Literal Sense of Scripture and the Task of Translation

The task of the translator (or interpreter or re-presenter) varies from situation to situation, but it always involves replacing a source text with something acceptable as more or less equivalent that corresponds in some relevant sense(s) to the source text. In any event, a translation is meant to improve the source text so as to make it more useful or acceptable to a given audience. (Think inclusively: a video/signed translation of a Biblical text or a Nativity play based upon the gospel account.) A certain amount of improvisation in the process of translation works toward a representation of the source in the reading community that yields, invariably, something new and distinct. The constraints either of the new medium or context demand levels of communication not present in the source text. (For example, for the product to be acceptable or meaningful, the emotions of speakers in a narrative must be inferred and displayed in a signed or enacted interpretation and in some written languages). The product can be momentous or vapid, artistic or inartistic. But the new audience will almost certainly do something new or different with the translation (as opposed to its use or non-use of the source text). We may want to say that the translation, perhaps distinct in some sense from previous translations, more accurately corresponds to the original. However, one needs to admit that type of persuasive rhetoric concerning translations is a topos used to sway communities in favor of any translation. Here is an example. John 15:2 says:  πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ. Most modern textual translations follow, more or less, advice similar to that of the UBS Handbook's note on that verse: Every branch in me must be rendered in some languages “every branch that is a part of me” or “every branch that is attached to me.” However, if it is necessary to explain the relation of "in me" by a separate clause, the structure may become relatively complex, for example, “He breaks off every branch that is a part of me that does not bear fruit.” This type of structure is often impossible in translation. In some languages therefore it may be better to employ a conditional construction, for example, “If a branch that is a part of me does not bear fruit, he breaks it off.” The verb translated breaks off literally means “to take away,” while the verb rendered prunes … so that it will be clean literally means “to cleanse,” and occurs only here in the New Testament. In the present context the meaning is obviously “to make clean by pruning,” which is the basis for the TEV, GNT92. So much for the conventional reading. What isn't usually noted (even in the commentaries) is that πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό can also mean: "every branch not bearing fruit he lifts it." Even though αἴρει is not used as a technical term in viticulture, such a prac

It seems that this kind of discussion blurs the line between translation and exegesis/explication of the text and original context of communication. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on if we recognize the increasing ambiguity of the translators task. Applying RT to your example, several potential difficulties appear. First, we need to address how best to help the translator see the options. Second, the translator needs to decide if she is going to go for one or both potential readings. Third, the translator (or others) need to figure out how to bring all the viticultural knowledge to the audience. It would seem that in-text would be unworkable for a formal translation. But here is the thing, if the text translation is seen as just one step in the process to bringing the "original meaning" to the audience, then it frees up this necessity. It doesn't all have to be in the text. It doesn't have to be in the "translation." Indeed, in anything resembling a "translation" in any traditional sense, all of this information cannot be in the "translation." Instead, there is an understanding that the translation, whatever it is, is limited. There is still distance that needs to be covered. Now, in a live performance with live stream of event translation, a translator can give little side notes. In a text, there can be footnotes. But even these are something beside the translation. They are the context to the text of the translation. Now, as long as this kind of discussion moves toward seeing how much information is potentially helpful to the audience, and how limited/difficult is the role of the translator, and how much the translation needs outside materials and teachers---well that is helpful. The difficulty that I saw at BT2015, and which I see hinted at in the text above, is that people are starting to talk about all the other stuff as translation. Yes, in a sense, it is part of the process of bringing the original text to the current audience. But this ultimately moves the term of "translation" beyond what it has meant in the past. If you do that, you simply create a void where translation used to be and render all previous discussion of translation ambiguous. It is better, in my mind, to let a translation be a translation and then talk about all the other things that need to happen alongside of the translation.

It is certainly correct that literal sense and common sense are not objective criteria or descriptions. In the case of bible translation, we have a long tradition. In most cases the traditional exegesis is correct, but in some cases, it is worthwhile to challenge the tradition. In my view, there are 3 basic exegetical principles to employ together. 1) What is the range of meaning or function of a particular word. 2) How is it likely to have been understood by the originally intended audience based on their background knowledge? 3) How does the immediate context support or go against a suggested exegesis? In the example of αἴρει in John 15:2, I do not believe that the meaning corresponds to English "lift". One must look at how the word is used by John and in the NT and in the wider Hellenistic Greek at the time. (Classical Greek is less relevant, but historically interesting. The word may have arisen from "not stringing/lumping together" and if this is correct it suggests that the sense of separation is in the background.) The basic sense in Hellenistic Greek is "carry away" or "remove" or "take away". If the object to be carried off is on the ground, it is implied that it must first be lifted off the ground (as carrying away your sleeping mat), but lifting is not the main idea. (The raising idea is used in special contexts like raising hands to heaven or raising the voice). Point 2) is more difficult and easily leads to lots of speculation as the post above has shown. Point 3 is dismissed in the above discussion with unconvincing speculations, but the unstated and main reason is that it contradicts the goal of claiming a new exegesis, different from tradition. But it cannot be dismissed, since it is in fact crucial to solid exegesis. One of the features of Hebrew discourse is ovelapping circles or spirals where each circle links to the previous one and also adds more details. We see this kind of circle in 15:1 and 5 "I am the vine". This is a signal in v. 5 that further details are now filled in about the illustration and its application. V. 6 then says that unless someone remains in Jesus, he is thrown outside LIKE that/the branch and it dries up (because it lost connection with the tree) and such branches are eventually collected and thrown into the fire and burned. So, IMO this new exegesis fails the test and one can speculate as to why it was really introduced in the first place.

