From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Mon Jan 19 1998 - 14:21:46 EST
Mark Joseph wrote:
<This goes back to my original post on reading the NT as Koine Greek
<document. While I greatly respect Rolf's knowledge, I'm finding it very
<difficult to believe that what he says here is correct. When I speak
<English (my native tongue) with someone, I know what they mean, even if
<they make some sort of convoluted, technical, or philosophical statement.
< Why should it not, a priori, be likely (or certain) that some native
<speaker of Koine would have known if John 1:1c *means* "The word was
<God," "the word was a god," or "the word was divine"? And if they could,
<why can't we (my point about understanding French or Czech without
<parsing)? I really can't imagine a first century Greek-speaking Jew in
<Palestine reading this line and wondering to himself, "huh, I wonder what
<this means...hmm, the word QEOS is anarthrous and precopulative...I
<better read the rest of this book to see how John uses this
<construction..."
<While it is possible to make an ambiguous statement (plays on words,
<etc.) or to note a lack of clarity on the author's part, these are
<exceptions, especially in the context of an entire book. So, all I can
<say in response to Rolf's original assertion, the one that kicked off
<this whole game of grammatical football:
Dear Mark,
After wrestling with a new computer for two weeks I am back on stage.
If a hypothesis is so general that it accords with any observation, it is
completely useless. If all kinds of beliefs and any understanding of
biblical texts are viewed as equally true, nothing is true, but we have a
situation of spiritual anarchy, comparable to the situation described by
the last verse of Judges: "In those days was no king in Israel; every man
did what was right in his own eyes." Regardless of how we view the written
NT text, it can hardly be disputed that for Jesus, Peter, John and Paul
there was just one way and one truth. Is it not possible to find this in
the text? I am not arguing for a particular faith; what follows is rather
descriptive, but I will comment upon your question, which you have asked in
different ways, and which also is discussed in the tread "Ambiguities
intentional?": Could the NT text be understood as a normal prose text by
the first Christians?
The key to answering the question is whether or not we have the right
PLUG-INS, to use Internet terminology. It is a good exercise to take a look
at these plug-ins, and I see at least 4 areas where such are highly needed.
(Plug-in 1) Our own faith including our motives and inclinations.
Examples of areas where this plug-in work: The view of homosexual acts,
the position of women in the congregation and head covering for them when
praying. Our viewpoints here, which often are strong, inevitably will
influence our understanding (both linguistically and contextually) of the
particular verses. Stated differently: Our subjective views greatly
influence our work with the "objective" text.
(Plug-in 2) Our view of Scripture as inspired or not.
There can be no doubt that head covering was required in Corinth in
particular situations. If we disagree and at the same time view the Bible
as God«s word, we will approach the particular verses differently than if
we disagree and do not view the NT as an absolute norm.
(Plug-in 3) Our theory of meaning. Is the "word" the fundamental
translation unit, or is it the "kernel" of Nida, or another unit? Our
application of lexicon, grammar and syntax is very much influenced by our
view of meaning. That we appraise our position here can not be stressed too
much.
(Plug-in 4) The original "presupposition pool": Do we understand it, and
can we clearly differentiate between this and our modern presupposition
pool?
Example: Our view of the words HADES and GEENNA. What did they mean to
Jesus and the first Christians? What do they mean to the ordinary
church-goer today?
These plug-ins work differently with ancient and modern readers. The
advantage of those in the first century was their familiarity with Greek
and their similar or quite similar presupposition pools (4). This would
help them to understand much of the words and clauses of the NT text quite
easily. Other parts of the NT would however be more difficult. It has been
pointed out by several posters that Greek grammar can be ambiguous. In
addition, the very prose of parts of some writings is difficult (2 Pet
3:16). We should also keep in mind that in many instances, ALL we need to
learn about a particular subject is found in the Bible; we just need to
collect this material and work out a conclusion. In other instances only
the HALF is found in the Bible and the other half must be supplied by the
reader; this is for instance true regarding prophecies. What is for
instance "the desolating scariledge" spoken of in Matt 24:15, which both
Daniel and Jesus associates with the time of the end? (I use this and other
NT subjects as examples, not to initiate a discussion.)
The Christian faith would in many cases help the first century readers to
decide between alterantives, both linguistical, grammatical and conceptual
ones. But the length of time they had studied the Bible would influence
them and also where they lived. A peasant in Greece would of course not be
so familiar with the viewpoints and customs of Palestine, and to which
degree did the Jews of Palestine understand Greek? In addition would the
motives and inclinations of plug-in 1 play a role, and also plug-in 3. Let
us also keep in mind that copies of the Scriptures were rare and expensive,
and much of one`s "study" would consist of listening to a portion of the
Scriptures being read aloud by someone else. According to the law of
entropy some information will be lost under such circumstances. So I follow
you a long way along the road but not to the end: Greek-speaking Christians
of the first century could understand a great part of the NT text, but very
far from the whole of it!
The situation of communication in the first century centered around the
authors and their reading audience, and the medium was the written text
which could be understood by help of a common language and a common
presupposition pool. In our time the situation is much more complicated.
The translators have the same modern presupposition pool as their readers,
and they know both the source languages and the target language, and also a
part of the first century "presupposition pool" (Plug-in 4), but their
plug-ins (1), (2) and (3) and the ditto plug-ins of the readers may be very
different. This MUST cause problems! A principal difference between
idiomatic and literal translations is that the idiomatic ones both
translate the text and the original "presupposition pool", as it were,
while the literal ones translate just the text and leave it to the readers
to become familiar with the original "presupposition pool". For both kinds
of translations, however, the translators« make use of their OWN plug ins,
and this may cause problems for the readers; the greatest problems occur of
course with idiomatic versions. The text cannot ,however, be translated
without understanding its theology, and that is the reason why theology
both do play and must play an important role in any translation.
Many years ago a German author wrote a book entitled something like "What
is at stake is God". His point was that, given that "God" exists, he has
just one opinion in each question. Students of the Bible should therefore
try to find God`s view instead of stating their view of God`s view. It is
extremely difficult to reach a common agreement as to what is God`s opinion
is in each case, but that should at least be our objective. It is much
easier to state Our opinion about God, than to search for HIS opinion - and
from one point of view is such an ideal approach even unscientific. Which
scientist would write a thesis about the absolute truth about x? On b-greek
are we discussing language rather than theology. We are searching
linguistic plug-ins - rules which restrict the possible understandings of
particular grammatical and syntactical constructions. But theology is
always lurking in the background because the Bible is a book about God, and
because our personal theology inevitably influences our linguistic
arguments. So it is good that we regularly appraise our own position,
seeing which plug-ins we have chosen, in order to have parameters by which
to evaluate both our own conclusions and those of others.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT