MetaCatholic

The problems of new technology (HT to Cynthia Nielsen)!

Rick Mansfield has finished his posts noting the differences between the original ESV and its 2007 revision. I’ve been looking idly at the changes in the NT (see here, here and here). Most seem unexceptional, and some are needed corrections, but I note the following which all seem to me to raise the question whether doctrinal and interpretative issues of one kind or another have influenced translation choices unduly.

1. In the gospels (e.g. Mk 8:36) they have decided to translate ψυχή as soul rather than life. Is this about conforming to the KJV, or an anthropological viewpoint?
2. In Mark’s little apocalypse, a minor grammatical change is a major interpretative change. The abomination of desolation becomes he and not it (Mk 13:14). On what basis is this justified?
3. In Rom 8:21, τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς is changed from its bondage to decay, to its bondage to corruption. On what basis is the figurative moral use of the word chosen over its literal descriptive use? Would I be too suspicious if I saw a lurking spectre of total depravity?
4. In 1 Cor 11:27 the former versions will be guilty of profaning the body and blood … becomes will be guilty concerning the body and blood … I’m not at all sure I know what this means in English. Whereas the former translation may have slightly over-translated, this version degenerates into vagueness. Is this an attempt to avoid a catholicizing interpretation?
5. Although I think 2 Cor 4:16 is difficult to translate, I am sure that ESV 2007 Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed is a seriously retrograde step from the previous version which used nature instead of self. I have no idea why this change is made: self carries too many connotations on modern English of core identity, and none of physicality. What, I wonder would be wrong with outer humanity, or even physical humanity as a translation of ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος? It seems to me that this suggests some kind of “sinful self” rather than the created physical existence which is demanded by the context.

I also note a number of places where the translation is exceptionally wooden –which makes the doctrinal interpretation points above more noticeable as well: where the translation is elsewhere over-literal, how does one explain some of these choices?

1. In the epistles, for example, the vast majority of  instances of γάρ are now translated as for, even though that is not normal English style. Previously they had been rather more sparing, and used it only when a clear sense of logical entailment was needed.
2. There’s also a tendency to under-translate idioms: καθὼς προῄρηται τῇ καρδία (2 Cor 9:7), previously and correctly rendered as made up his mind now becomes the un-English (and misleading)  idiom decided in his heart. Leaving aside the gender question, I note that this imports emotional resonances into the phrase.
3. We have the quite extraordinary Put on …compassionate hearts (Col 3:12 – attempting to over-translate what I think is a dead metaphor) which makes me wish to prophesy “Rend your hearts and not your metaphors.”
4. Perhaps most bizarre of all is the fairly literal Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time (Col 4:5) instead of the more idiomatic Conduct yourselves wisely of the previous version. It conjures up some sort of speed-walking evangelist approaching people wearing some strange new garb, the Dalai Lama’s or Obi Wan Kenobi’s perhaps. (There is a lot of walking in the ESV and much of it is quite out of place.)

This translation regularly makes me suspicious that a theological bias lurks behind some odd choices (see my earlier post also). When it’s not doing that, it often makes me wonder exactly where the translators learnt their English. And I haven’t even touched on gender-neutral language!

Iyov observes the strange phenomenon of the religious connections people make with Harry Potter, and provides a listing of some Jewish ones. There are no odunt an equal or greater range of Christian ones, though like Iyov, I’m too weary to track them all down. Far too many of them are ignorant rants like this. Then there are those that try to claim Harry Potter for the faith, whether Jewish or Christian (this page provides a whole lot of links).

All sorts of people seem to be joining in with reviews of the film – and I can’t help but feel that some of them are just trying to show they’re in touch. There’s a scene in (the book of) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, where Ron accuses Cho Chang angrily of only supporting the Tornados at Quidditch because they’re doing well (and thereby ruins a potential romantic moment for Harry). I must confess I felt rather like Ron in reading Ben Witherington’s review: Have fun counting the errors, there are some real howlers¹  there (wish I could send him a howler!).

I nearly called this post “See a passing bandwagon, and jump on it..” So many of the attempts to claim the books and  films for Christianity treat them as fodder for apologetics, and seem to lose all sight of the story being told: the fun, wit, imagination and wonder of the narrative.  What is it with the religious approach to popular culture that is always trying to produce a “Gospel according to … ” It started with Snoopy more than 25 years ago, and shows no sign of abating. Why can’t we take things as they are, read/see them for what they are, and appreciate them as they are?

1. Sirius Black is Harry’s godfather, not some sort of relative; Fudge is played by Robert Hardy, not Edward Hardy; Malfoy is indeed a pun, but it’s not spelt Malfoi; far from having a first kiss with a girl we’ve not met before, Harry already tried to go to the Yule Ball with her in the previous film; (he also has difficulty with the name of the school) [↩]