tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post3497501226771226747..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Ambiguity and humilityWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-15368467008950232012007-10-10T22:27:00.000-07:002007-10-10T22:27:00.000-07:00Peter:He found it very difficult. I found it much ...Peter:<BR/><BR/><I>He found it very difficult. I found it much easier, although in general I was much less fluent in the language.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing your incredible experience. When you talked about the contrast between how you and your friend learned the same language at the same time, I immediately thought that difficulty C.S. Lewis had. Remember, in <I>Surprised by Joy</I>, how he came to learn the difference between "enjoyment" and "contemplation" and the mutually-exclusive experience of the two?<BR/><BR/>At any rate, you've inspired me to blog on Kenneth Pike: <A HREF="http://speakeristic.blogspot.com/2007/10/inconvenient-truthiness.html" REL="nofollow">"An Inconvenient Truthiness"</A>J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-7484989979089089462007-10-09T20:12:00.000-07:002007-10-09T20:12:00.000-07:00The question would then be whether anyone was allo...<I>The question would then be whether anyone was allowed to dominate, or only women could not dominate. </I><BR/><BR/>Suzanne, I'm glad you noted this. I don't think that it is biblical for anyone to dominate. It runs counter to the teachings of Jesus who clearly said that we are to serve each other. There is no place in true righteousness, as taught in the Bible, for power plays, or usurping authority.<BR/><BR/>I don't even think that biblical headship includes power. Instead, biblical headship is taught in the Bible to include sacrificial love and an organic unity with the one to whom one is a head.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-61232450913473029162007-10-09T19:45:00.000-07:002007-10-09T19:45:00.000-07:00I was thinking in terms of your interpretations of...<I>I was thinking in terms of your interpretations of authentein, kephale etc. You are write to question what has been presented as the consensus on these matters, but that implies that you are not prepared to accept a reading just because it is the consensus. You would certainly be departing from the translation consensus if you rendered kephale as anything other than "head".</I><BR/><BR/>Kephale is a non-issue for me. If people want to be so ridiculous as to believe that a man is supposed to think for his wife, there is little can be done about it. <BR/><BR/>As long as she is made aware that in law he cannot force her to obey that is all I care. <BR/><BR/>So I would translate kephale as head and make clear in the notes that one of the options is that the head is the source of the seed in the male. The notes would have to handle kephale. <BR/><BR/>It can easily be shown that scholars all know very well that authentein means "dominate" and not "exercise authority". I don't know if Kostenberger is in on the joke yet, but Grudem clearly knows that the Philodemus fragment does not exist. <BR/><BR/>There is a behind closed doors consensus on that one. What the complementarians will not agree to is the solution of the TNIV which is "assume authority" or "teach in a domineering way". <BR/><BR/>If it were translated as dominate, Grudem could not argue, he agrees with this. The question would then be whether anyone was allowed to dominate, or only women could not dominate. It would lay bare the belief about power that is behind this teaching. <BR/><BR/>Naturally a note should be attached to indicate that "usurp authority" or even "flout authority" is also a possible translation, but the translation itself should represent a neutral choice which can be proven to be acceptable to both sides.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-42466052328527438862007-10-09T16:32:00.000-07:002007-10-09T16:32:00.000-07:00Well, I don't see how a translation can be "ideal"...Well, I don't see how a translation can be "ideal" if it is not even suitable for use in church.<BR/><BR/>I see your point about Grudem. But he is not really a translator, more a paraphraser of RSV with reference to commentaries.<BR/><BR/>I didn't respond to this request:<BR/><BR/><I>Suggest some examples of scholarly consensus that I have disregarded. I would like to see exactly what standards I do support.</I><BR/><BR/>I was thinking in terms of your interpretations of <I>authentein</I>, <I>kephale</I> etc. You are write to question what has been presented as the consensus on these matters, but that implies that you are not prepared to accept a reading just because it is the consensus. You would certainly be departing from the translation consensus if you rendered <I>kephale</I> as anything other than "head".Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-57719407606929966492007-10-09T15:34:00.000-07:002007-10-09T15:34:00.000-07:00What I cannot agree with is any suggestion that su...<I>What I cannot agree with is any suggestion that such a translation would be suitable for use by all or most readers, for use in church etc.</I><BR/><BR/>I have already said that it would not be a pew Bible. It would be for literary or reference use. <BR/><BR/>Translators from the Biblical languages into English are often not bilingual. This is the source of the disagreement between Carson and Grudem. Carson is actively bilingual and Grudem is not.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-56612633485543958632007-10-09T14:07:00.000-07:002007-10-09T14:07:00.000-07:00JK, I respect Pike, though I never met him. And I ...JK, I respect Pike, though I never met him. And I am aware of the kind of monolingual demonstration which he did. But as you say "the translator ... <B>learns</B> another's language" (your emphasis, but just the word I would have emphasised), and at that point becomes no longer monolingual. So you can't really say that this is monolingual translation, although you might call this monolingual language learning.