16 March 2024
The next question is: Can reality be expressed in our language?
R/OB start this section with the Reformation. The whole point of Luther's objections to the system was that the Church ritual of "penance" was not equivalent to what the New Testament referred to as "repentance". This transitions into Americans and their presumptions about American English. The average American assumes that any language can be translated with precision and clarity.
One of them refers to their mission work in Indonesia, where there simply is no concept of privacy. People came and went in his private quarters as if it were a public accommodation. Random students on the campus knew what his wife was preparing for dinner, if he were to ask. There is no Indonesian word for "privacy" in their language. For them, the closest idea is "being lonely", something to be avoided. It's considered an excused absence when a student went with a friend on an errand to keep them company. Going alone was a shocking and painful concept, which is quite the opposite of the American concept, in which privacy is stoutly defended.
How easily we assume that the Garden of Gethsemane was private. There's every reason to think otherwise, especially the Passover time of year when people camped in every available space around Jerusalem. R/OB fails to note that Jesus did sometimes go off alone, and the text says so, but not that night in the Garden. Indeed, the emphasis in the Bible depicts being alone as a chiefly negative experience.
Then they bring up something I've taught for decades: The Bible doesn't always mean what it says. For Americans, Luke 14:26 ("if anyone does not hate" their family) and Matthew 10:37 ("if anyone loves" family "more than me") are not the same thing. Luke gave us a direct translation from Jesus' Aramaic words, while Matthew translated it by what it meant in Greek terms. Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were notoriously non-literal, expressive and rather dramatic, even hyperbolic.
They book notes that English insists on a subject with each sentence, but Indonesian grammar frankly avoids it. The concept of cause and effect is absent in many contexts. The passive voice is generally forbidden in English. In the Bible, agency (and thus, motive) is not required, nor is action (try John 14:1 about hearts). It's rather odd how we turn simply words into expressions that can mean widely different ranging ideas based on word order, but then we expect a translated Bible to be literal and direct, as if there were no figures of speech.
The authors bring up the concept of patronage in the Roman empire. The Greek words charis and pistis translate into grace and faith, but they actually refer to a very elaborate feudal social structure of patrons and clients. Without a "godfather" figure to look after you, there was no entrance into the complex business and government systems ruling your everyday life. You would have already understood that any favor received from a patron meant you owed them feudal support. Paul was Lydia's patron in the gospel, and her hosting him and his friends was a natural social response.
When Jesus talked about giving in some cases without expecting a return, that was turning the world upside down. The terms "grace" and "faith" already had a meaning in that society. Your patron gave you grace, and you returned faith. That's the way the early churches understood those terms.
Comments
Jay DiNitto
"The passive voice is generally forbidden in English. In the Bible, agency (and thus, motive) is not required, nor is action (try John 14:1 about hearts)."
I love that you followed up that first sentence with a second sentence in the passive voice. Bravo to you.
I like doing passive voice intentionally if it feels like it flows better, unless I am writing something instructional and the active voice will save time and/or be more clear.
This document is public domain; spread the message.