Abstract
In some cases the meaning-based approach used in the translation of the Good News Bible appears to support translational choices that strengthen or even introduce anti-Judaism in translation. There are instances where such translational choices are not required by the source text. It is possible, in the examples selected for discussion, to arrive at translations that follow the source text closely, are less anti-Jewish, and conform to the principles of a meaning-based approach. In principle, almost every translator of texts from the New Testament faces translational choices possibly introducing a note of anti-Judaism in translation. However, the meaning-based approach might disambiguate ambiguous passages in a way that introduces a stronger note of anti-Judaism (if compared to more formally equivalent translations), as one of the examples indicates.
Introduction
The Good News Bible (GNB) is a widely used version that gives meaning precedence over formal agreement between source language and target language. 1 The translation of the New Testament was published in 1966 and was strongly influenced by the translation principles set forth by Eugene A. Nida (S. Porter 2005, 17). In 1969 Nida named this translational approach “dynamic equivalence” (TAPOT). Due to the reception and possible misconstrual of the words used to name his translational approach, Nida (in FOLTA, published together with de Waard, 1986) renamed the translational approach “functional equivalence.” 2 Nida’s concept of translation has been described thus: “the idea of the text—rather than just a literalistic word-by-word translation—is captured and presented in language that is understandable by the reader” (W. Porter 2005, 5).
This paper will refrain from discussing theoretical questions raised since the time of these publications. “Dynamic” and “functional” equivalence may differ in their theoretical approach to the translation process (cf. Statham 2003). However, GNB antedates the distinction between these terms. In addition, GNB is the end product of such a translation process. Statham describes what characterizes such a Bible translation (2003, 11):
Nida and de Waard stated in their book FOLTA that functional equivalence as they define it is not essentially different from dynamic equivalence as the former writer and Taber defined that term in their book TAPOT. Nida and de Waard clearly meant by this that both terms refer equally to the rendering of a source text item with its closest natural equivalent in the receptor language, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of form.
This paper will evaluate a few selected examples that might indicate overconfidence as to the “meaning of the original.” Rather than discuss the theoretical principles behind GNB as a translation, I will scrutinize these examples as to their conformity with the meaning of the source text. Following Statham’s suggestion, I will avoid using the terms “dynamic” or “functional” equivalence. 3
GNB as a Bible translation intends to present the meaning of the original text in words understandable for present-day readers, “based on the so-called ‘principle of equivalent effect,’ and aims at producing in the readership of the target text an effect similar to that which the original text produced in its own readers” (De Pedro 2000, 415). Consequently, “the translator seeks to express the meaning as the biblical writers would if they were writing on English today” (Barker 2003, 56). As Barker points out further,
A good translation is neither too much nor too little. It is neither too slavish a reproduction of the Greek [and the Hebrew], nor is it too free in its handling of the original. . . . In short, the best translation is one that has avoided the extremes and has achieved instead the balance that will appeal to the most people for the longest period of time.
This contribution raises the question as to whether one specific and rather delicate area should receive more attention: the way Jesus’ relationship to representatives of Judaism is depicted. There is a consensus among exegetes that the relationship between the Jewish authorities and Jesus is antagonistic or even hateful. For example, Ulrich Luz calls the Pharisees in Matthew’s Gospel “Jesus’ main enemies” (1997, 253). It is a truism that Jesus calls the authority of the Pharisees into question. To perceive this as intentional enmity rather than as competition (cf. Förster 2018c) may lead to translational choices that reflect this perception and may in turn have the potential to intensify the perceived enmity between these two groups in translations. This holds true for all translations of the New Testament and it appears to have happened often within translation history. However, the precedence of meaning over form makes it possible to disambiguate sentences that—at least in the case of John 12.40 (cf. below)—have taken on a meaning of much stronger rejection of “the Jews” 4 than is discernible in the source text.
The perceived anti-Judaism of quite a few passages of the New Testament is possibly a harmful misconception. There are passages in the New Testament that have been perceived as anti-Jewish on the basis of their traditional translations. Some such passages—for example, John 12.40—have been translated in GNB in a way that intensifies the anti-Judaism in comparison to other translations. If it is the case that the authors of the Gospels intended their texts or some passages in them to be anti-Jewish, such a translation is true to the point. However, it will be argued that John 12.40 and other selected passages are actually less anti-Jewish in Greek than in traditional translations. John 12.40—the first example to be examined—shows what happens if grammar is disregarded in the search for meaning. The translation in GNB can indeed produce effects in modern readers different from the effects the Greek text would likely have had on the original readers.
Since this contribution suggests that the effects the texts of the New Testament had on their intended readers—as far as these effects concern the perceived anti-Judaism—might have been misconceived, the question must be raised how we are to ascertain such effects. We can start with a brief glimpse at the readership: The intended original reader of the New Testament was a person fluent in Greek, possibly (but not necessarily) with a Jewish background. The closest equivalent of such a reader can be found among those Greek theologians who lived in the first five or six centuries of Christianity. They were native speakers of the language. Thus, their perception of the texts as reflected in their commentaries on the New Testament can be a helpful guide for our understanding of an “original reader.” It has been argued recently that ancient readers like Origen, John Chrysostom, or Cyril of Alexandria did not understand the relationship between Jesus and “the Jews” in John’s Gospel in the same negative way that today’s scholars do (Azar 2016).
These ancient readers were more concerned with the question of what the passages in question meant for their own audiences. They did not perceive Jesus as intentionally “polemical” or “anti-Jewish” but as “challenging” his Jewish audience and, consequently, challenging also the Christian believers to whom these theologians preached John’s Gospel. This is of great interest for understanding what the text meant for Greek readers. To phrase it pointedly: John Chrysostom, for example, is well known to have held anti-Jewish attitudes. Yet he does not perceive the Gospel of John as anti-Jewish in the same way that modern scholars do. Rather, he understands many passages that modern scholars label anti-Jewish as calling his own constituency to a decision as to what Jesus’ life means for them.
Since the acknowledged aim of GNB is to evoke effects similar to those evoked in the early readers of the Gospel of John, one is tempted to see a difference between the meaning perceived by Origen or John Chrysostom and that perceived by modern scholars. This undoubtedly would have an impact on the translation process. Since the readers of the first few centuries of Greek-speaking Christianity did not perceive quite a few of the seemingly “unquestionably anti-Jewish” passages as anti-Jewish, the possibility arises that the reception history of the New Testament might have contributed to the creation of anti-Judaism.
This impression is strengthened by the fact of a trajectory of increasing anti-Judaism in Christianity (Chazan 2016). Further, the textual history of the Gospel of John has been shown to have intensified anti-Judaism via textual and translational variants (Förster 2018b). The rising anti-Jewish trajectory in the history of Christianity correlates with the fact that major German translations made or revised after the Holocaust (Luther 2017, Einheitsübersetzung 2016, Neue Zürcher 2007) intensify the demonization of “the Jews” in translation (Förster 2018c). This is all the more astonishing as, for example, the editors of the Einheitsübersetzung explicitly state that anti-Judaism has been avoided in all instances possible (Theobald 2017, 139).
Thus, GNB is not the only translation made or revised within the last fifty-five years to exhibit anti-Judaism in translation. However, its translation principles can be shown in the example of John 12.40 to further an intensification of anti-Judaism where attention to the original reader was neglected. To phrase the problem with specific regard to John’s Gospel, it might be the case that GNB is a translation that focuses on accurately rendering the text of an author the perception of whom as “hateful” (Cronin 2016, 104) has nothing to do with the author and much to do with reception history. Many modern scholars argue that anti-Semitism in Bible translation should be avoided. 5 Those Greek theologians from long ago appear to argue implicitly that anti-Judaism is in many instances contrary to the deeper sense of those texts which are called “Good News.” This speaks against the modern concept of John as an “intentionally hostile” author.
