, see all instances in this post that have been set off with [[ . . . ]] ]].

At the end of her story, she noticed that I was off in my own little world. She suggested that it was getting late, and we should go home. This was code for, “I know I’m boring you. Time to go.” I was far from bored. I was fascinated. Had I been in different company and shared my thought processes, I would have received blank stares. Instead, we all got a good laugh out of it. And despite my wandering mind and my detached demeanor, I found myself paying attention to and engaging with my wife’s narrative in an entirely new way.

Posted in Discourse Analysis, Life | 9 Comments

A Hebrew Class Update

The Hebrew class has done it again. We have completed another book. Each week we get together and sight read from a select book of the Bible. A few months ago, we completed the book of Jonah. This morning, we completed Ruth.

Next week, we start on Psalm 1. I hope to translate through a couple of Psalms before moving to another book. This way we learn what Hebrew parallelism looks like, as well as some of the characteristics that make Hebrew poetry, poetry.

Pray for us as we move into a new genre. Pray that I am able to ably instruct students that are more observant and inquisitive than their teacher. And as always, pray that I learn from them!

Posted in Hebrew, Teaching | Leave a comment

Recent Acquisition: Greek Accents

Last week was another humbling experience. Again I learned how little I know when it comes to Greek. I sat in on one of this semester’s Septuagint classes. The assignment was to translate an English passage into Greek (and Hebrew). We were asked to also include the diacritical markings.

Other than the smooth and rough breathing marks, punctuation, and how to distinguish εἶ “you are” from εἰ “if,” I have never learned nor been taught breathing marks. Sure, I know that ´ is an acute, ` is a grave, and ῀ is a circumflex. But where, how, and when they appear, ich weiß nicht.

In the midst of this demoralizing exercise, I recalled a quote from A. T. Robertson from the previous week’s reading:

Chandler indeed laments that modern scholars scatter their Greek accents about rather recklessly, but he adds: “In England, at all events, every man will accent his Greek properly who wishes to stand well with the world.” It is a comfort to find one’s accents irreproachable, and Chandler rightly urges that the only way to use the accents properly is to pronounce according to the accent.

Needless to say, I would not be able to stand well in Chandler’s or Robertson’s world. I’m not sure if this is true today. Accenting is a matter on which few rarely speak. My beginning grammar teacher taught us a few basic rules in the second week of class, but he promptly told us to forget them. Between then and now, only Dr. Black has stressed the importance of putting the emphasis on the right syllable.

Greek AccentsCall me crazy, but this experience drove me to pick up D. A. Carson’s book Greek Accents: A Student’s Manual. I’m not sure if this is the best place to start, especially since this Student’s Manual is almost the size of a beginning Greek Grammar. The back of the book reads, “Here is everything you need to know about New Testament Greek accents, a subject often slighted or ignored by introductory grammars. Those ‘grammars which deal with accents scatter their information throughout their pages and some of that information I soon discovered to be correct for Attic Greek, but incorrect for the Greek of the New Testament.'”

Now that I have the book, I need to find the time to read it. Here is to hoping I find the time, and find something profitable in this work.

Posted in Greek | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Barth on Self-Defense

karlbarthpipeI have often struggled with the idea of owning a gun as a means to protect self, home, and wife. The concept of self-defense is a given in today’s secular and Christian culture. We, as Americans and as Christians, are taught that we have certain inalienable rights. One of those includes the right to protect self, home, and possessions. This right to self-defense, or self-protection, extends even to the point of executing an assailant. Once again, this presupposition of mine has been challenged. The following is a must read (but beware, lengthy) quote from Karl Barth on Matthew 5:38-42:

On further consideration, it is not so ‘natural’ as it appears that even in respect of one’s own life force should be met by force, agression by aggression, disorder by disorder. To hit back when I am struck is a very dubious defense against the danger in which my assailant has brought me. My life is not actually helped by my doing this, whether physically or spiritually. Strictly speaking, does not the real emergency arise when I enter the cycle and become an aggressor in turn? We may consider the process in its simplest form. An unfriendly word is spoken to me by another. I feel that I may and should respond to his unfriendliness in terms at least as unfriendly. I do so. Yet I cannot conceal the fact that in so doing I do not find the pleasure I desired but only succeed in making myself disagreeable. On a realistic view, what I achieve in this self-defense does not uplift but degrades even myself. I ought thus to be restrained even by the necessary protection of my own life.

