John Hobbins revisits one of his hobby-horses (and one he shares with some others): the inadequacy of translations. He claims to “make three points, the truth of which is impossible to deny” and the first of these is: “All extant translations of the Bible fall short of the glory of the original”.
Presumably this is apart from those translations which improve upon the original. Or at least that would seem to be the obvious corollary of the writers of the New Testament regularly preferring a Greek translation of the original, not only where it departs from strict translational accuracy, but precisely because the translational weakness serves the strength of the argument.
The most notorious example, still managing to be controversial, is the Greek virgin (παρθένος) of Isaiah 7:14 against its Hebrew young woman (עַלְמָ֗ה). It would be difficult to maintain that Matthew’s quotation of the Greek “falls short of the glory of the original”.
I am all for John’s goal of making good translations better. I just think all those who exalt the original languages fail to treat the pervasive presence in the New Testament of the Hebrew Bible in Greek translation
{ 4 comments }
ἀμήν
Thanks for your post. Remember that the Hebrew Scripture HAD to use alma and not betulah in Isaiah 7:14, because the Hebrew had a first historical fulfilment in Isaiah’s son, then a later prophetic fulfilment in Yeshua. To refer to both fulfilments at the same time, the Hebrew has to use almah.
I have a sneaky feeling that argument doesn’t work – at any level
I’m a HUGE proponent of being able to work with the original languages and wrestle not just with the cultural and linguistic issues but also the text-critical ones. But that said, you’re exactly right: the issue isn’t about the “glory” of the original. Translations cover over some problems and exacerbate others, and the trick is being able to identify and navigate them as they arise.
Comments on this entry are closed.