1. Translation and faithfulness
Before dealing with examples from GNB, possible problems of a meaning-based translation will be discussed by way of an example from Martin Luther’s translation. The well-known semiotician Umberto Eco sums up his view of what a translation of a literary work entails in words that should apply to every translation of the Bible (Eco 2003, 192):
Faithfulness is not a method which results in an acceptable translation. It is the decision to believe that translation is possible, it is our engagement in isolating what is for us the deep sense of a text, and it is the goodwill that prods us to negotiate the best solution for every line. Among the synonyms of faithfulness the word exactitude does not exist. Instead there is loyalty, devotion, allegiance, piety.
The summary description of a good and faithful translation points directly to possible pitfalls in the approach taken by GNB. Every single line and every sentence should express the best solution, as perceived by the translator, who is influenced by “language and culture, society and history” (Matre 2012, 198) in understanding the meaning of the text. The effects of meaning-based translation choices are much stronger than those of a traditional and more formally equivalent translation. “Catchy” translations will engage their readers far more than bland renderings. In this respect GNB is not alone, and GNB is also not alone in creating anti-Judaism in translation. An example from one of the most influential translations of the Bible in history will serve as an introduction to the problem. Martin Luther understood the need to produce “catchy” renderings with regard to his own translation. 6 He tried to find words that were understandable and drew the readers in. Earlier translations into German had not had the same effect on their readers. Thus, there are quite a few phrases where one could argue that Luther was already using techniques in his own translation similar to those used in GNB.
One example is his rendering of the word φιµόω in Matt 22.34. The Greek word is connected with the word φιµός. A φιµός is used to muzzle an animal and described in LSJ as “any instrument for keeping the mouth closed.” Luther 1545 translates this as “das Maul stopfen” (it is almost impossible to render this literally: “Maul” is a derogatory term for “mouth” and “stopfen” means “to put something into”; the phrase is a comparatively rude expression similar to “he gagged them thoroughly”). This is at the same time a very vivid phrase and also a transmutation of the metaphor. While the Greek word refers to a rope or an instrument forcing the mouth shut (KJV translates this verb in 1 Tim 5.18 with regard to an animal, “thou shalt not muzzle an ox”), Luther’s phrasing evokes an image where something is put into the mouth to silence a person. Thus, one can argue that the translation uses more violent imagery than the Greek text (a side effect could be to choke the person). One has only to look at Martin Luther’s publication “Von den Juden und ihren Lügen” to see his bias against Jews and Judaism. Thus, his use of violent imagery in the context of Jesus’ Jewish opponents (the Sadducees in Matt 22.34) does not come as a surprise. Admittedly, to translate “sie zum Schweigen bringen” (to put them to silence) here is far less evocative than the phrase used by Martin Luther. 7
“To silence” is the translational choice of GNB (22.34a: “When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees”). GNB shows a strong interdependency with other English translations. 8 This example serves as evidence that GNB does not always introduce or intensify anti-Judaism. At the same time it indicates that GNB and the other English translations are, in their avoidance of metaphorical language, likely dependent on the Vulgate, which has here: Pharisaei autem audientes quod silentium inposuisset Sadducaeis convenerunt in unum (But the Pharisees, hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together [DRA]). The word φιµόω is listed neither in Curio’s dictionary (1519) nor in Aleander’s (1512). The surmise is therefore justified that the English translations of this verb in Matt 22.34 follow the Latin version (Vulgate), giving a formally equivalent rendering of silentium imponere, while Luther chose to follow his understanding of the text using a metaphorical way of translating the Greek verb as understood via the Latin version. It is apparent that he could understand the meaning of φιµόω only from its translation in the Vulgate since the dictionaries of his time did not list φιµόω. 9 Thus, Martin Luther opts for a meaning-based translation of the Latin text, and in the process introduces anti-Judaism in the translation. 10
The example from Luther’s translation shows the following: A meaning-based translation faces a double quandary in light of such translational choices. There is a growing consensus that there are books from the New Testament that use strong language against Jesus’ Jewish opponents. Raymond Brown “has made it clear that John is deliberate and hostile in his intent” (Cronin 2016, 104). Gerry Wheaton observes that the Gospel shows an “undercurrent of judgment” upon “the Jews” (2015, 45), and Adele Reinhartz comments, “the gospel of love has also been an instrument of hate, not once, not occasionally, but frequently and pervasively in the history of Jewish–Christian relations” (2004, 416). The first quandary then is the moral problem whether a translation like GNB should support hateful language (by translating it). The second, even more troubling question is whether a translation supporting strong language against “the Jews” precludes an alternative translation, one that is at least equally valid on the basis of the Greek text and that is at the same time less harmful. With these quandaries stated, the next step is to discuss translational choices in GNB that seem to strengthen anti-Judaism where alternative translations might be possible.