We have also to consider, however, the life of the assailant. In the fact that he thinks he should attack me, whether in word only or more seriously, he shows that he for his part believes that he is in some serious need. He may be wrong so far as I am concerned. That is to say, he may have no good reasons for venting on me his illhumour, sorrow, loneliness, disappointment or want, and especially for doing it in such a way that I am exposed to danger by his more or less serious attack. Yet I do not put myself in the right in relation to him by hitting back and therefore adding to the distress in which he thinks he finds himself. For all I know, the distress which has caused his highly irregular attack upon me may be much greater, or may weigh on him much more heavily, than that which he has inflicted on me by his attackFor all I know, my resistance, however justifiable, may increase his distress. I may thus provoke him to greater injustices, and thus plunge him into even greater distress, making things worse for him instead of better. By my defensive action, I shall certainly do something similar or even worse to him than he does to me by his act of agression. The New Testament is surely right in treating both the attacked and the attacker on the same level as all blatant transgressors of the command, and in setting the attacker on the same level as the beggar or borrower, who in his own way is also an attacker but to whom the attacked is still under an obligation. It is surely closer to life than all the assertions of the right of self-defense so easily adduced as self-evident. Surely the more important thing is that we should constantly ask ourselves whether it is really fitting to close the fatal cycle with an act of self-defense, or whether the need which is already at work in the attacker, and which he threatens to inflict, or has already inflicted, on the attacked, cannot be met along different lines from those of retaliation. Ought we not at least to postpone, to put in second place, all the considerations which might finally lead us to the resolve to meet force with force?

If all this is true, and in any sensible discussion the command of God according to the Gospel will surely be taken into account, then it is obvious that the question of killing the attacker as the ‘ultima ratio’ of what is called self-defense can arise only on the extreme margin. Is it not a most serious matter if I not only meet invective with invective, or blow with blow, or an attack upon my possessions or those of others with a most powerful counter-attack, but reply to a threat on my own life or that of others by forestalling the attacker and putting him to death? Do I really prevent the danger to my life or that of others by killing the aggressor  And what do I do to him in making this final venture, in extinguishing his life with my own hand, in removing him ‘from the land of the living,’ as though he belonged to me and I were his judge?

Schlatter’s reasoning (Christliche Ethik, 1914, p. 133) has a reassuring solidity: ‘Since he who seeks to destroy the life of another forfeits his own, he who kills the attacker in defense of life, whether his own or that of another, acts in the service of the justice of God as the executor of the punishment ordained by Him according to the same rule by which society would put the murderer to death if he were successful in carrying out his will.’ On certain presuppositions this may well be true of a necessary and right action of this nature. But as a general and binding direction it is an astonishing over-simplification from the pen of a New Testament scholar like Schlatter.

Have we not first to mention that the command of God does not initially point us in this direction, that it does not give us any authority over the life of the wrong-doer, that it does not make us his criminal judge? How can the voice of Christian ethics assert itself in this sphere if it does not dare, without establishing any absolute law, to make plain the true order of the enquiry in which self-defense and killing in self-defense cannot possibly the first word but only the tenth at the very earliest? I certainly can and should wish to be protected in the possession and enjoyment of my goods, honor, freedom and finally and especially body and life, but not in all circumstances or with all means, since none of these possessions constitutes a supreme good with an absolute right to be maintained. The killing of the assaliant is a final and most terrible means of protecting this possessions. Does their preservations really demand this? For in the last analysis, I cannot even know the need which drove him to snatch at my goods and therefore to attack me. And to defend myself I must range myself alongside him under the dubious slogan of self-protection, and finally under the even more dubious claim that it must be either he or I, under which he already stands as my assailant. Furthermore I have in fact to kill the killer before he actually becomes a killer, so that he is only responsible for the the will to do it whereas I must bear responsibility for the actual deed. If I do what is ultimately envisaged in cases of so-called self-defense, I must always give consideration to these restraining factors.

-Karl Barth

Church Dogmatics,

The Doctrine of Creation III.4, pp. 430-42.

Agree with Barth on this one or not, I hope that it forces you to re-evaluate the inbred attitude of self rights. As Christians we are called to deny self, in all forms. Jesus’ ethic is not easy. If our first move is to jump through hermeneutical hoops to lessen the forcefulness of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:38-42 (and elsewhere) before it truly sinks in and penetrates our hearts, minds, and souls, then are we able to honestly say that we have been faithful to the text of Scripture, the words of God?

