.jpg)
--Anne Carson
There are celebrated Greek phrases that have had to be defined differently for the New Testament and for the old scriptures of the Jews (as they themselves have translated their scriptures into Greek), . . . so maintain many (mostly-male) Christian Bible translators.
Let's look first at the Christianizing translations as if Christian readers of English are the insiders to the phrases (and pardon my quick transliterations). If you keep scrolling down, then, you'll get back to this same Hellene rendered by Jewish translators and how the Christians say their definitions must be different (i.e., less special):
1) καὶ ἀνέῳξεν ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῆς
kai aneozen ho theo tous ophthalmous autes
And God helped her see
2)ὕδατος ζῶντος
hydatos zontos
Living water
3) διαθήκην
diatheke
testament (as in "New Testament")
4) τὸν υἱόν σου τὸν ἀγαπητόν, ὃν ἠγάπησας
ton hion sou ton agapeton, hon egapesas
Your beloved Son, Whom You love
5) ἀναστὰς
anastas
Resurrection
6) ξύλα εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν ἀναστὰς ἐπορεύθη καὶ ἦλθεν
skyla eis holokarposin anastas eporeuthe kai helthen
wood for the Whole Sacrifice. Resurrection. Goes away to come again.
7) τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ
te hemera te trite
on the Third Day
8) τὴν μάχαιραν
ten machairan
the Sword
9) Ὁ θεὸς ὄψεται ἑαυτῷ πρόβατον
ho theos opsetai heauto probaton
the Lamb of God
10) καὶ οὐκ ἐφείσω τοῦ υἱοῦ σου τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ
kai ouk epheiso tou hiou sou tou agapetou
and You have not spared Your Beloved Son
11) πρωτότοκον
prototokon
First-born Son
12) καὶ ἀνέστη . . . ἀπὸ τοῦ νεκροῦ αὐτοῦ
kai aneste . . . apo tou nekrou autou
and [He . . .] Resurrected from the Dead
13) πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος ἐγώ εἰμι μεθ' ὑμῶν
paroikos kai parepidemos ego eimi meth' humon
The Son of Man has no place to lay His head
14) κτῆσιν τάφου . . . καὶ θάψω τὸν νεκρόν
ktesin taphou . . . kai thapso ton nekron
ἐν τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς μνημείοις ἡμῶν θάψον τὸν νεκρόν σου
en tois eklektois mnemeiois hmon thapson ton nekron sou
there's a Sepulcher for Your Dead
15) τοῦ ἀγροῦ αὐτοῦ· ἀργυρίου τοῦ ἀξίου δότω
tou agrou autou arguriou tou aksiou doto
γῆ . . . διδράχμων ἀργυρίου
ye. . . didrachmon arguriou
his field for the worth of silver pieces given
the land . . . [is worth several] Drachmas of silver
16) παρθένος ἦν, ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτήν.
parthenos en, aner ouk egno auten.
She was a Virgin, with whom no man had had sexual relations.
Now doesn't this sound like you're reading right out of one of the "gospels" of "Jesus"? Note how specialized some of the Christian Bible translating is: Sepulcher, Resurrection, and capital letters on Son and Lamb and Living and the like.
1) καὶ ἀνέῳξεν ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῆς
kai aneozen ho theo tous ophthalmous autes
And God helped her see
2)ὕδατος ζῶντος
hydatos zontos
Living water
3) διαθήκην
diatheke
testament (as in "New Testament")
4) τὸν υἱόν σου τὸν ἀγαπητόν, ὃν ἠγάπησας
ton hion sou ton agapeton, hon egapesas
Your beloved Son, Whom You love
5) ἀναστὰς
anastas
Resurrection
6) ξύλα εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν ἀναστὰς ἐπορεύθη καὶ ἦλθεν
skyla eis holokarposin anastas eporeuthe kai helthen
wood for the Whole Sacrifice. Resurrection. Goes away to come again.
7) τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ
te hemera te trite
on the Third Day
8) τὴν μάχαιραν
ten machairan
the Sword
9) Ὁ θεὸς ὄψεται ἑαυτῷ πρόβατον
ho theos opsetai heauto probaton
the Lamb of God
10) καὶ οὐκ ἐφείσω τοῦ υἱοῦ σου τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ
kai ouk epheiso tou hiou sou tou agapetou
and You have not spared Your Beloved Son
11) πρωτότοκον
prototokon
First-born Son
12) καὶ ἀνέστη . . . ἀπὸ τοῦ νεκροῦ αὐτοῦ
kai aneste . . . apo tou nekrou autou
and [He . . .] Resurrected from the Dead
13) πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος ἐγώ εἰμι μεθ' ὑμῶν
paroikos kai parepidemos ego eimi meth' humon
The Son of Man has no place to lay His head
14) κτῆσιν τάφου . . . καὶ θάψω τὸν νεκρόν
ktesin taphou . . . kai thapso ton nekron
ἐν τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς μνημείοις ἡμῶν θάψον τὸν νεκρόν σου
en tois eklektois mnemeiois hmon thapson ton nekron sou
there's a Sepulcher for Your Dead
15) τοῦ ἀγροῦ αὐτοῦ· ἀργυρίου τοῦ ἀξίου δότω
tou agrou autou arguriou tou aksiou doto
γῆ . . . διδράχμων ἀργυρίου
ye. . . didrachmon arguriou
his field for the worth of silver pieces given
the land . . . [is worth several] Drachmas of silver
16) παρθένος ἦν, ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτήν.
parthenos en, aner ouk egno auten.