2. Disambiguation of implicit syntactic elements
2.1. “God has blinded their eyes” (John 12.40): Disambiguation of the implied subject
The quote from Isa 6.10 in John’s Gospel has been deemed an extremely difficult and problematic one. Some of the exegetical problems might be due to translational decisions. The focus here is on the translation of the sentence as presented in GNB. This translation shows such a strong confidence as to the meaning of the text that it makes the implicit subjects explicit. The translation thereby sides with an interpretation of the sentence that is contrary to how, for example, Origen understood the text.
The Greek text of John 12.40 is as follows: τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς καὶ ἐπώρωσεν αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν, ἵνα µὴ ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς καὶ νοήσωσιν τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ στραφῶσιν, καὶ ἰάσοµαι αὐτούς. NRSV translates, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they might not look with their eyes, and understand with their heart and turn—and I would heal them.” GNB has, “God has blinded their eyes and closed their minds, so that their eyes would not see, and their minds would not understand, and they would not turn to me, says God, for me to heal them.” The Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28, quoted here and henceforth) does not mention even one manuscript that would make explicit either the implied subject of the two verbs in the main clause or the subject implied in the last verb of the subclause. Thus, one could argue that GNB is “unfaithful” to its Greek source text. In defence of this translation, it is a time-honoured practice to make such implied subjects or objects explicit. This is especially necessary for languages that differ from Greek in their way of structuring syntactic relations.
Greek uses cases and many different pronouns in order to structure relations in a clause. In the case of languages that do not have a similar range of different pronouns it is quite common to make matters explicit, replacing a pronoun by a name or repeating a verb in order to make the meaning of a sentence clear. This happens, for example, in the Coptic version of the New Testament (see Askeland 2012, 35). But even modern translations striving for a close relation to the Greek source text might take liberties in cases where the subject of a sentence is not obvious, including translations into languages that are comparatively similar to Greek as to their use of cases and pronouns. 11 Thus, for an English translation, such a disambiguation of a sentence might even be necessary in order to render it into good and understandable English.
The translation follows a common understanding of the text, an understanding shaped by reception history. The reception history of this passage has contributed to a violent image: the juxtaposition of ecclesia and synagoga. The synagogue is metaphorically depicted in mediaeval art as a woman: Her eyes are blinded (bound with a veil) and her heart is hardened (a knife or sword pierces her heart; in many cases a hand out of the clouds holds this knife). This widespread imagery draws on John 12.40 (see Rubin 2014). The disambiguation of the implied subject supports the common understanding. The first difficulty with this is that there is still exegetical discussion whether it is God or even the devil who has blinded the hearts of Jesus’ Jewish opponents (see Schnelle 2016, 272). Despite this, the disambiguation shows the translators’ confidence that they got the text and its meaning “right.” The question is whether this may be overconfidence.