Posted in Quotes | Leave a comment

Final Paragraph of Robertson’s Main Text

It is certain that no words known to man are comparable in value with those contained in the N. T. Despite all the variety of diction on the part of the reporters, probably partly because of this very fact, the words of Jesus still fascinate the mind and win men to God as of old.  Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· ἦν γὰρ  διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν  7:28f.). It is the constant peril of scribes and grammarians1 to strain out the gnat and to swallow the camel. I may have fallen a victim, like the rest, but at least I may be permitted to say at the end of the long road which I have travelled for so many years, that I joyfully recognise that grammar is nothing unless it reveals the thought and emotion hidden in language. It is just because Jesus is greater than Socrates and Plato and all the Greek thinkers and poets that we care so much what Luke and Paul and John have to tell about him. Plato and Xenophon hold us because of their own message as well as because they are the interpreters of Socrates. It matters not if Jesus spoke chiefly in the Aramaic. The spirit and heart of his message are enshrined in the Greek of the N. T. and interpreted for us in living speech by men of the people whose very diction is now speaking to us again from the rubbish-heaps of Egypt. The papyri and the ostraca tell the story of struggle on the part of the very class of people who first responded to the appeal of Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26ff.). Christianity is not buried in a book. It existed before the N. T. was written. It made the N. T. It is just because Christianity is of the great democracy that it is able to make universal appeal to all ages and all lands and all classes. The chief treasure of the Greek tongue is the N. T. No toil is too great if by means of it men are enabled to understand more exactly the [Page 1208] mind of Christ. If one is disposed to think less of the N. T. because it stands in the vernacular κοινή, let him remember that the speech of these Christians was rich beyond measure, since out of it came the words of Jesus. These were carried in the common tradition of the period and written down from time to time (Lu. 1:1-4). Paul was not a rhetorician, though a man of culture, but he cared much for the talk of the Christians that it should be worthy. Ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος, εἰδέναι πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἀποκρίνεσθαι (Col. 4:6). That was good advice for the Colossians and for all speakers and writers, grammarians included, and makes a fitting bon mot to leave with the rhetoricians who might care to quibble further over niceties of language.

–A.T. Robertson, Grammar of the New Testament in Light of Historical Research, (1207-1208)

Posted in Greek, Quotes | Leave a comment

What Makes a Good Class: The Trifecta

When I began my studies at Southeastern, there was a vague notion lingering in the back of my mind that one day I would like to teach in the college, seminary, or university. This notion drove me to begin evaluating each class I took in a new light. Not only was I seeking to master the material covered in that class, I was also learning the dos and don’ts of teaching. What is effective? What is not effective? What about the structure of the class was conducive to learning? What was not? etc.

This week I learned something new. I will tentatively call it the trifecta. The trifecta describes the class dynamic and is composed, as I am sure you have already guessed, of three elements: The professor, the students, and the student. While these three elements are rather obvious, I think a little exposition is necessary.

First, the professor. For many students, this is the only element that counts. We say, that professor is a good professor. Or, he is awful, don’t ever take him. There is a great deal of truth to this. I have heard of Greek and Hebrew professors that will require their students to learn down to 10 uses of a word in the New and Old Testaments respectively. What’s wrong with this? Nothing! Unless the professor doesn’t know the vocabulary himself. That is to say, some professors will require certain things from their students that they are either unwilling to learn themselves or uninterested in learning themselves. This attitude bleeds over into the way they present the material for that class. They are not energetic. They don’t care about the subject matter In short, bad professors do not inspire because they have not been inspired. I am convinced that busywork goes hand in hand with professors like this. They pile assignment upon assignment in order to ensure they have your attention. “If I can’t keep you off your computer, tablet, and cell phone in class, then I will make sure you know the material by requiring you to take quizzes over your reading, write summaries about your reading, test you over the minutiae you find in your reading.”

On what basis do I make this claim? I have two classes this semester. One in Greek and one in Hebrew. In Greek, the reading is extensive. The first week we were given three articles to read and asked to read 800 pages in A. T. Robertson’s A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (to be completed the following week). Notice how I said, “asked.” Though the reading is, in the traditional sense, required, we are not graded on the reading in any capacity. No quizes, no tests, no summaries, no graded “did you complete the reading for this week?” Simply, “Read the first 800 pages in Robertson.” Though I might have privately grumbled about the extent of the assignment to my wife, I gladly did the reading (Sadly I only made it to page 700; though I will finish the rest this week on top of the reading for next week).

For most classes, this would have been the first assignment to go. There is only so much that can be accomplished in a semester. With reading, tests, term papers, and general life, at some point, something has to give. Logically, the assignment that has the least impact to one’s grade will go first. For me, this has been a general practice. Cut loose the dead weight. It frees me to further myself in other areas. Instead of reading the material the professor isn’t going to grade, I can reinvest the time saved into doing more research for my term paper.

