Qualifications for Biblical Interpretation
Yesterday three people posted on what qualifies a person to interpret the Bible. They are not talking about translation per se, but the matter is closely related.
Adverseria Dilettantes and the Bible
Jim West Further Observations on Dilettantism and Biblical Interpretation
James Crossley Who is best at biblical interpretation?
Adverseria Dilettantes and the Bible
Jim West Further Observations on Dilettantism and Biblical Interpretation
James Crossley Who is best at biblical interpretation?
posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 6:33 PM
7 Comments:
They are not talking about translation per se, but the matter is closely related.
For sure, Suzanne. I've heard some people say that only Christians are qualified to translate the Bible adequately. I disagree.
That is a very interesting comment, Wayne, and one I would like to explore further.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think you will find that Dr Grudem was not talking about translation and as such you have quoted him out of context to the post.
God bless
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I believe that high quality translations can come from atheists, agnostics, deists, Jews, evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and those outside the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I agree. The only requirement to do high quality translation of any document is adequate knowledge of the source language and native speaker fluency of the target language. Some of the best translations of the Hebrew Bible are made by Jews, such as Robert Alter. Some of the worst translations of the Hebrew Bible (or at least some parts of it) are made by Christians attempting to Christianize the Hebrew Bible in in the light of New Testament interpretation. The latter has become one of the litmus tests in the current Bible wars. How sad! How we have allowed our theology to influence how we translate.
I would sure like to be able to call you something other than "anonymous". Can you help me do so?
I appreciate the efforts to define interpretation. I have thought of two possible models.
In the first, there is
A - translation
C - praxis
A is open to anyone with academic qualifications and C is necessarily defined by belief and action. In ths model, interpretation is translation.
In the second model, there is
A - translation
B - teaching or theology
C - praxis
The first is open to those with the academic qualifications, but the other two are not. In this model interpretation is B.
So, in the first case, interpretation is seen as A, (although I think that could go either way.) However, I definitely understood West and Crossley to be talking more about A than B, but I could be wrong.
I hold to the first model now, with only two distinctions, although I once held the second model - I would not consider one more liberal than the other, but different models of limited use and application only.
Dr. Packer probably holds more to the second model, the interaction of theology and interpretation by the church with translation. He told me,
When you are translating scripture into a language that has never had Christians congregations you need to settle for the fact that no translating will be good enough not to need revising 25 years down the road when people will have settled for their favourite term for something.
I understand him to mean that the theological community and its interpretation is a separate activity from the original translation, and that it should interact with the translation. So the act of translation for Dr. Packer is, what does the orthodox Christian community hold that the words mean. Naturally this requires defining the orthodox Christian community.
I hope that I fairly represent his views on translation.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home