Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Rites of Passage
My son graduates from high school this week! Celebrations occur all week long and we will enjoy great times with friends and family.
On top of all that, I am teaching summer school and trying to prepare my lessons for my stints at the preacher training schools in Russia and New Zealand. So, this will probably be my sole entry this week. (I only have had time to do this one because I am giving a test in my Senior Bible Seminar course as I type.) I hope to have more for you next week.
God bless!
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Tuesday Top Ten
It seems like half of the student body at OC got married last weekend. Five couples invited us to attend their nuptials. (Unfortunately we could only attend one of them.) Each of these couples will do great things for God’s Kingdom. I get very excited about the future of the church when I see such marvelous people joined together to offer their united lives in God’s service. These are truly exciting times.
We attended Leslie and Tristan’s wedding. These two have meant the world to us. It has been such a treat seeing them grow together. Now, you might question my devotion to them since they (or actually their future offspring) are the objects of this week’s top ten list. If so, you probably have a good point. Unfortunately, you were not here to stop me from doing this.
So, here are the top ten names for the future (apparently all male) children of this blessed union:
10) Wood Block
9) Rhode Block
8) Big Block (nicknamed “V8” of course)
7) Newt Kit Sandy Block (who will eventually form a temporarily successful boy band)
6) Butch R. Block (the less musically talented son of their meat cutting twins)
5) Chopin Block (the meat cutter with at etude)
4) Head Block (who finds himself listed in class rolls and phone books as Block, Head)
3) Starting Block (the most obviousl name for their first child)
2) Ben Aaron D. Block (the kid with the most street smarts)
and 1) Chip F. Theo Block.
Love you Les and Tristan! God bless!!
Friday, May 13, 2005
The Need for Functional Equivalency
An issue that gets raised frequently in discussions about biblical translation is the distinction between what God says and what God means. In technical terminology the debate centers on which methodology best conveys God’s word – formal equivalency (related to word-for-word translation) or functional equivalency (related to meaning-for-meaning translation).
People often presuppose the superiority of the former, but often without wrestling with the issues of communication involved. For example, one can often hear someone say, “That’s what I said, but that’s not what I meant.” (More frequently this gets abbreviated to “That’s not what I said” which really means “That’s not what I meant.”) I have yet to hear someone complain, “That’s what I meant, but that’s not what I said” (although that might be possible on occasion). To put it another way, we instinctively realize that we want people to understand the meaning of what we say or write rather than knowing the specific words we used. To illustrate this, what if I said, “Last night I had a ball”? You clearly know what I said, but do you understand what I meant? Some might be tempted to call me up and say, “I’m so sorry, Curt. What color and size was that ball and where do you think you misplaced it? Perhaps I can help you find it.” Others might jump to the presses and publish articles entitled, “OC Bible professor sponsors dance!” Yet others might inquire as to what I did the previous evening that was so enjoyable. Obviously, not all of these interpretations are valid. If such serious difficulties can occur over an English phrase among English speakers, consider how much greater the problem between words and meaning can be when dealing with foreign languages and cultures, not to mention thousands of years of intervening history.
Take Jude 1 for example (chosen because most would consider its meaning relatively clear and uncontroversial). I can tell you exactly what the Holy Spirit inspired Jude to write:
IOUDACIHCOUXRICTOUDOULOCADELFOCDEIAKWBOUTOICENQEWPATRIHGAPHMENOICKAIIHCOUXRICTWTETHRHMENOICKLHTOIC (I apologize for not knowing how to provide a Greek font on my blog, but the above text should provide an adequate representation of the original text for those with a facility in ancient Greek.)
So, that’s what God said. That’s it. Period. Any attempt at translation ceases to be what God said. Conversion into another language by its very nature attempts to convey what God meant. Thus, even word-for-word translations fall into the realm of meaning-for-meaning. (Even the King James Version translators recognized this. I wish all would read their Preface to the Readers. Unfortunately most recent editions omit this valuable discussion about translation methodology.)
So, what does this verse in Jude really mean? Here is a word-for-word translation:
“Judah of Joshua Christ servant brother and of Jacob to those in God Father loved and in Joshua Christ kept called.”
That makes much more sense than the Greek text, at least to those who speak English (and cannot read Koine Greek). Still, although the words are clearer, their meaning remains somewhat obscured. Obviously, knowing what God said (i.e., the Greek above) can have little impact without someone helping us know what God meant. In my opinion, and it is just an opinion, a meaning-for-meaning translation comes closer to what God said than a word-for-word translation. (Feel free to argue against me on this one – just not on my blog, please.)
What follows is how I would translate Jude 1, although even then the meaning of some words remains unclear (e.g., “called”).
“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who have been called – namely, those who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus the Christ.”
