Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§6.4 History, Hermeneutics and Faith
postmodern teachers of ancient languages and texts do not dissent from this, and
postmodern examiners of such translations mark them down like any other
teacher. In the case of readings of the NT, the normativity of the Greek text implies
that there can be bad readings, 'bad' because they are based on poor translations.
Put another way, it is simply important to recognize the character of historical
texts as historical texts. For the Greek text read as a historical text
(interpretations as well as translations taking account of accidence, syntax, and
idiom of the day) inevitably functions as a norm for legitimacy of modern readings
too. 53 Without that basic recognition, the particular text becomes no more
than a lump of potter's clay, vulnerable to being shaped entirely by the whim of
the interpreter (potter). In other words, the very identity of the text is at stake, and
historical study and scholarly method are unavoidable if the NT and the Gospels
are to be read at all.
To avoid unnecessary confusion, it should be stated explicitly that, of
course, there is no such thing as a single correct translation of a foreign-language
text, far less a perfect translation. Anyone who has had to engage in translation
knows that there is no translation without interpretation, that interpretation is an
inescapable part of translation. 54 Individual words in both languages have ranges
of meaning (polysemic, multivalent), and there is no word in one language
whose range and cultural overtones exactly match those of a word in the other
language. In translation, choices have to be made between words and idioms
which are equally as close and equally as distant from the words and idioms of
the original-language text. The abundant diversity of modern translations of the
Bible is all the illustration needed. 55 None of this, however, alters the point that
the original-language text is what is to be translated/interpreted, and that each
translation has to justify itself as a translation of that text. The historical text cannot
determine the exact translation, but unless the text functions as some kind of
norm for the translation, unless it is seen to provide a limiting factor on the diversity
of acceptable translations, then translation itself becomes irresponsible.
53. Worth noting is the comment of Gabrielle Spiegel: 'texts represent situated uses of
language. Such sites of linguistic usage, as lived events, are essentially local in origin and
therefore possess a determinate social logic of much greater density and particularity than can
be extracted from totalizing constructs like "language" and "society"' (in Jenkins, ed.,
Postmodern History 198).
54. The word 'hermeneutics' comes from the Greek hermeneia, which can mean both
'translation' and 'interpretation'.
55. Consider, e.g., the range of translations offered for hypostasis in Heb. 11.1 — including
'assurance', 'conviction', 'substance', 'guarantee', 'objective reality', 'foundation',
and 'realization' (reviewed by Ellingworth, Hebrews 564-65; and further n. 15 above).
113