tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post111824567813879998..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Open my eyes that I might seeWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1118281452945004682005-06-08T18:44:00.000-07:002005-06-08T18:44:00.000-07:00Paul, it is now some time later and I have thought...Paul, it is now some time later and I have thought more about your comments that the words "open eyes" need to be tested in the context of John 9. As I stated in my first reply, I agree with your underlying assumption here--I hope I am guess right, if not, please correct me--that words can make sense in context better than out of context.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to suggest a further refinement in both of our suggestions about testing "open eyes." Many of us, myself included, are accustomed to hearing "open eyes" in the context of healing of blindness in the Bible. We have learned "Bible English."<BR/><BR/>What we need to do is set up a larger context for the isolated words "open eyes" so that we are fair to the readers of such words as well as fair to the Bible words themselves. One such context for a better field test would be something like the following:<BR/><BR/>"A group of ophthalmologists(eye doctors) are traveling overseas this coming summer to visit a number of hospitals around the world where blind people have come for treatment. In their fund-raising literature about their trip the doctors ask, "Please help us open the eyes of blind people around the world."<BR/><BR/>"What does it sound to you will happen to the eyes of these blind people?"<BR/><BR/>Such a context and followup question will allow us to discover if "open eyes" is or is not an idiom that is a part of the English language, overall, or just a part of the subset of English speakers who have been taught "Bible English."<BR/><BR/>BTW, I don't know what the results of this field test question would be, but as someone who has developed and used many Bible field tests, I would love to find out how people would answer the question. Maybe I will post this as a mini poll on my blog someday. One problem is that I suspect that most who visit my blog are already bilingual, understanding some dialect of standard English as well as a dialect of Bible English, so it would be difficult for them to answer only on the basis of their knowledge of a standard dialect. We really need to administer such a test to a wider range of speakers, such as people in a Wal-Mart parking lot. :-)Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1118274353184342152005-06-08T16:45:00.000-07:002005-06-08T16:45:00.000-07:00Tim asked:"Does the Greek actually mean "What do y...Tim asked:<BR/><BR/>"Does the Greek actually mean "What do you say about him?" as in "What are you speaking about him?" or should it be "What do you think about him?" (This is a genuine question my Greek is not good enough to know!)"<BR/><BR/>Good question, Tim. The Greek literally says "say about him," as you probably already know. My Greek lexicons do not clearly indicate that legw can be semantically extended to include 'think about him,' although Louw & Nida indicate that legw can sometimes be used to mean 'mean about.' I think the ESV probably has it right here.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1118274021784151682005-06-08T16:40:00.000-07:002005-06-08T16:40:00.000-07:00Yes, Paul, your point about the context for field ...Yes, Paul, your point about the context for field testing is important. And I think that at some point the field test would need to include all of John 9, as you stated. But I think it is also important to test to see if <B>anyone</B> today has a meaning of 'eyes healed' for the wording "open eyes." That test is most objectively done without the biblical context. Both kinds of tests are important. Ultimately, if children and adults get the intended meaning from the traditional meaning of "open eyes" within the context of John 9, then the translation passes and is accurate. One of my greatest concerns is that the objective testing has not been done. There are too many opinions offered stating what translators (or others) think that people will understand from a translation wording. But we need to put the course before the heart, so to speak! We need to "test all things," as the Good Book itself says, in a different context, of course, but the same principle is true. I have done extensive field testing and the results are often quite interesting. In our own tribal translation program the accuracy and clarity of the translation would not be nearly as good as it is (and we <B>know</B> it is not where we want it to be, but it is the best we can do at this point) if our mission had not required us to do field testing. That was one of the breakthroughs that make the translation better.<BR/><BR/>Thanks so much for your comments. Clearly, you are thinking seriously about these matters and that is what needs to be done.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1118272571087058172005-06-08T16:16:00.000-07:002005-06-08T16:16:00.000-07:00I dislike the ESV, but I believe it would be artif...I dislike the ESV, but I believe it would be artificial to have a test where just this verse was quoted and respondents were asked "What does it sound like is happening if we say that a person's eyes were opened?"<BR/><BR/>As an isolated unit, the expression "opened your eyes" is ambiguous and potentially misleading. However, in the narrative context of John 9:1-41, it makes sense as an idiom. From this context, I suggest many readers would understand what was being referred to with "opened your eyes," namely, the healing of your eyes.<BR/><BR/>In this context, the imagery of opening eyes is very important. Not only are the blind man's eyes "opened" when he's cured of his blindness. His eyes are also "opened" to see the significance of Jesus, which is something the Jewish leaders are blind to, even though they can physically see. By translating 9:17 the way it does, the ESV is trying to provide a transparent rendering which allows English readers to see these connections. To translate the idiom of "open eyes" as "heal eyes" is potentially to deprive readers of the opportunity to make these connections, although it wouldn't be inaccurate as a translation.<BR/><BR/>I'd be very interested in a test where people were given John 9 to read and asked about their comprehension of the idiom in verse 17. Maybe the literal "since he has opened your eyes?" could be rendered something along the lines of "since he caused you to see." This communicates more clearly to readers of English; and it potentially preserves the literary connections of this story in translation.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the stimulating post.Paul Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786802640380693584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1118259152016192732005-06-08T12:32:00.000-07:002005-06-08T12:32:00.000-07:00Does the Greek actually mean "What do you say abou...Does the Greek actually mean "What do you say about him?" as in "What are you speaking about him?" or should it be "What do you think about him?" (This is a genuine question my Greek is not good enough to know!)Tim Bulkeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289349880110581469noreply@blogger.com