<BR/><BR/>Actually I remember a friend of mine who had learned a foreign language monolingually. I was meanwhile learning the same language in a more normal bilingual way. On one occasion he was asked to translate orally from that language into English. He found it very difficult. I found it much easier, although in general I was much less fluent in the language. I suppose that in my brain there were mental links between words in that language and roughly equivalent English words, links which had never been made in my friend's brain because he had always kept English and the other language separate.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-59336960036434122892007-10-09T12:25:00.000-07:002007-10-09T12:25:00.000-07:00Peter says: a monolingual translator is an oxymor...Peter says: <I>a monolingual translator is an oxymoron.</I><BR/><BR/>But Wayne (and I), (both of us) student(s) of Kenneth Pike, can testify this: <BR/><BR/>that translator (language theorist) Pike seemed to prefer working as a "monolingual translator" (and many scholars and students have marveled).<BR/><BR/>Pike's "monolingual demonstration" is an act of simultaneous translation in which the translator <B>humbly</B> instantly progressively <B>learns</B> another's language by using that other individual's language only. Pike theorized and experienced such etic-ness, allowing the other individual to be the emic one. Pike, the monolingual translator, was not an oxymoron. Rather, he allowed the one whose language he [Pike] was translating to glory in the ambiguities of her or his [the speaker's] own language.<BR/><BR/>You may respond by saying, "that's not what I meant." And yet, I'm now replying here also to Wayne.<BR/><BR/>There is much humble in Pike's tagmemics. For Pike's approach acknowledges the "N-dimensionality" of language in which "person is logic": Pike would allow me to add that "person is [always] above [reductionistic, abstractionistic, finite-dimension] logic." For the etic outsider person and the emic insider person in dialogue, the conversation and the translation is in the language, the in-finite-ly ambiguous language of the emic insider person.<BR/><BR/>In 1964, Pike the linguist crossed in as an outsider into "composition studies and rhetoric." (In 2004, I began a similar journey, writing first about <A HREF="http://staff.tcu.edu/kgayle/essays/when.tagmemics.dies.pdf" REL="nofollow">the death of Pike's theory in comp studies</A> some 40 years later.) In October 1964, Pike wrote this in <I>College Composition and Communication</I>:<BR/><BR/>"<I>The observer adds part of himself to the data</I> that he [or she] looks at or listens to . . . . A<BR/>bias of mine -- not shared by many linguists -- is the conviction that beyond the<BR/>sentence lie grammatical structures available to linguist analysis, describable by<BR/>technical procedures, and usable by the author for the generation of literary works<BR/>through with he reports to us his observations. (page 129)"<BR/><BR/>It's the humble acknowledgment of the ambiguous act of "observing etically as an outsider" that Pike was so good about. It's the humble recognition that the other (i.e., the emic speaker and writer) should not be / cannot be pinned down in dis-ambiguation by the outsider. It's the humble practice of monolingual (your language, not mine) translation. We'll be the worse for it if we allow that perspective and practice to die.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-19032434945271640812007-10-09T09:25:00.000-07:002007-10-09T09:25:00.000-07:00Catching up on two days' worth of comments here.Su...Catching up on two days' worth of comments here.<BR/><BR/>Suzanne wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>What I mean is that there could be a translation that advertised itself as a formal or literary translation and actually tried to achieve that as a goal. I do not mean that this is superior morally or spiritually, but rather that it would be a worthy goal to have one translation like this.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree, Suzanne, although I am not sure that Iyov and Ryken would. What I cannot agree with is any suggestion that such a translation would be suitable for use by all or most readers, for use in church etc. Rather, it is something which would only be appreciated and properly understood by a small group of the intelligentsia, a group in which I claim no membership.<BR/><BR/>I don't agree with you that there is even in principle such a thing as "a new ideal translation". But in my opinion the nearest we could get to that ideal, if by that we mean what would be the best translation to have if there were only one, would not be anything like your "formal or literary translation".<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, when Ernst-August Gutt, from the perspective of relevance theory, described what he would consider to be the ideal translation, which he called a direct translation, he had to accept that in matters of word plays etc it would have to be well short of perfect.<BR/><BR/>Mark wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>But how is the distinction between these two sorts of ambiguities anything other than hubris? Especially because of our "limited knowledge of the original language and culture" surrounding these ancient texts, how can we know if the long dead author's ambiguity is intended or is not?</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed, Mark. Part of my point is that it is not possible for translators to know whether ambiguity is intended or not. So if a translator claims to translate ambiguity they cannot know whether they are rendering "the qualities of multiple meanings and mystery that the original text possesses" or simply some artefact of our limited understanding of the original.