For the life of me, I cannot work with a distinction between exegesis and translation or interpretation. We might be able to distinguish these only if we were working within one language. To suggest that translation is a step that is distinct from exegesis/interpretation is jejune. Rather, exegesis/interpretation/translation are fully integrated and recursive, like the beats of a heart. For analysis' sake we can separate them, but in the lived reality of translation they are one smothe action. Distinction may be useful at an early paedagogical stage, but practice blurrs the paedagogical "steps" in the extreme. In fact, when one studies exegesis, one sees that translation is a step within exegesis. I'm mystified by Jacob's comment. My broader point is that the sensibilities of an audience determines their construction of a "literal" or commonsensical meaning, as defined by Dawson. Thus, I am also suggesting, through the subtitle that even the "literal" meaning is figural, that is, it points beyond the intensions of the authors to the intensions of the reading community which constructs it. I think that is why Iver is eager to construct my motivations in bringing up this example in the first place. I am using "figural" in the sense of Erich Auerbach, Memesis: the Representation of Reality in the Western World. Figural interpretation "establishes a connection between two events or persons in such a way that the first signifies not only itself but also the second, while the second involves or fulfills the first. The two poles of a figure are separated in time, but both, being real events or persons, are within temporality. They are both contained in the flowing stream which is historical life, and only the comprehension, the intellectus spiritualis, of their interdependence is a spiritual act. (p. 73)." I appreciate, as always, Iver's clarity and definitiveness in shining light on the semantics of Biblical Greek. However, in this case I'm afraid the light may have gone off in the lexical search a bit too hastily. (Note that in English "the light(s) go off" may mean either that 'they turn on' or that 'they turn off.' Similar semantic ambiguities exist in NT Greek. So, with reguard to Iver's (1), the range of meaning of αἴρω: a good argument can be made that αἴρω represents such ambiguity when the purpose is not specified and this is due to rather common extended meaning in the New Testament.) I would suggest that "to carry away" is an extended meaning of αἴρω, and that a basic meaning would rather be, "to raise to a higher place or position, lift up, take up, pick up," as BDAG suggests. Be that as it may, there are some Hellenistic (not Classical) uses that I am sure you will recognise immediately as being pertinent. "Theogenes lifts his hands to Helios [the Sun God] Θεογένης αἴρει τὰς χεῖρας τῷ Ἡλίῳ (Upsala Papyrus 8, p. 8 #14). This is similar to Rev. 10:4 Καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος, ὃν εἶδον ἑστῶτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἦρεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ τὴν δεξιὰν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν. Another similar use is in John 8:59, where the action is to lift, but certainly not to "remove" or "carry away." In fact, the purpose of the action is explicitly stated:  Ἦραν οὖν λίθους ἵνα βάλωσιν ἐπʼ αὐτόν. The fact that the ἵνα is added (specifying the purpose of the action of "lifting" or "picking up" suggests that the action is, it itself, somewhat ambiguous in Hellenistic Greek). Another usage similar to this is Matthew 17:27:  ἵνα δὲ μὴ σκανδαλίσωμεν αὐτούς, πορευθεὶς εἰς θάλασσαν βάλε ἄγκιστρον καὶ τὸν ἀναβάντα πρῶτον ἰχθὺν ἆρον, καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ εὑρήσεις στατῆρα· ἐκεῖνον λαβὼν δὸς αὐτοῖς ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ. The word "ἆρον" does not mean "remove from the water," rather, "take into the hand." In other words, "take [αἴρω] the first fish that comes up into your hand and open its mouth and you will find a Stater-coin. Then take [that coin] and give [λαβὼν δὸς] ..." We don't know what is supposed to happen to the fish. The translator would be justified in saying nothing or "throw the fish back in the water" or "take the fish with you." Depending upon the sensibilities of the audience, a literal translation may need to have the added information for the text to be readable. Acts 27:17 has:  ἣν ἄραντες ⸀βοηθείαις ἐχρῶντο ὑποζωννύντες τὸ πλοῖον, φοβούμενοί ⸁τε μὴ εἰς τὴν Σύρτιν ἐκπέσωσιν, χαλάσαντες ⸂τὸ σκεῦος⸃, οὕτως ⸀1ἐφέροντο. Here ἣν ἄραντες simply means "lifting/hoisting" the ship's boat [aboard]" without the idea of "carrying it away." A little nautical knowledge is helpful here, which the NET Bible generously adds in a footnote: the ship's boat: was a small rowboat, normally towed behind a ship in good weather rather than stowed on board. It was used for landings, to manoeuvre the ship for tacking, and to lay anchors (not a lifeboat in the modern sense, although it could have served as a means of escape for some of the sailors; see v. 30). See L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, 248f. I don't think it is necessary to add anything to (2). About three, once you understand a bit more about viticulture, the text takes on another literal meaning, which was explained in Dickerson's article.

