I do a lot of translation. Most Sundays, I preach a bilingual sermon, translating myself. I do radio programs in Spanish during the week; most of my study materials are in English. I’ve done simultaneous interpretation, where I’m translating for a speaker that is neither hearing me nor pausing to allow me to translate. Much of what I know comes from those sorts of experiences.
I’ve come to see that translation is not an exact science. Just now, I was reading a story about this Argentine woman that the governor of South Carolina had an affair with. The story referred to a 2005 article where the woman was interviewed about her experiences learning Chinese. The article quoted the woman as saying, “It was like playing mimics all the time.” Technically, the translation was correct. However, it makes no sense. “Playing mimics”? There was no meaning in that phrase. Therefore the translation was wrong.
In Argentina, there is a common game called “Mímica.” Players act out the names of books or movies or TV shows. Their teammates try to guess the title being acted out. You know the game: Charades. This woman compared her experience learning Chinese to playing Charades. It’s possible (I’m not sure) that about the only way you would know that would be to have lived in Argentina and have lived in the United States. At the very least, you would need some way to pick up that cultural insight beyond what the dictionary could tell you. Languages have subtleties that come from culture and context.
That’s why it’s not fair to compare old versions like the King James Version to modern versions. The KJV cannot begin to compete in terms of accuracy. Too many archeological discoveries have occurred over the last 400 years.
Take for example the Greek word monogenes. In the 17th century, translators hadn’t seen this word before. They had to guess at its meaning. They went for mono “one” and genes “born” (like genetics) — “only begotten.” Since then, the word has been found in other writings, and the meaning has become clearer: mono “one” and genes “genre” — “one of a kind.”
You still hear people argue that “only begotten” is the correct translation, based not on linguistics, but on what they “know to be right.” And this happens with numerous passages. One older gentleman told a friend of mine, “We never used to lose arguments when we used the King James Version.” Unfortunately, that’s because many arguments were based on the wording of the KJV rather than the actual meaning of the text.
We have to be willing to let new discoveries shed light on ancient texts. If not, we’ll just find ourselves playing mimics as we discuss the Bible.
“They went for mono “one” and genes “born” (like genetics) — “only begotten.” Since then, the word has been found in other writings, and the meaning has become clearer: mono “one” and genes “genre” — “one of a kind.” ”
Tim, I fail to see the difference, when describing God’s son, unless you are saying Jesus wasn’t born?
Tim, I have heard the phrase “one of a kind” and often wondered can one odd thing be considered “a kind/genre” would a “genre of , one of a kind, be made up of odd things which do not fit into other genre, I believe the way we use the word “genre” today means “a class” . but as you said, it all depends on the translation, I sorta believe context has a lot to do with translation, as well as understanding. just my opinion :)
can one thing be considered a class?
Laymond,
The translation “only begotten” is okay, as long as you leave out the word “begotten.” You might argue that I could translate it as “only resurrected,” because Jesus was resurrected, but since the word doesn’t mean that, it’s an incorrect translation. “Only begotten” is an incorrect translation.
I used English words to help people have an idea of what those Greek roots meant; sorry if that confused. “Monogenes” means unique. It says nothing about birth, neither affirming it nor denying it.
If you don’t like the idea of one thing being considered a class, you might find a dead Greek and argue with him about the insufficiencies of his language. [He might ask you why you have a hot water heater, since hot water doesn’t need to be heated. Languages aren’t always logical]
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Isn’t the idea that, though God may have many children, that Jesus is his “unique” Son. So Jesus is in the larger class of God’s sons, but in a unique way. Perhaps “incomparable” would get at the idea. In the OT, there are other gods, but none are comparable to Yahweh. Could this be the same matter of belonging to a larger class, yet standing apart and distinct from it?
I tried Gen. 1:1 on the translation site you suggested last week. As long as I stuck with Western languages, the results were pretty close. But when I added Asian languages, the results were nonsense. Does this say anything about the relative distances between cultures and the added difficulties of translation?
Anthony,
I think that’s right. The New Testament uses “monogenes” to refer to children: Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb 11:17; 1John 4:9
Interestingly enough, even the KJV doesn’t use “begotten” in the Luke passages. Had they stuck with that translation consistently, the meaning would have been conveyed.
And yes, translation between Western languages is much easier than between Western and non-Western.
Grace and peace,
Tim
[He might ask you why you have a hot water heater, since hot water doesn’t need to be heated. Languages aren’t always logical]
Tim, not unlike the bible, it all depends on the punctuation.
question; ” why do you have a hot, water heater”
answer; because a cold one, won’t heat the water. :)
I feel like a lightbulb has just gone off above my head — AHA!! I love the revelation about “only begotten.” Being raised in a church where mostly NIV was used I hadn’t memorized it with that phrase, but I’ve heard it plenty of times throughout the years. Thanks for sharing that!
Playing catch-up on your blog today. :)