<BR/><BR/>Rich wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>I have tried other combinations including one from this group: NKJ/ESV/NIV and one from this group: TNIV/NLT/CEV.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a decidedly odd set of selections, given that the first of your second group is in general slightly more of a formal equivalence translation than the last of your first group.<BR/><BR/>Iyov, I freely admit that I did not read your post. My response here is to Suzanne, not to you. If you are not suggesting that you could do a better job than other translators, I apologise for stating that you are. Of course you will realise that the criteria on which I judge translations are very different from yours, perhaps because my understanding of the contemporary use of the Bible is very different from yours.<BR/><BR/>Suzanne wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Bilingualism should be a prerequisite to being a translator.</I><BR/><BR/>Surely this is almost trivially true, since it is impossible to translate (rather than paraphrase) unless one knows both the source and target languages. The source language for a Bible translation is not necessarily the original, it may be a major world language. But a monolingual translator is an oxymoron.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-34273722397774808542007-10-07T16:31:00.000-07:002007-10-07T16:31:00.000-07:00J.K. responded:Now I do want to use the label "arr...J.K. responded:<BR/><BR/><I>Now I do want to use the label "arrogance," Wayne. Not for individual persons (except for myself perhaps).</I><BR/><BR/>We probably all are arrogant at times. I know I have been.<BR/><BR/><I>But as a label for linguistic theories. You mention "Chomskyan models," which surely serve the purposes you describe (i.e., the purposes of disambiguation).</I><BR/><BR/>I only mentioned that model because it had a convenient way of diagramming the syntactic ambiguity. All linguistic models can probably account for ambiguity in one way or another.<BR/><BR/> <I>But if the Chomskyan linguist is doing that for the non-Chomskyan linguist (if there's such a thing), </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I'm one.<BR/><BR/><I>then I say there's arrogance implicit in the act.</I><BR/><BR/>I would disagree. There is only arrogance if, as you mention next, the one speaking presumes to know better or be better. Arrogance is not connected to any model in any discipline. Arrogance, IMO, is a matter of the heart, how one relates to others<BR/><BR/><I>I'm trying to get at something social here. Not language analysis, which any lowly or proud human can do. But the presumption of knowing and showing better than the other person.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, such presumption, can indicate arrogance. OTOH, if one creates a better model that better accounts for data, there need not be arrogance in promoting that model. It can simply be a matter of learning more and sharing that knowledge with others. It was not arrogance that drove some to suggest that the earth and other planets revolve around the sun, rather than the sun revolving around the earth.<BR/><BR/> <I>There's another way, more humble. Let's call it (for lack of better terms Tagmemics, or Pikean linguistics). Ever see & hear Kenneth Lee Pike do a "monolingual demonstration"?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, Pike was one of my teachers. I appreciated his monolingual demonstrations very much. I even dared to do one myself at a Christian high school once where there were students who spoke other languages. It was a humbling experience for me since I had to act like a little child, not knowing anything about the language, but having to stumble around to learn as much as possible in a short period of time in front of the audience.<BR/><BR/><I> It's humble listening! The linguist (i.e., Pike) submits to the other person speaking her (or his) own language (one Pike doesn't immediately know). Rather than the linguist being the know-it-all teacher, he (or she) is the try-it-all learner.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed. And that is how I view the search for truth in exegesis and translation technique as we do Bible translation.<BR/><BR/>(snip)<BR/><BR/><I>Puns, for example, cannot normally be translated directly by puns in the target language. They can be explained, but the explanation of a pun does not carry the same impact as the pun itself—an impact which in tagmemic theory is part of the meaning. [bold font mine]</I><BR/><BR/>Precisely. And this is what I have been trying to say. The form:meaning composite of tagmemics illustrates well how form contributes to ambiguity of meaning (of which puns are one kind of ambiguity).<BR/><BR/> <I>When it comes to "dead" languages, such as those of the Bible, then it's quite clear there can be no living among the speakers and writers to learn from them.</I><BR/><BR/>True, and I agree with C.S. Lewis' attitude toward such languages which you mention. Even though we cannot interview speakers of Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek, we still have a great deal of scientific data which helps us understand those languages. As with all search for truth, we must be humble in the endeavor. But there is no need to give up and not try simply because we cannot know everything for certain (you have not suggested that).<BR/><I> For example, the two examples you cite would, in a normal text, be immediately clarified by embedding them in a large text.</I><BR/><BR/>Correct, that is what I mean by referring to the context in which the ambiguity occurs.<BR/><BR/> <I>Now, to be clear, the larger text is a grammatical structure--typically, a paragraph. That is the formal, grammatical structure. However, it seems to me the thing that actually removes the ambiguity happens at the semantic level and is called coherence. And techniques for developing and revealing coherence are not well understood and certainly not commonly utilized by exegetes of the sacred text.