Month: February 2014

Christoph Markschies on the need to differentiate between various institutional contexts and levels of instruction in relation to “majority Church” and “gnostic” teachers

Posted by

2

In addition to my normal “German Mondays” blog post, I have decided to include a bonus post pertaining to the commendably cordial dispute between Larry Hurtado and April DeConick about whether or not it is appropriate to refer to ancient “gnostic” Christians as “intellectuals” (see Hurtado1, DeConick1, Hurtado2; cf. M.Bird, J. Calaway; J. McGrath; Philip L. Tite). My post will be based around a “key quotation” from my current BMSEC translation project (forthcoming 2015), namely Christoph Markschies’ 2007 book Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen. As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text.

Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire (wmc): “It appears to me, as I have already frequently intimated, that such a differentiation of the various institutions and educational levels of the higher instruction is also of great significance for the history of Christian theology in the second and third centuries. This is the case because for these two centuries we know of both Christian teachers who taught more at the level of a salon philosopher or a popular philosopher with only moderate knowledge of the contemporary professional philosophy and very learned theologians whose philosophical  level of education certainly invites comparison with professional philosophers. As an example of a philosophical instruction that probably corresponds more to that of the salon or popular philosophers, I wish to name at this point the Roman apologist Justin, and as an example of an educational level that corresponds more to that of a professional philosopher, Origen. Finally, one could, in addition, envisage Valentinian Gnosis/Gnosticism as a movement that oscillates in a quite peculiar way between these two levels: some of its representatives, such as, for example, the Roman teacher Ptolemaeus, oriented themselves at a professional philosophical level, whereas many followers are only located at the level of a salon philosopher or even lower.”

Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen (p. 88): Mir scheint, wie bereits mehrfach angedeutet, daß eine solche Differenzierung der verschiedenen Institutionen und Bildungsniveaus des höheren Unterrichts auch für die Geschichte der christlichen Theologie des zweiten und dritten Jahrhunderts von großer Bedeutung ist. Denn wir kennen für diese beiden Jahrhunderte sowohl  christliche Lehrer, die eher auf dem Niveau eines Salon- oder Popularphilosophen mit lediglich mäßigen Kenntnissen der zeitgenössischen Fachphilosophie unterrichten, als auch hochgelehrte Theologen, derer philosophisches Bildungsniveau durchaus den Vergleich mit Fachphilosophen nahelegt. Als beispiel eines philosophischen Unterrichts, der wahrscheinlich eher dem der Salon- oder Popularphilosophen entspricht, möchte ich an dieser Stelle den römischen Apologeten Justin nennen, als Beispiel für ein Bildungsniveau, das eher dem eines Fachphilosophen entspricht, Origenes. Schließlich könnte man noch die valentianische Gnosis als eine Bewegung vorstellen, die in ganz merkwürdiger Weise zwischen diesen beiden Niveaus oszilliert: Einzelne ihrer Vertreter wie beispielweise der römische Lehrer Ptolemaeus orientieren sich am fachphilosophischen Niveau, viele Anhänger befinden sich dagegen lediglich auf dem Niveau von Salonphilosophen oder sogar noch darunter.

(Selective) grammatical commentary: the translation of “Gnosis” is difficult since the use of this term is one way that German authors leave room for debate around whether it is proper to speak of “Gnosticism”. Accordingly, I have written Gnosis/Gnosticism here to flag up this issue. I have translated “Denn wir kennen” as “This is because” rather than “For” so that it would be a proper sentence in English. I’m not sure if the force of “merkwürdiger” is best captured by “peculiar”, “strange”, or “noteworthy”.

Substantive commentary: This post obviously does not intend to address the many important questions that have been raised in the discussion between Larry Hurtado and April DeConick, for example the question of whether the term “intellectuals” simply conveys a certain level of education or whether it is also bound up with certain forms of argumentation or with the public nature of such argumentation. Instead, this post merely seeks to highlight one of Christoph Markschies’ emphases that I think needs to be kept in mind when thinking through the question of whether or not is appropriate to speak of “majority church” or “gnostic” intellectuals, namely the fact that we must attempt to differentiate between various institutional contexts and educational levels in relation to both “majority church” teachers and “gnostic” teachers.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