The quote is from Isa 6.10. In the Hebrew, the prophet is the subject of what are usually translated as imperatives in the main clause. Consequently, a prophet or another human being might also be the implied subject in the main clause of John 12.40. 12 John’s formulation raises the question as to how the intended readers might have understood the meaning of the quote of Isaiah here. Presupposing they had a deep knowledge of “Scripture”—and “Scripture” was for those early Christians what is called “Old Testament” today—it is a reasonable surmise that they understood the quote from Isa 6.10 in light of Isa 6.10. Since the prophet is told in Isa 6.10 to “blind the eyes,” and so forth, the subject of “he has blinded” in John 12.40 would have been understood as an earthly agent proclaiming God’s word like the prophet in Isaiah. It has been argued recently that this “prophet” is Jesus. And indeed, Jesus’ ministry met with “hardened hearts”: he pleads his cause in John’s Gospel and his audience does not heed him. Thus, one possible understanding of the quote from Isa 6.10 in John 12.40 is that the author sees the prophecy as having been fulfilled.
It appears further that the last sentence (καὶ ἰάσοµαι αὐτούς) could be seen as a main clause standing outside of the subclause. The verb is in the first-person future tense (ἰάσοµαι). This is not a tense that would be expected in a negated ἵνα-clause (all the preceding verbs in the ἵνα-clause are in the third-person plural aorist subjunctive). The change of mode, tense, and subject makes it rather improbable that the last three words of the verse were part of the negated ἵνα-clause (for a full discussion see Förster 2018a). This is actually in line with how Origen understands the sentence. Origen stresses the point that there are two different subjects in the structure starting with ἵνα µή and ending with ἰάσοµαι αὐτούς. 13
These observations point to the following translation as possibly giving a more accurate rendering of the passage as it was understood by the author and early readers like Origen: “He has blinded their eyes and closed their minds; consequently their eyes do not see, and their minds do not understand, and they do not turn. And then I will heal them.” In light of the possibility of seeing Jesus as the subject of the first main clause and God as the subject of the last main clause, GNB’s disambiguation of the implied subject might be a case of translational overconfidence distorting the meaning of the underlying source text in a problematic and harmful way. If one accepts Mark Strauss’s definition of translation, 14 the translation of John 12.40 appears to be faulty. This translation departs “from the meaning of the text in its original cultural and historical context” (2005, 156).
In light of the reception history of this passage a revision of John 12.40 in GNB seems called for; such a revision would remove the disambiguated subjects from John 12.40a and John 12.40c, including the verbum dicendi, “says God,” which is not found in any known Greek manuscript. With regard to the addition of “says God,” Eugene Nida’s own words characterizing a “bad translation” are apt: “Paraphrase by addition, deletion or skewing of the message” (TAPOT, 173). James Dunn’s comments on the need to adhere to the Greek text apply here: “the Greek text is normative in regard to any and every translation; unless the Greek text is recognized as determining and limiting the range and diversity of translation, then the translation loses its claim to legitimacy as a translation” (2000, 118). One could also quote Omanson: “It is therefore deceitful to construct an illusory translation with the help of context, tradition, and a momentary disregard of grammatical laws concerning numbers and gender” (2007, 8). The verbs in the main clause are in the third-person singular, the verbs in the ἵνα-clause are in the third-person plural, the last verb is in the first-person singular. Thus, on a grammatical level there are three different parties involved. In the rendering of GNB there are only two different subjects. This must be subject to scrutiny and doubt.
2.2. “So they looked for an opportunity” (Luke 20.20): The challenge of the logical object
Greek can use many verbs without objects where English would require an object. This forces a translator to decide what the object of a certain verb is. This seems a straightforward procedure. The “logical object” is implied in the verb and, therefore, easily supplied in translation to produce a complete sentence in a target language that requires an object. The identification of a logical object is, however, a task which may actually force the translator to decide among different possible objects. In this case such a decision will influence the perceived meaning of a text. It is quite possible that the Greek way of phrasing allows—by lack of an object—a multitude of different objects. And even the formally equivalent rendering (i.e., omission of the implied object in the target language) might not be the appropriate approach, since it could result in an incomplete sentence.