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with what you have said in that paragraph. Fortunately, some biblical exegetes have been recognizing the importance of noting coherence in a text. There are some who are melding insights from linguistics, literary theory, and biblical exegesis. I applaud them.<BR/><BR/> <I>BTW: Let's keep in mind that the quote of Ryken in this posting is from his conclusion and therefore assumes an authorial intended ambiguity in any genre, even in texts where the author intends to be very clear (Paul's writings to Corinth, for example). Personally, I have problem with this view since I think it impinges on the ability and intension of the ultimate Author. However, (correct me if I'm wrong) Hollander's quote is specific to the poetry in a Psalm. Poetry contains authorial intended ambiguity since it is meant to speak simultaneously across multiple, intended semantic dimensions. It speaks to the emotions, for instance. I don't think Hollander and Ryken are in the same camp.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know Hollander and Ryken's approaches well enough to be able to comment on them. So I must be humble (!) and not comment at all on what I don't know.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-88643186986956621252007-10-07T13:38:00.000-07:002007-10-07T13:38:00.000-07:00Wayne wrote:I am *only* referring to *linguistic* ...Wayne wrote:<BR/><I>I am *only* referring to *linguistic* ambiguities, which come about because of different syntactic or lexical options. I am *not* referring to extra-linguistic ambiguities (actually, they would not technically be called ambiguity which linguists generally limit to options due to syntax and lexical multiple options) of the kind which you mentioned for who might be the author and addressee of Psalm 68.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm glad you clarified.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think trying to bring over linguistic ambiguity via a translation should only be done to produce a tool designed for close, detailed study. The user of that tool would know they need to apply additional skills to understand that "abnormal" text. These skills are over and above the normal interpretive skills required for understanding a "normal" text.<BR/><BR/>For example, the two examples you cite would, in a normal text, be immediately clarified by embedding them in a large text.<BR/><BR/>Now, to be clear, the <I>larger text</I> is a grammatical structure--typically, a paragraph. <B>That</B> is the formal, grammatical structure. However, it seems to me the thing that actually removes the ambiguity happens at the semantic level and is called <B>coherence</B>. And techniques for developing and revealing coherence are not well understood and certainly not commonly utilized by exegetes of the sacred text.<BR/><BR/>Coherence appears to depend a great deal on the metaphorical nature of language--Specifically, the interpretive framework embedded into a specific language itself. If a translator tries to generate the same level of coherency in the translated text that exists in the original, he or she is often accused of "adding" interpretation. People, when exegeting the Bible, don't typically think in terms of coherent structures. They tend to deal with a verse at a time.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, what is needed here is clarification of translator's intent by their revealing how the paragraph in the original generates the coherence. And, also, showing how that coherence determined their translation choices.<BR/><BR/>BTW: Let's keep in mind that the quote of Ryken in this posting is from his conclusion and therefore assumes an authorial intended ambiguity in any genre, even in texts where the author intends to be very clear (Paul's writings to Corinth, for example). Personally, I have problem with this view since I think it impinges on the ability and intension of the ultimate Author. However, (correct me if I'm wrong) Hollander's quote is specific to the poetry in a Psalm. Poetry contains authorial intended ambiguity since it is meant to speak simultaneously across multiple, intended semantic dimensions. It speaks to the emotions, for instance. I don't think Hollander and Ryken are in the same camp.Mike Sangreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06436714466682782260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-61789039662767742432007-10-07T13:35:00.000-07:002007-10-07T13:35:00.000-07:00Wayne writes:Linguists have discussed this example...Wayne writes:<BR/><I>Linguists have discussed this example for many years. Using older Chomskyan models the two possible meanings would be diagrammed with different syntactic trees.</I><BR/><BR/>Now I do want to use the label "arrogance," Wayne. Not for individual persons (except for myself perhaps). But as a label for linguistic theories. You mention "Chomskyan models," which surely serve the purposes you describe (i.e., the purposes of disambiguation).<BR/><BR/>But if the Chomskyan linguist is doing that for the non-Chomskyan linguist (if there's such a thing), then I say there's arrogance implicit in the act. I'm trying to get at something social here. Not language analysis, which any lowly or proud human can do. But the presumption of knowing and showing better than the other person.<BR/><BR/>There's another way, more humble. Let's call it (for lack of better terms Tagmemics, or Pikean linguistics). Ever see & hear Kenneth Lee Pike do a "monolingual demonstration"? It's humble listening! The linguist (i.e., Pike) submits to the other person speaking her (or his) own language (one Pike doesn't immediately know). Rather than the linguist being the know-it-all teacher, he (or she) is the try-it-all learner.