Dan Wallace is asking important questions over at Parchment and Pen…
Dan Wallace: Contra Mundane - Pauline Scatology
How do we deal with “shock” language when translating the Bible?
Is it appropriate to tone down scripture when Paul actually writes in Galatians 1.8, “Let him go to hell (i.e. anathema)!” Or when he writes in Philippians 3.8
“More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as sh*t!—that I may gain Christ” (adaption of the NET).
What do we do? Why is changing Paul’s message okay or permissible? Granted, I do think that the NET’s translation “dung” is an improvement, but I still wonder if it has enough of Paul’s force, especially when we have an English word that semantically fits almost exactly what Paul was saying (see above). Paul intended to shock the Philippians with his language.
I also link Wallace’s point regarding how such language fits with Paul’s words in Ephesians 5.4 about course language.
Link #2:
Over at Heidelblog, we find out that Canada is forcing post-structuralist interpretations over against authorial intent.
This is an unethical use of prescriptive grammar that assumes without argument an inadequate view texts as having separate meaning from this historical creator. Ironically, Canada still considers a person’s signature as an expression of authorial authorit. Okay, maybe thats a bit hyperbolic…
Yes, R. Scott Clark, grammar does matter, BUT authorial intent matters more! We can’t simply chose the meaning we prefer for a text. There is an ethical element to interpretation that ought not ignored.
Its sick.
26 September, 2007 at 7:55 pm
If I can give my two cents - The word Paul uses there is offensive, but not in the way we think.σκυβαλα wasn’t a curse word back then. In fact, I think the only usages we can find in Greek literature are found in medical texts. σκυβαλα doesn’t even show up in the offensive playwrights of the Greek world, I believe. At any rate, it’s still shocking regardless of whether it was a “curse word” back then.
27 September, 2007 at 10:11 am
Technically, “sh*t” isn’t a curse word either. Its a “swear” word, which is a broader category.
I think its still a great fit because its an incredibly shocking bodily function word.
But yes, thanks for you for “two cents.”
30 September, 2007 at 7:51 am
Actually, this is purely descriptive grammar. There are ways that commas are used in standard, formal English. The decision is correct on that basis. Rejecting prescriptive grammar doesn’t require thinking that anything goes. When you set off a parenthetical expression with commas rather than parentheses, it links the part before and after the set-off material. I cannot read the sentence as written the way it was intended. Their lawyers should have caught that.
1 October, 2007 at 10:29 am
Jeremy, I admit to be hyperbolic.
But I don’t think its purely descriptive. Its more like muddy descriptive. Comma usage is changing and its not as hard and fast as one would like. If it were, then the lawyers would have actually caught the “mistake.” But again, I was being hyperbolic.
The bigger issue in my mind, is that Canada is violently separating text from author. How can there be interpretation without an author?