Whoa, baby! Man, Daniel. You and I could really have some fun discussing all of this if we had a few hours face to face : ) "Agreeing with" and "disagreeing with" are two phrases which don't do justice to all the nuances of how our ways of viewing all of this overlap and interact. Let me touch on a few: Skopos Theory. Yes. I love this stuff. Agreement by all stakeholders, or at least clarity of the purpose of the "product," goes a long way. Unfortunately, to do this, I think the world is quite short on places where resource partners, technical partners, and impact partners who are going to come together and agree that "any notion of "core meaning" or "common meaning" is not plausible from a cognitive linguistic perspective," but let's do a "translation" anyway. I hope all of you believe me that I really do get this. I am following the conversation. I do see the utility in broad philosophical and analytical terms of having this kind of conversation about meaning not really existing and all of that... But, we live in a world where it is entirely advantageous to talk as if traffic and meaning are "things." It is of no value for me to start discussing with my taxi driver that "traffic" does not really exist as an entity unto itself, apart from the interaction of cars, people, roads, and so on. The point is, if "traffic is "bad," there are good reasons to expect that I will not achieve my "purpose" of getting in the taxi. Similarly, if a "translation" is "bad," there are good reasons to expect that the "purpose" of God in "inspiring" the Scriptures will also be hindered. Not a perfect parallel, but hopefully close enough to help our discussion. Whether or not "core meaning" is plausible from cognitive linguistic perspective, it is advantageous for us to speak as if it is. And, whether or not "translation" might be treated as more or less than it's "core meaning" as assumed by most stakeholders in the conversation, it is advantageous for us to not get too far from those assumptions. Realizing that this discussion is rapidly expanding in manner of directions, but also aware that we are still directly rooted in the original matters at hand, let me add another point. Your comment about "failing" as a "translation consultant" is exactly the unfortunate kind of thinking that occurs when the purpose of "translation" goes beyond its traditional "core meaning." The Bible and all its derivatives have been used in all manner of evil over the course of history. Satan himself uses it with Jesus and with others to justify abject revolt against the Father. That is not a problem with the "translation." Put another way, doing a "good" translation or "succeeding" as a translation consultant will never guarantee that the product will not be "misinterpreted" and/or "misapplied." All things in the universe are not under the control of the translator, neither are all things in a language project, nor or all things in a church planting movement. There are so many variables and so many actors at work in any given situation. But for some reason, there has been an consistent theme within the modern Bible Translation movement to believe that "if we just get the translation right," everything else will fall into place. So, if the original Bibles being sold don't work, you translate them into the vernacular. If that doesn't work, you shift your translation strategy to include more instances of dynamic equivalence. If that doesn't work, you teach people to read. If that doesn't work, you create "Scripture Use" materials that bring the "core meaning" of the Biblical stories closer to the target audience. If that doesn't work you record them in audio or visual form. If that doesn't work, you reformulate the whole thing into an "oral" form. If that doesn't work, you start shifting key terms so that they are even more dynamically "equivalent." And then you are tempted to call whatever you do "translation" because that is the name of your organization. And look, scholars in secular translation studies are also expanding the application of the term "translation" to include everything under the sun as well. Meanwhile, we are way, way outside of our area of expertise without even knowing it. And when people with backgrounds in exegesis, biblical studies, pastoral studies, systematic theology, biblical theology, hermeneutics, and so on start saying we are doing it wrong, we simply scoff and say, "This is a translation issue, back off and let the experts handle it." Now, depending on where in the world you work and depending on which circles you swing in, all of the above is either going to sound like a non sequitur rant, a misguided attempt to make sense of the events of the last 10 years, or a pretty good summation of the way things have gone down. So, for several reasons, I think it behooves those of us in the realm of Bible translation to have a pretty solid idea of what we mean when we discuss "translation." It also is helpful if we distinguish between theoretical discussions that press the bounds of human "knowledge," "understanding," "meaning," and "truth" and the common everyday language with which we intend to discuss these matters with stakeholders. And finally, it helps if we take a breath and say, "This little product that I am making is a small part in a much larger system of activity whereby God is orchestrating world-wide, history long spread of the message of redemption through the Blood of Christ. I certainly must do all I can to make sure that folks develop 'good' and 'helpful' ways of interacting with this product, but a big part of this means finding and investing in other people whose central role will be to take this product and bring it the final few steps into peoples' homes and hearts. But in the end, my specialty is "translation" and that specialty has limits."