Making a Sensation of the Ordinary
John Hobbins has already commented on this, and I agree with what he had to say. But my attention was called back to the issue from a Christian Post item in my reader account this morning titled First verse in Bible is mistranslation, say scholar. There are just so many things wrong with that headline, not to mention the article it heads! One would think that Genesis will never be the same again.
We are used to sensationalizing of Biblical finds. It’s unfortunate, but it sells papers. First the finding gets an oversensationalized roll-out in the press, then it gets debunked, based not on what was actually found or said by the discoverers, but rather based on the hype, then finally it is forgotten, and many miss the real significance of a find or idea. What is left is a vague idea that something happened. Those inclined to be skeptical remember how yet more claims regarding the Bible have been debunked. Supporters of the Bible (from whom it should quite likely be rescued) remember that there was an attack on their traditional beliefs, which was obviously turned back.
Perhaps I exaggerate, but I think not by much.
In this case I could say that I would be very happy if preachers and scholars would use the word “mistranslation” a bit less freely. Too often it is simply a translation with which the writer disagrees, but which has sound scholarly support. I think it would be a good idea to distinguish mistranslation in the sense that this is wrong, i.e. there is no sound, scholarly reason or support for it, and a controversial translation, in which qualified scholars disagree.
When I listen to sermons I generally cringe when I hear “what the Greek really means” or “what the Hebrew really means.” It is rare that this is followed by something that is truly well-considered. It is often followed by a rehash of something read in a commentary which the speaker has not fully comprehended. It’s off the topic of this post, but if you don’t know Hebrew or Greek, don’t pretend!
In this case, based on the article iteslf and on John Hobbins’ comments, it seems that we are working through some new arguments regarding an old debate. The word mistranslation is a misstep, and what we have going on in fact is simply a discussion of possible approaches to a particular word and a particular construction. It’s interesting, presumably worth reading (I will get hold of it soon), but it’s not quite as sensational as the headline.
And this is the way scholarship should be. Only occasionally is a new discovery or a newly published idea truly revolutionary. It’s wonderful when such a thing happens. But most commonly one builds brick by brick on the work of others. If the public would understand this about science and scholarship, it might be easier to get the right things financed.