An example of this can be found in the Lukan version of the well-known question about paying taxes. GNB chooses to provide an object in a translation of Luke 20.20a that may change the narrative. The Greek text is Καὶ παρατηρήσαντες. GNB translates, “So they looked for an opportunity.” NIV has, “Keeping a close watch on him.” And CEV offers, “Jesus’ enemies kept watching him closely.” Comparing these three translations we can see that CEV introduces the notion of enmity most forcefully. Both CEV and NIV disambiguate the missing direct object by supplying a 3m.sg. personal pronoun. This is possible, but there are other possibilities.
Translation should take into consideration that Luke 20.19 describes an attempt to arrest Jesus: “The teachers of the Law and the chief priests tried to arrest Jesus on the spot, because they knew that he had told this parable against them; but they were afraid of the people” (GNB). GNB introduces a notion of calculation and cunning by choosing to interpret the act of observing in Luke 20.20 as “look for an opportunity.” In Luke 20.19, the information that the representatives of the Jews were afraid of the people could be understood to mean that these people came to Jesus’ aid and defended him. Thus, one could easily see “the people” the Jewish authorities were afraid of as the direct object of the verb παρατηρήσαντες. It appears that the fear is somewhat justified since those people were on the verge of taking up stones against the Jewish authorities (Luke 20.6).
This might be a small but again important change of the text. Commonly, the notion of deceitfulness and cunning can be deduced from the aforementioned translations. A different object reduces the Jewish authorities to persons who are justly afraid for their lives and, therefore, watch the entire situation, including the crowds, closely. Therefore, a meaning-based translation of the participle at the beginning of Luke 20.20 that avoids anti-Judaism would be “observing the dangerous situation.” One could—and should—add that the traditional translation choice for ἐγκάθετος used in KJV (“spy”) and rendered in GNB by the paraphrase “bribed some men” might also be overly interpretive of negative intent. The revised Luther translation (2017) uses “Leute” (people). This might be bland, but it is not anti-Jewish.
3. Translation choices of words or phrases
3.1. “You are not from God” (John 8.47): Ontology or decision?
Urban C. von Wahlde (2001, 444) comments concerning the entire passage of John 8.38-47, “The history of the interpretation of John 8.38-47 . . . is a painful and embarrassing history.” The wording of John 8.47 in GNB is, “He who comes from God listens to God’s words. You, however, are not from God, and that is why you will not listen.” The Greek text has, ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ῥήµατα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούει· διὰ τοῦτο ὑµεῖς οὐκ ἀκούετε, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστέ. The first thing to observe about the translation is that John 8.47b has changed place with John 8.47c. Further, the Greek copula (ὤν) has been translated with the verb “come” in John 8.47a. The combination of both translational decisions seems to indicate some kind of predestination. 15 This is further strengthened by the use of the future tense to render ἀκούετε.
Here one could ask whether the translation of εἰµὶ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ as “to come from God” introduces a notion of predestination which may—but also may not—be contained in this phrase. A comparison with other instances of εἰµὶ ἐκ indicates that the formulation does not necessarily point to an ontological relationship. The “girl at the gate” in John 18.17 poses the following question to Peter: µὴ καὶ σὺ ἐκ τῶν µαθητῶν εἶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τούτου; GNB translates, “Aren’t you also one of the disciples of that man?” The meaning of this question is whether Peter declares or denies his allegiance to Jesus by acknowledging to be a fellow disciple. He is challenged to declare himself “to belong to the disciples of this man.” In light of this observation, a meaning-based translation of John 8.47 may be, “To belong to God means to listen to God’s words. From this follows: You do not listen. Therefore, you put yourself at a distance from God.”