<BR/><BR/>Pike describes some of this in his online article, <A HREF="http://www.sil.org/klp/ttt/chapter1.html" REL="nofollow">Talk, Thought, and Thing</A>. There he shares a conviction: that "In a shared physical-social environment, a person can learn to speak a language without an interpreter. This implies the presence of a shared capacity to learn cross-culturally and to transmit names, social structure, and worldview." Sounds like what you propose in "our communal search for truth together."<BR/><BR/>Pike adds:<BR/><BR/><I>Truth . . . is not dependent upon the exact degree of precision obtained if the generalizations are acceptable . . . ; but coherence with background pattern expressed, implicit or intended, must not be lost. Expectancies of the hearer must be met by the speaker, with a degree of coherence with reality as perceived by the speaker, for such a paraphrase to be acceptable. . . Exceptions to the possibility of specific translation [there may be], in instances where <B>linguistic ambiguity</B> is involved and where this ambiguity is utilized by the speaker as part of his presentation. Puns, for example, cannot normally be translated directly by puns in the target language. <B>They can be explained, but the explanation of a pun does not carry the same impact as the pun itself—an impact which in tagmemic theory is part of the meaning.</B></I> [bold font mine]<BR/><BR/>Pike illustrates his own experience with Mixtec people who tells puns he (the outsider linguist doesn't get):<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7071(194507)11%3A3%3C129%3ATPIM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1" REL="nofollow">"Tone Puns in Mixteco"</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7071(194601)12%3A1%3C22%3AAMTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y" REL="nofollow">"Another Mixteco Tone Pun"</A><BR/><BR/>But Pike isn't the last word on such humility. Robert de Beaugrande discusses "two ways of doing 'language science'"; he questions the arrogance of arm-chair, home-work linguists in contrast to the field-work linguists (such as Pike) living among the writers and speakers of the language being learner: <A HREF="http://www.beaugrande.com/TheoryPracticeAppliedLinguistics.htm" REL="nofollow">“Theory and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Disconnection, Conflict, or Dialectic?”</A><BR/><BR/>And Larry Wall, who invented the Perl computer programming language with a whole bunch of other people, has called it a "humble language." One reason Wall calls it humble is that it's based in tagmemics, on the principles of the language users (the people themselves not the logic of the language). Wall says, <BR/><BR/>"Transformational grammar [i.e., Chomskyan linguistics] was built on the notion of analyzing a sentence. And they had all their cute rules, and they eventually ended up throwing most of them back out again. . . But in the tagmemic view, you can take a sentence as a unit and use it differently. . . That is where the expressiveness comes from." Wall goes on to quote <A HREF="http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Wall/larry_wall_articles_and_interviews.shtml" REL="nofollow">"Owen Barfield, or maybe it was C.S. Lewis"</A> on how living human beings can say or write "one thing and mean another," and how that's just part of humanity and living human languages.<BR/><BR/>When it comes to "dead" languages, such as those of the Bible, then it's quite clear there can be no living among the speakers and writers to learn from them. <BR/><BR/>But I do think people like C.S. Lewis model a kind of humble approach to "dead-language" ambiguities. In his opener to his Reflections on the Psalms, he takes the humble position of non-expert, of complete outsider. And he continues that through-out. Admitting there's much difficult for him along the way, and that there are many "second meanings" not anticipated at first glance. Lewis also is keen to understand the cultures and histories of those whose texts he's learning the language of.<BR/><BR/>Wayne, I must end this by saying I'm guessing there's much of what you wrote I am misreading. I'm just that arrogant. I look forward to hearing what you have to say! (I do marvel at the examples and analyses of language you give in your comments, the Chomskyan analyses even.) And yet, and yet. The difference between Chomsky and Pike in their approaches is huge. The former's approach is high and abstract and impersonal; the latter's is lowly, insisting that "person must always remain above logic," that ambiguities can always be beyond me.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-80250460056434812492007-10-07T12:35:00.000-07:002007-10-07T12:35:00.000-07:00Wayne replies to J.K.:There really is no arrogance...Wayne replies to J.K.:<BR/><I>There really is no arrogance or hubris involved in any of this. It's a humble search for truth. My own preference would be that we avoid judgmental words here on the blog such as "hubris" or "arrogance." I don't think they advance our communal search for truth together.</I><BR/><BR/>to which I (fn: J.K.) reply: Let me judge myself first, please, as one of the most arrogant human beings on the planet. Sorry, Wayne, I certainly did NOT mean even to imply that you have hubris (and for all mine, how could I tell?!) Those who live with me know my pride and help me see it. But let's do keep talking in the good communal search for truth you genuinely, humbly advise.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-27102111395119319982007-10-07T07:46:00.000-07:002007-10-07T07:46:00.000-07:00J.K. commented:Isn't this presumption? The thin ic...J.K. commented:<BR/><BR/><I>Isn't this presumption? The thin ice of arrogance?<BR/><BR/>How can I discern each possible reading? Let's take Psalm 68 as an example.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, sorry, J.K., I wasn't clear enough what kinds of ambiguities I was referring to.