She was a Virgin, with whom no man had had sexual relations.
Now doesn't this sound like you're reading right out of one of the "gospels" of "Jesus"? Note how specialized some of the Christian Bible translating is: Sepulcher, Resurrection, and capital letters on Son and Lamb and Living and the like.
But, in fact, these phrases come right out of the Hellene translation of Genesis (21:19 to 24:27). It's the Greek version of these stories by the first Jews themselves:
1) & 2) "Hagar and Ishmael Sent Away [after God opens her eyes and shows her a well of water that's alive],"
3) "Abraham's Covenant [not New Testament] with Abimelech,"
4), 5), 6), 7), 8), 9), & 10) "The Sacrifice of Isaac [and check out an English translator's version of this story from a woman's vantage: Rachel Barenblat's poem 'SILENCE (VAYERA)'],"
11) "Rebekah's family"
12), 13), 14), & 15) "Sarah's burial"
16) "A wife [womb-woman] for Isaac"
Note how specialized some of the Christian Bible translating is: Sepulcher, Resurrection, and capital letters on Son and Lamb and Living and the like.
Like Aristotle, many Christian Bible translators find special, elite, abstract meanings for the Greek words and phrases. They define the words differently because they think they know what the proto-typical meaning must be. And that proto-typical meaning applies to them as insiders of the language. Never mind the second meanings. Never mind that the stories of others are just as special to those others.
The Christian Bible translators, like the man Aristotle wanting a male definition for him-self, want the definitions all to themselves. I'm not saying they want to be bound by theo-logic or by biblish. I am saying they want their "natural English" to define the metaphors of the Hebrew bible (even when its translated into Hellene). I'm saying that they follow Eugene Nida religiously, which is to follow Aristotle's logic: there's dynamic equivalence or there's formal equivalence, and the former in their own field tested language is to reign supreme. I'm saying they follow Ernst-August Gutt, which is to follow Aristotle's logic again: "relevance theory" is the vogue but is a bit of a misnomer; it's not about what's relevant to insiders or to outsiders at all. It's about how anyone (in the platonic abstract, which means the linguist himself) gets "what is meant" from "what is said." It is not, at first, a translation theory at all; but rather a kind of "communications" theory aka a "pragmatics" theory. Most Christian Bible translators today have rejected the emic-etic perspectives of the Pikes (i.e., Kenneth, Evelyn, and Eunice), who did not have to reject Heraclitus (as Plato and Aristotle and Noam Chomsky had to). I don't think the Septuagint translators rejected Heraclitus either, or Aspasia or Sappho or any of the poets who allowed for what may be seen now, differently, as womanly word play (and do note that if a man plays with words then wordplay must be defined differently, Aristotle maintains).
Note how specialized some of the Christian Bible translating is: Sepulcher, Resurrection, and capital letters on Son and Lamb and Living and the like.
Like Aristotle, many Christian Bible translators find special, elite, abstract meanings for the Greek words and phrases. They define the words differently because they think they know what the proto-typical meaning must be. And that proto-typical meaning applies to them as insiders of the language. Never mind the second meanings. Never mind that the stories of others are just as special to those others.
The Christian Bible translators, like the man Aristotle wanting a male definition for him-self, want the definitions all to themselves. I'm not saying they want to be bound by theo-logic or by biblish. I am saying they want their "natural English" to define the metaphors of the Hebrew bible (even when its translated into Hellene). I'm saying that they follow Eugene Nida religiously, which is to follow Aristotle's logic: there's dynamic equivalence or there's formal equivalence, and the former in their own field tested language is to reign supreme. I'm saying they follow Ernst-August Gutt, which is to follow Aristotle's logic again: "relevance theory" is the vogue but is a bit of a misnomer; it's not about what's relevant to insiders or to outsiders at all. It's about how anyone (in the platonic abstract, which means the linguist himself) gets "what is meant" from "what is said." It is not, at first, a translation theory at all; but rather a kind of "communications" theory aka a "pragmatics" theory. Most Christian Bible translators today have rejected the emic-etic perspectives of the Pikes (i.e., Kenneth, Evelyn, and Eunice), who did not have to reject Heraclitus (as Plato and Aristotle and Noam Chomsky had to). I don't think the Septuagint translators rejected Heraclitus either, or Aspasia or Sappho or any of the poets who allowed for what may be seen now, differently, as womanly word play (and do note that if a man plays with words then wordplay must be defined differently, Aristotle maintains).
Thankfully, natural English language is changing to be nothing special for any one group, nothing different for the authorities: males or Christian bible translators. Here's a report from blogger Melissa McEwan, "Change I Can Believe In."