The “problem” with a functionally equivalent translation is that (typically) a committee of biblical scholars has chosen to convey what each verse means. This raises two significant issues: 1) sometimes they are wrong, and 2) they remove the decision of interpretation from the reader. There is not much one can do about the former, although the NIV’s standing committee which evaluates the translation on a regular basis goes a long way towards solving it. As much as one might dislike the latter, I prefer having Bible scholars working on proper meaning rather than those lacking knowledge of the original languages and contexts. Yes, translators make mistakes.( Indeed, all translators make mistakes. Choosing formal equivalency does not allow one to escape this.) The number of their errors, on the other hand, pales in comparison to the number of mistakes perpetrated by typical readers. In terms of the issues noted above, well trained translators are 1) wrong less frequently, and 2) in a better position to make decision about original meaning.
I believe the recent past only underscores the truth of what I am saying. If so many preachers can misunderstand God’s Word, just imagine what happens with people having little to no Christian background! The TNIV is aimed at 18-34 year olds lacking significant religious knowledge. One would find it difficult to find a better translation for that group (or, for that matter, many others). I am thankful that scholars have made God’s Word more understandable by clarifying its meaning for such readers. Now, if you know Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, the formally equivalent translations certainly prove more helpful. Then again, if you know the original languages and contexts, why use an English translation at all?
(Personally, I encourage English speakers to compare at least two types of translations. Differences between them will signal problems between the ancient manuscripts or difficulties of interpretation. Such passages are worthy of additional study by the serious student of God’s Word.)
As most translators will tell you, whenever there is close to a one-to-one correspondence between word and meaning, formal equivalency is the way to go. However, and this is especially true with converting Greek to English, such close correspondence is rare. Most translations lean toward functional equivalency precisely for this reason (without, however, losing sight of formal equivalency).
So, if you want to know what God said, I will gladly tell you. (Be prepared, though, not to understand anything I say or write.) I would much rather you learned what God meant.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
The Non-Traditional Student
I love the “non-traditional” student. More and more often I have students in my classes whose experiences and age put them outside the normal 18-22 year old university crowd. These students do not attend college because it is expected of them or because their parents make them. They come to learn. They throw themselves into the task. Thus, they typically excel in the classroom.
“Kay” has to be one of my favorites. (I have changed her name because she would probably be embarrassed that I wrote anything about her.) Many of my students would think her ancient, although she is not much older than I. (Perspective is everything.) She came to the U.S. in order to study scripture. Because of that, she enrolled in my Biblical Exegesis class. Kay sat near the front and took copious notes. Because of her poor English, she would pour over the assigned readings four or five times trying to grapple with the meanings and concepts. (Many of my students wouldn’t even open the books, let alone read the texts multiple times.) You can imagine her frustration as she struggled with “hermeneutical circle” and “Religionsgeschichtlicheschule.” After class she would embarrassingly approach me to ask for clarifications – always extremely polite and apologetic, raised in a culture that taught her that my time was much too valuable to waste on such simple questions. I wish she could have comprehended that those interactions with her infused my time with value. I will miss that.
Unfortunately, “Kay” has cancer. She held off seeing a doctor for so long that nothing could be done for her. (Some suspect she knowingly did this so that she could spend more time studying the Bible.) She has flown home now to be with her family. At least she will be sitting at the feet of the Master Teacher soon… I guarantee she will be a devoted student.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Tuesday’s Top Ten
I apologize for missing Tuesday’s Top Ten last week. I was at Pepperdine for their lectureships. It was an absolutely marvelous experience, and I have returned renewed and reinvigorated. On the other hand, I assumed that at a school twice as expensive as Oklahoma Christian University I would have wireless internet access. Nope! Apparently they are paying out the nose for something else. This, of course, motivated the creation of last week’s (now this week’s) list. Here are the top ten differences between Oklahoma City and Malibu.
10) At Pepperdine one can surf the ocean; at OC one can surf the internet
9) With Oklahoma tornados annihilation is predictable; with floods, mudslides, earthquakes, and brush fires it is considerably less so in California
8) Californian teenagers with too much time on their hand go to the beach and yell “Cowabunga!” while Oklahoman teenagers go to the highest overpass with their favorite bovine and attempt Cowabungie
7) On a clear day in California one can see an ocean of blue stretch endlessly into the horizon; on a clear day in Oklahoma one can see an endless sea of red dirt
6) Oklahomans like to eat cattle; Californians like to eat like cattle (no menu lacks alfalfa and bean sprouts)
5) At any grocery store in Malibu you will bump into movie stars; shopping in Oklahoma you will bump into cousins
4) In Malibu everybody drives a small, fast, red car; in Oklahoma a big, slow, green tractor
3) For $300,000 you can buy a mansion in Oklahoma city or a parking space in Malibu
2) In Oklahoma drivers wave to each other to say, “Howdy!” In California they wave to say, “Don’t shoot!”
And 1) Californians can actually win a national championship football game