This translation would be in line with how theologians like John Chrysostom appear to understand such dialogues between Jesus and “the Jews” in John’s Gospel as calling “the Jews” and also their own constituency to a decision for God’s word. Readers might be able to understand that they are challenged by the translation proposed here. In contradistinction, the rendering chosen by GNB informs the reader that “the Jews” are outside Jesus’/God’s calling: “He who comes from God listens to God’s words. You, however, are not from God, and that is why you will not listen.” Other translations of John 8.47 also introduce a notion of rejection; KJV, for example, has: “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” CEV, also a meaning-based translation, reads as follows: “Anyone who belongs to God will listen to his message. But you refuse to listen, because you don’t belong to God.”
One can point to John 20.31a to suggest that the proposed translation of John 8.47 is in line with the overall intention of the text as expressed there: “But these have been written in order that you may believe” (GNB). This authorial comment in John’s Gospel appears to endorse the notion of a text challenging its readers. 16 In the proposed translation above, the communication with today’s readers would call them to faith in a way similar to the way Jesus calls his Jewish audience to faith. At the same time the translated text would lose some of its anti-Jewish edge (for the logical argument in John 8.47 see also Förster 2016).
3.2. “You cannot bear to listen to my message” (John 8.43): Inability or unwillingness?
John 8.43 also belongs to the passage mentioned in the quote from Urban von Wahlde above. The Greek text has, διὰ τί τὴν λαλιὰν τὴν ἐµὴν οὐ γινώσκετε; ὅτι οὐ δύνασθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐµόν. GNB translates this as, “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my message.” In its current wording GNB introduces a notion of rejection into Jesus’ words and adds the verb “bear” to the translation. Other translations translate the inability to hear without introducing such a strong notion. KJV has, “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.” However, this translation is rather nondescript 17 and close to unreadable for today’s readers, and would therefore not be used in a meaning-based translation. Other comparable translations are more vivid but also somewhat problematic as they deepen the abyss between Jesus and his Jewish audience in John’s Gospel. NIV suggests, “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.”
It is worth turning to Greek semantics. The Greek word δύναµαι is first and foremost concerned with an ability (or negated, an inability) to do something. It can, according to LSJ, also have the meaning of a “moral possibility.” In such a case it is to be translated as “to be able, dare, bear to do a thing.” Negative statements in particular express such moral possibilities, according to LSJ. Based on the semantic possibilities of δύναµαι, a possible meaning-based rendering of John 8.43 is, “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you do not dare to listen to my message.” This would be in line with a topic recurrent in John’s Gospel: People do not dare to declare themselves as followers of Jesus. 18 This translation of John 8.43 is interpretive in that it again takes up the declared intention of the text (as quoted above from John 20.31) as the recurring theme. In the narrative world Jesus calls his audience to task. Today’s reader of this translation is addressed at the same time and called to decide about his or her relationship to Jesus’ words.
Another possibility of translating John 8.43 can be suggested if it is compared to 2 Cor 11.11: διὰ τί; ὅτι οὐκ ἀγαπῶ ὑµᾶς; ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν. It is apparent that the clause introduced with ὅτι constitutes part of a question if placed after a question. GNB translates this as “Do I say this because I don’t love you? God knows I love you!” It appears that CEV has taken 2 Cor 11.11 as model. CEV, which adheres to similar principles as those of GNB, offers, “Why can’t you understand what I am talking about? Can’t you stand to hear what I am saying?” This again introduces a notion of friction and tension between Jesus and his audience. One is tempted to slightly rephrase CEV’s translation of John 8.43 thus: “Why can’t you understand what I am talking about? Can’t you hear what I am saying?” This is a possible rendering of the source text. The difference in meaning is apparent. It presupposes a different situation: Jesus talks to a large crowd and uses what rhetoric would call a captatio benevolentiae suggesting that Jesus just states that the limitations of the human voice in light of a large crowd in an open space might prevent the audience from understanding what is said. “A person could well raise the objection here . . . ‘What a pointless thing to say!’ Well, maybe, but in fact we often state the obvious as part of normal speech conventions” (McKerras 2010, 93). There are different possible meaning-based translations of John 8.43. It might be more appropriate for “Good News” to have Jesus state “the obvious” than to have him reject “the Jews.”
