Multiplicity of Meaning 2. Embrace the Treasure of Multiple Translations

I do not have a subscription to CT so could not read the entire piece. The article seems close to assuming there is some kind of "either-or." I think "both-and" is a better assumption. Multiple translations in multiple languages is the beauty of the "chorus" we hear from scripture. Oh yes, sometimes the multiplicity is a bit dissonant and even disconcerting. However, among the ancient languages (Hebrew and Greek) we have multiplicity when it comes to individual books. And after all we have four canonical gospels not to mention many other attempts at gospel writing.

You´re welcome, Yancy. I wanted to know what is your feedback on the article, because (it seems to me) like in some ways contradict what you post in the "Multiplicity Of Meaning 1"... Can you tell me?

OK, fair enough. And, thanks, Fausto, for holding my feet to the fire on this. I really appreciate it! My article in Multiplicity of Meaning 1 is written from the stand point of Translation Theory and is a critical re-appraisal of the paradigm of "equivalences" (of varying types). But I bring in theology too. Both Jost Zetzsche and I draw upon Sanneh and Walls in similar ways. And, like Zetsche, I also see incarnation/translation as key to understanding textual translation as a creative extension of God's message. Zetzche says, "And though I would agree that knowing the original languages is key for any other text, when it comes to the Bible, I don’t. In fact, I believe that translations of Scripture are not secondary fill-ins. Rather, they are integral to the ongoing and primary expression of God's message to us." I would say that what is true of God's message might also be true for translation in general. In fact, some authors (say, Gabriel García Marquez) have said the translations of their works were better than the original. (But the opposite of this truth can also be true!) The difference that theology makes is that, somehow, some Bible translators embrace a providential view of the on-going translation process, i.e. God is involved in the intercultural process and is disclosing new meanings through the translated text in the new community contexts. (There might be caveats to this embrace, of course.) Or, on the other hand, translators might conceive of translation of the Bible as no different from any other translation. It is a flawed, human enterprise from the get go. For my part, I cannot choose between these two. There is another important difference in our approaches. However, it perhaps it is only an apparent difference, I'm not sure. I say that translation changes the original text. It changes the meaning. And I can say that because "the original text," in my view is not merely words on a page (or manuscript), but the way those words are read, the meaning attached to those words. Now, if one grants that for just a moment, it become evident that translation changes the original text, because it discloses new meaning. When someone who experiences a translation returns to the original text, that new meaning comes with him/her and it is impossible to read the original text the same again. Even if the new meaning is now only an option, the "original text" has changed. It has new possibilities. It has a future! So, when Zetsche says, "Future translations of the Bible into languages with existing translations and into those many languages without the Bible will not add anything to the original words of the Bible," I cannot comprehend what he is saying. If he means that no one can change the spelling, the word order, the word choice, then I am lost, because the text has "changed" in the course of transmission. We do not have the original text, in that sense. If he is saying that the original text will continue to be a differing witness to the meaning of the text as it grows in translation, that, though our perception of it changes, it is not necessarily absorbed by the translations and negated by them, I could agree. It is as if he were reverting to the old notion that words are little jars with meaning inside, hermetically sealed in such a way as to be unchangeable. I don't think those little jars will hold water.