<BR/><BR/>I am *only* referring to *linguistic* ambiguities, which come about because of different syntactic or lexical options. I am *not* referring to extra-linguistic ambiguities (actually, they would not technically be called ambiguity which linguists generally limit to options due to syntax and lexical multiple options) of the kind which you mentioned for who might be the author and addressee of Psalm 68.<BR/><BR/>In English here is a sentence with a syntactic ambiguity:<BR/><BR/>"Flying planes can be dangerous."<BR/><BR/>Linguists have discussed this example for many years. Using older Chomskyan models the two possible meanings would be diagrammed with different syntactic trees. The two different underlying meanings are, of course:<BR/><BR/>1. It can be dangerous to fly planes.<BR/>2. Planes which fly can be dangerous.<BR/><BR/>Lexical ambiguity is similar but is due to more than one meaning possible, as in the English sentence:<BR/><BR/>3. John went to the bank.<BR/><BR/>This sentence is ambiguous because we do not know if the bank that John went to is a financial institution or a bluff (some people used "bluff" and "bank" interchangeably).<BR/><BR/>In the Bible Greek genitives are notorious for giving us potential ambiguities.<BR/><BR/>A frequently discussed ambiguity is the genitive of Rev. 1:1, <I>apokalupsis iesou christou</I>, literally "revelation Jesus Christ-GENITIVE". Without further clues, we cannot tell from these three words if the revelation (of the entire book) is *about* Jesus Christ or *from* Jesus Christ. Either is possible, and, IMO, should be footnoted. Such true linguistic ambiguities are typically footnoted in the NET Bible which is a feature I appreciate in that version.<BR/><BR/>There really is no arrogance or hubris involved in any of this. It's a humble search for truth. My own preference would be that we avoid judgmental words here on the blog such as "hubris" or "arrogance." I don't think they advance our communal search for truth together.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-10247844308492767222007-10-07T05:16:00.000-07:002007-10-07T05:16:00.000-07:00Wayne writes:it is important to footnote what each...Wayne writes:<BR/><BR/><I>it is important to footnote what each possible reading is. That way we don't over-interpret during translation but we provide information that readers need so that they will know what the interpretive possibilities are.</I><BR/><BR/>Isn't this presumption? The thin ice of arrogance?<BR/><BR/>How can I discern each possible reading? Let's take Psalm 68 as an example. From its author(ess) to King David, from the Israel royalty to the Hebrew laity, from those in Jerusalem to the Jews in exile, from those in Alexandria Egypt translating it as part of LXX to Jesus reading it in the LXX, from Jerome and the vulgate to the Roman Catholic Papal readings, from Martin Luther's German-ing to the other Reformers' interpretations, from John Wyclif's version to the "pestilent glosses" of Tyndale that Henry VIII complained about, from James's Authorized Version to any of the versions we choose from, from the various professional commentators to the less formal bloggers, <B>each possible reading is what eternity is for</B>. (And if heaven canNOT wait, well, then that's what the NET Bible's for, right :) ?)<BR/><BR/>The point here is that translation is interpretation. That a humble translator will not pretend to have all the different interpretations. <BR/><BR/>That the humble God in Jesus Christ seemed to leave a whole lot of room for interpretation to his listeners. Why else would he tell parables? Why else would he resist tagging the parables with interpretation-minimizing footnotes? Why else would he leave to his ear-and-eye witnesses the task of translating his Hebrew-ish Aramaic into goyim Greek?<BR/><BR/>One final thought here: C. S. Lewis has some beautiful thoughts on this whole topic of ambiguity (and humility) in "Second Meanings," a chapter in his <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/015676248X" REL="nofollow">Reflections on the Psalms</A>.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-2867892640772586802007-10-06T20:52:00.000-07:002007-10-06T20:52:00.000-07:00I have already agreed that there are different kin...I have already agreed that there are different kinds of ambiguities. But, even if the author did not intend to be ambiguous, and we still don't know what was intended then we should use an ambiguous translation. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes, this can't be done except through the notes.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-13439406333219479062007-10-06T20:41:00.000-07:002007-10-06T20:41:00.000-07:00If the ambiguity is not intended, but we still don...<I>If the ambiguity is not intended, but we still don't understand it, then we should just let it be. </I><BR/><BR/>Sometimes we can, Suzanne, and sometimes we can't. But the latter I am referring to the fact that the syntax and lexicons of source and target languages often do not match up one-to-one. In some languages, it is simply impossible to maintain a possible ambiguity we spot in a biblical text. We are forced to make a choice because of the syntax or lexicon of the target language. For a language like English, we can sometimes retain original ambiguity (whether or not it was intended, esp. in the Greek since both Greek and English are in the Indo-European language family and share *some* syntactic features.<BR/><BR/>My own preference is that even if it is *possible* to retain an original ambiguity in a translation, it is important to footnote what each possible reading is. That way we don't over-interpret during translation but we provide information that readers need so that they will know what the interpretive possibilities are.