That wasn’t true for this class. I wanted to read every word. The professor made it clear that the reading was valuable. The professor was inspired by the reading he was requiring. The professor vowed to re-read every word of the reading that he had required. He was not requiring something of his students that he was unwilling to do himself. And finally, the profesor, I like to think, inspires his students. At the very least, me. For that reason, I want to read anything that is pertinent to the class discussions.

Second, the students. During my undergraduate and MDiv degrees, I took a rather reclusive approach to school. I came in, I listened to the lecture, I did my work, I kept my head down, and I went home. Interaction with others in my classes was kept to a minimum. I could explain that this was a result of the “bubble effect” that was created by living on campus at a Bible college for four years. But that is getting away from the point. The point is that the students in the class are important. My Greek and Hebrew classes are filled with bright minds. This shapes the class in two ways.

First, bright minds guide the class discussion. I have been in countless classes where students would intentionally derail the professor. Professors that are known to chase rabbit trails are exploited. Why would a student do this? The reasons are obvious: to escape the scheduled quiz, to divert the conversation away from the reading he didn’t accomplish, or because the student plain isn’t interested in the material.

Second, bright minds serve in the place of the professor when he isn’t capable of always being there. That is to say, bright students, or inquisitive students, inspire you. I can honestly say that everyone in my Greek and Hebrew classes has something to bring to the discussion. As a matter of fact, I have talked with many before and after class about their areas of interest, their strengths, weaknesses, and what they hope to get out of the class. In short, iron sharpens iron. We are all models, for better or for worse.  We can only pray that we are modeling good stewardship, good scholarship, and humility in all our endeavors.

Finally, the student.  The student must be humble. If the student comes to class thinking he knows more than the professor, he will not learn, will not be inspired, and will be stagnant.

The student must also be interested in the subject of study, or at least be willing to be persuaded that the subject of study could be interesting. This element is difficult to separate from the professor. The professor has the potential to ruin a student’s interest. The professor also has the potential to inspire an uninterested student. Yet, I don’t think the professor has the ability to inspire the stubborn student. This is a matter of a attitude. The student must be willing to receive.

Finally, the student must be willing to listen to his peers. The student must be humble enough to listen to them, to be driven by them, to be encouraged by them. Furthermore, the student must be willing to speak, to drive, and to encourage.

I truly believe this will be a great semester for me because I truly believe both of my classes are characterized by the Trifecta!

Feel free to hit me up in the comments section if you have anything to add to the Trifecta.

Posted in Biblical Studies, Exegesis, Greek, Hebrew, Teaching | 1 Comment

Predicate vs. Attribute Adjectives: Robertson Quote

I found this quote to be helpful from Robertson in distinguishing the difference between a predicate adjective and attributive adjective in terms of meaning:

The distinction between the attributive adjective and the predicate adjective lies in just this, that the predicated presents an additional statement, is indeed the main point, while the attributive is an incidental description of the substantive about which the statement is made.

…The more you know…

Posted in Greek, Quotes | 2 Comments

The A. T. Robertson “Prayer”

There is a not so accurate Vietnam war movie, which I watched in my youth, that has a rather memorable scene in it. The new recruits are in the middle of basic training. They have been given their rifles. Their drill sergeant expects them to bond with their rifle. They must master their rifle. They must know their rifle. It is the only thing that will keep them alive. In that scene, the new recruits rattle off a “prayer” about their rifles. I have adapted that “prayer” to express the past few days with Robertson’s massive tome.

This is my A. T. Robertson. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My Robertson is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it, as I must master my life. Without me, my Robertson is useless. Without my Robertson, I am useless. I must use my Robertson true. I must exegete better than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. . . My A. T. Robertson and myself are defenders of good exegesis. We are the masters of our enemy. So be it, until there is no enemy, but peace…

Posted in Greek, NT Greek | Tagged | 1 Comment

A. T. Robertson on the Movable ν

I am currently reading through A.T. Robertson’s tome on Greek Grammar and came across this particularly humorous quote:

The older N.T. manuscripts are in are in harmony with the κοινή and have the movable ν and ς both before consonants and vowels with a few exceptions. The later N.T. Manuscripts seem to feel the tendency to drop these variable consonants . . . The failure to use this ν was originally most common in pause, sometimes even before vowels. Blass observes that it was only the Byzantine grammarians who made the rule that this ν should be used before vowels and not before consonants, a rule which their predecessors did not have the benefit, a thing true of many other grammatical rules. We moderns can teach the ancients much Greek!

There it is. Proof that grammarians can be funny!

Posted in Greek, Greek Resources, NT Greek, Quotes | Leave a comment