4. Conclusion
The examples have shown that Umberto Eco’s observation is of pivotal importance for meaning-based translations: The translator has to decide what the “deep meaning” of a text is. In the case of the Gospels, translators face the decision whether to side with a translation that emphasizes a strong and antagonistic exchange between Jesus and his Jewish opponents on the one hand—a translational choice often supported by exegetical arguments and in line with a trajectory of increasing anti-Judaism in Western culture since the beginning of Christianity (cf. Chazan 2016)—and a translation in which Jesus challenges his Jewish audience and especially the representatives of the Jewish authorities to respond to his message. Hill suggests translators face here a decision based on variables that the translator cannot know (2009, 105): “Due to the fact that the biblical author and the first audience are no longer available, we can’t know the meaning of the text, the intended context or the author’s intended meaning with one hundred percent certainty.” Persons at least close to what the original readers were—Greek-speaking theologians from the first five centuries of Christianity—seem to suggest that less anti-Judaism in translation might be in line with how they understood the text.
One could further point to reception history to make a moral argument for translation decisions that avoid overtly anti-Jewish semantics. It has been observed that “Nazis used the Fourth Gospel as ‘a favourite text-book of anti-Jewish propaganda’” (Kierspel 2006, 8, quoting Evelyn 1938, 419). This alone should challenge translators to be especially careful concerning translation choices introducing notions that may reinforce anti-Judaism. Equally important, however, is the question whether the semantics of the Greek text make a meaning-based translation avoiding anti-Judaism possible.
Thus, Hewson’s comments might hold true for today’s understanding of John’s depiction of the relationship between Jesus and “the Jews”: “Translations are fundamentally unpredictable texts that may embody interpretations that the critic has simply failed to foresee” (2011, 52). It is virtually certain that the perceived anti-Judaism of many passages of the Gospels was not the intention that led to the composition of these texts and not the meaning intended to be transmitted by these texts. It is probable—especially in light of passages like John 20.31—that the main intention of these texts is to engage the readers and to incite a discussion about Jesus and the meaning of his ministry. When there is a range of semantically possible translation choices, one should side with a translation that engages today’s readers over a translation that has Jesus outright rejecting his Jewish audience.
We can conclude, with Stanley Porter, “The question instead is whether the translation captures the content of the message in the source language and communicates it effectively to the receptor—even if it means that some of the features of the source language must be abandoned as one finds suitable equivalents in meaning in the receptor language” (2005, 10). In light of this, I suggest that there are instances where Greek semantics makes it possible to exchange the notion of rejection for a notion of challenge or the statement of the obvious. It may be that a number of notions are implied in the source language, but most target languages make it necessary to side with one notion. Reception history has sided with the notion of rejection in the examples quoted above. This transforms these passages into historical descriptions of the interaction between Jesus and his audience within the narrative world. The notion of challenge addresses both Jesus’ audience in the narrative world and the actual reader of the text. This is a line of enquiry worth exploring for the entire New Testament translation of GNB and other translations. Meaning-based translations are more open to translation choices that are in accordance with Greek semantics and open venues for understanding the text in new or different ways. 19 Thus, starting an evaluation of possible anti-Jewish translation choices with one of the most important meaning-based translations is easier than starting with traditional translations whose wording is often deeply ingrained in culture and society.
Footnotes
Notes
Abbreviations
ASV American Standard Version (1901)
CEV Contemporary English Version (1999)
DRA Douay–Rheims American Edition (1899)
ESV English Standard Version (2001)
GNB Good News Bible (1992)
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible (2010)
KJV King James Version (1611)
LSJ Liddell, Scott, and Jones 1996 (in References)
NA28 Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition (2012)
NIV New International Version (1978)
NLT New Living Translation (1996)
NRSV New Revised Standard Version (1989)
RSV Revised Standard Version (1952)