<BR/><BR/>The vast majority of ambiguities we can spot in the biblical texts are likely unintended. We should not translate in a way that allows readers to think that the biblical authors wrote with so much ambiguity. They didn't just as we do not *usually* intend ambiguity when we communicate with each other throughout a typical day. Of course, some of us, like myself, in certain contexts have a high percentage of ambiguity when we start punning. But most people are not intentionally punning a high percentage of the time. They may have unintentional ambiguities, but we can often infer what they intended. In the case of biblical texts, if we really are unable to determine what the likely intended meaning was, we should state that, but we should let the reader know what each possibility was.<BR/><BR/>I personally think that we should treat original intended ambiguity in the biblical texts (and there are some, some interesting ones in Hebrew and a few in the N.T., esp. in the Gospel of John) differently in translation from unintended ambiguities. *How* we mark the differences in translation is something up for discussion. Footnotes help. There may be other good ways also.<BR/><BR/>The main thing is that we do not want to give readers wrong meaning, and if we translate ambiguously when a biblical author did not intend ambiguity, we are not being faithful to that author, and, in some sense, we are distorting meaning (i.e. accuracy) in translation. Again, how to let the readers know what is going on, in terms of different kinds of ambiguity is a very worthy topic for discussion for anyone concerned about translation issues.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-18741600531123928172007-10-06T20:27:00.000-07:002007-10-06T20:27:00.000-07:00If the ambiguity is not intended, but we still don...If the ambiguity is not intended, but we still don't understand it, then we should just let it be.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-60499796689602561192007-10-06T20:17:00.000-07:002007-10-06T20:17:00.000-07:00Mark wrote:Especially because of our "limited know...Mark wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Especially because of our "limited knowledge of the original language and culture" surrounding these ancient texts, how can we know if the long dead author's ambiguity is intended or is not?</I><BR/><BR/>We can never know anything with certainty, including what someone else means by what they say or write. On the other hand, it is not wasted effort to attempt to discover what someone means by what they say or write, whether it is one's own spouse (my wife and I often do not understand what the other one is saying; fortunately, we are both still alive and we work at clarifying).<BR/><BR/>We are not working in a vacuum when we examine passages in the biblical texts which are potentially ambiguous. We can find clues in the context. We do understand a great deal about the syntax and lexicons of the biblical languages. Our knowledge of these languages is not perfect, but we are not deciphering the Rosetta Stone when we try to understand a passage of a biblical text.<BR/><BR/>It is not hubris to try to distinguish between intended ambiguity and accidental ambiguity which is an artifact of the structure of a language. Those of us who love puns and other plays on words are very aware of the difference between deliberate and unintended ambiguity.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, it is hubris to presume to claim that we know for certain what a biblical author intended in a passage where the grammar of the language gives us a possible ambiguity.<BR/><BR/>As with so many things in life, there is a necessary balance. Iyov and philosophers of language are right when they note that perfect translation is impossible. And yet we live with imperfect translation every day at the United Nations, at multi-nation summit meetings, and when we read our English Bibles. Those who translate are trained to do good quality translation. Their jobs are on the line, to be sure, when they are translating speeches which might make a difference between nations as to whether someone is threatening war or just posturing.<BR/><BR/>There is no room for slopping, shoddy translation. I don't think any Bible translator ever intends to do poor quality translation. Yet we all know that translations can be improved. That is the purpose for this blog's existence, that we Bible readers might become more skilled at spotting translation wordings which can be improved.<BR/><BR/>Improvements can be made, at times, when we gain further insight into the context, themes, lexical cohesion, authorial patterns, differences among literary genre, etc., when we deal with what seem to us, the reader or analysts, as ambiguities in the original text. Typically, a speaker or writer gives some clues if they are intending ambiguity. I sure do when I pun. It is a worthwhile exercise for us to *attempt* to discover any clues in the biblical texts which can help us decide what the percentages of certainty are for one reading of an ambiguity over another reading. Again, we may never reach a level of certainty. I, personally, am a fan of footnoting when anything in the biblical text has a fairly high *degree* of uncertainty about what the biblical author intended.<BR/><BR/>But if the clues we find through careful and *humble* (I like that emphasis which I've been reading in the posts) research raise the level of certainty that the biblical author intended one reading of an ambiguity over another one, then we ought to put that reading in the translation. And we can footnote the alternative. We can even quantify the level of certainty as is done with degrees of certainty about text critical matters concerning the biblical texts.<BR/><BR/>The fact that you are probably understanding at least 90% of what I am writing now is a testament to how well we actually do communicate with one another, despite the communicative hurdles which always exist. And the fact that we are studying *ancient* biblical text adds more hurdles than we face with everyday face-to-face communication.<BR/><BR/>It's not easy, but all is not lost. The effort to translate and translate well is worth it. Not every potential ambiguity was intended by the one who spoke or wrote. But we can bat better than 50-50, I believe, if we become as skilled scholars of the biblical languages and their texts as possible.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-64672902530519899802007-10-06T20:12:00.000-07:002007-10-06T20:12:00.000-07:00Only polyglossia fully frees consciousness from th...<I>Only polyglossia fully frees consciousness from the tyranny of its own language</I><BR/><BR/>From your link, J. K. <BR/><BR/>Bilingualism should be a prerequisite to being a translator. Since few Bible translators are really fluent in Hellenistic Greek, they should be at least bilingual in any two living languages.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-5124801609469265952007-10-06T19:50:00.000-07:002007-10-06T19:50:00.000-07:00The fascinating thing is that valuing this quality...The fascinating thing is that valuing this quality of ambiguity, although not universal, has no connection to the complementarian/egalitarian divide. <BR/><BR/>Some may think it does, but I cannot make find any reason for why it should. There is a pretty wide spectrum of people who would support it. <BR/><BR/>I used to think that this was just my own private hobby horse last year, but now I realize that many others value this also. <BR/><BR/>So, there could be a joint effort in this direction. People would not have to hold to any particular "evangelical" position. The rule would be, literary, literal and ambiguous. <BR/><BR/>In spite of all the new versions around, I think it would be worth producing a version of the Christian scriptures along these lines. The Hebrew scriptures is already in the process. <BR/><BR/>Can anyone think of a recent literal and literary translation of the NT?Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-14239947937461365342007-10-06T19:01:00.000-07:002007-10-06T19:01:00.000-07:00Well, well, well -- this is a fine pickle. Here a...Well, well, well -- this is a fine pickle. Here are taken a few sentences from a post by me (with the excerpter freely confessing that the sentences do not serve justice to my original sentiment): only to yield the spectacle of Peter chanting: "you can't make a perfect translation, nyaa, nyaa."<BR/><BR/>If you took the trouble the read my post you would see that I freely admitted that a perfect translation was impossible: but certainly this is a criterion by which we can rank the quality of various translations -- and it is a quality that with a small number of exceptions has been ignored by modern translators. (And like J. K. Gayle, I also mentioned the issue of humility.)<BR/><BR/>I invite anyone interested to read my <A HREF="http://voiceofiyov.blogspot.com/2007/09/least-common-denominator.html" REL="nofollow">original post</A>.Iyovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16900943829679088001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-87899924488615342692007-10-06T18:58:00.000-07:002007-10-06T18:58:00.000-07:00In short, losing the mysterious poetry of engender...<I>In short, losing the mysterious poetry of engendered by mistranslation, or even by distance from the English usage of a much earlier text, is compensated for many times over by reentry into the original.</I><BR/><BR/>You post here is incredible, Suzanne. What will we lose if we insist on losing ambiguity? It's humility that we lose. And your proposal to re-enter the original reminds me of Mikhail Epstein’s wonderful ideas on “<A HREF="http://www.fascicle.com/issue01/Poets/epstein1.htm" REL="nofollow">INTERLATION VS. TRANSLATION: STEREOTEXTUALITY</A>.” If there's simultaneous engagement between the original and the new, then there's the appreciation for the ambiguity in either and the interplay between both.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-45018508185692057692007-10-06T18:15:00.000-07:002007-10-06T18:15:00.000-07:00Could it be that our opinion that older translatio...Could it be that our opinion that older translations retain "more" and modern translations "less" because our modern common vocabulary is so much less?2blikehimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13983507434668659133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-80356513459881085382007-10-06T17:13:00.000-07:002007-10-06T17:13:00.000-07:00Rich,You mention,NKJ/ESV/NIVI cannot agree that th...Rich,<BR/><BR/>You mention,<BR/><BR/>NKJ/ESV/NIV<BR/><BR/>I cannot agree that these do a good job of being true to the original. They may simply be more familiar and traditional.<BR/><BR/>For one thing, I do not agree that gender neutrality is a departure from the literal. Since "brothers and sisters" is the FIRST meaning given for αδελφοι in a lexicon, a literal Bible would honour this.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-71811060473124249382007-10-06T16:40:00.000-07:002007-10-06T16:40:00.000-07:00Mark,I agree that both these kinds of ambiguities ...Mark,<BR/><BR/>I agree that both these kinds of ambiguities exist. But it is more complicated than this.<BR/><BR/>There are phrases and words whose meaning we can only guess at. THe vocabulary is obscure. <BR/><BR/>Then there are phrases in Greek that are perfectly normal and common, but they are still ambiguous, and we don't know what the author intends, although we understand each word. In this case, the author may or may not have intended ambiguity.<BR/><BR/>Among these cases, there are situations where we can maintain the ambiguity in English and times when a translator cannot maintain the ambiguity in translation. So one has to use notes. <BR/><BR/>It is complicated but I think that if we wanted to maintain ambiguity, and accepted that we were sacrificing meaning on one level, it could be done. I don't know if anyone would want to preach from this Bible, but it would still be one that people could refer to and feel some of the mystery/obscurity of the original.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.com