(Re)configuring Judaism with Paul, Joel Willitts, and Jochen Flebbe

Posted by

1

One of the best things about the Annual SBL Meeting is that it gives one the chance to reconnect with old friends from one’s graduate studies, not only because of the rich personal dimension of such friendships, but also because of the extent to which they carry within them an extended history of meaningful discussions about shared topics of interest in the field. Against this background, it was not surprising to me that when I met up with Joel Willitts in Baltimore, our conversation shifted effortlessly from personal matters to research interests, which is not to say that the two are clearly demarcated (cf. Joel’s comparable description of his conversation with Jonathan Pennington at this same conference). Among other things, our conversation reminded me of Joel’s series of provocative blog posts on whether it is more appropriate to say that Paul “configured” Judaism rather than saying that he “reconfigured” it (see here and here; see also rosh pina project). And speaking with Joel about this question, reminded me, in turn, of a key statement on Paul’s relationship to Judaism in Jochen Flebbe’s impressive work Solus Deus: Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gott im Brief des Paulus an die Römer, which I reviewed for RBL in 2010 (see here). So for this blog post I will use Flebbe’s statement as my “model sentence”. As usual, I will begin with the English translation so that the grammatical commentary directly follows the German text.

English translation (wmc): “Thus, the alleged/supposed new determinations/specifications can be placed in a framework of scripture and tradition within which they can/must be understood in part as pointed emphases and radicalizations. This judgment owes itself in large part to a changed perspective on ancient Judaism, which should not be viewed, also against more recent opinions to the contrary such as those of P.-G. Klumbies and S.J. Gathercole, as a monolithic block, but rather (must be viewed) in great differentiation as an extremely plural and varied entity that provides/supplies both convictions of diametrical opposition and convictions of astonishing closeness/proximity in relation to the Pauline statements, so that Paul can be placed/located/situated/integrated in this polyphone concert as a pointed voice.”

Solus Deus (pp. 446-447): „Die vermeintlichen Neubestimmungen lassen sich also in einem Rahmen von Schrift und Tradition einordnen, innerhalb dessen sie zum Teil als Pointierungen und Radikalisierungen zu verstehen sind. Diese Beurteiling verdankt sich zu einem großen Teil einem veränderten Blick auf das antike Judentum, das entgegen auch neuerer, anderslautender Meinungen wie der von P.-G. Klumbies und S.J. Gathercole nicht als ein monolithischer Block zu sehen ist, sondern in großer Differenzierung als eine ungeheuer plurale und vielfältige Größe, welche sowohl Überzeugungen diametralen Widerspruchs als auch solche von frappierender Nähe im Hinblick auf die paulinischen Aussagen liefert, so dass Paulus als eine pointierte Stimme in dieses polyphone Konzert eingeordnet werden kann.“ (cf. pp. 17-18, 40, 47, 59, 126n. 251, 176n48, 192, 194-205, 207n148, 298-300, 308-16, 354, 398, 433-35, 446-447; and note that Flebbe explains his use of the shorthand phrase “Schrift und Tradition” on p. 18)

Grammatical Analysis:

1) „Die vermeintlichen Neubestimmungen lassen sich also in einem Rahmen von Schrift und Tradition einordnen, innerhalb dessen sie zum Teil als Pointierungen und Radikalisierungen zu verstehen sind.“

The subject is “die Neubestimmungen”, which is modified by the adjective “vermeintlich” (= supposed/alleged). I generally translate “lassen sich + infinitve” as “can be x-ed” (here: can be placed). “also” is often best rendered as “thus”, which I often move forward to the beginning of the sentence. Rahmen = framework. Zum Teil can often be rendered as partly, in part, or to some extent (often abbreviated as z.T.) “sind zu verstehen” becomes “zu verstehen sind” because it is a subordinate clause (verb always goes to the end). Though this construction can sometimes be rendered woodenly as “are to understand” (or the like) it is usually better to adopt a solution such as “must be understood”, “has to be understood” or “should be understood”, perhaps even “can be understood” (not sure about this point, i.e, whether it can be translated as “can”). The translation of “Pointierungen” is difficult – the wooden “pointings” or the freer “intensifications” might be viable options, but I have gone with “pointed emphases”.

2a) Diese Beurteiling verdankt sich zu einem großen Teil einem veränderten Blick auf das antike Judentum, das entgegen auch neuerer, anderslautender Meinungen wie der von P.-G. Klumbies und S.J. Gathercole nicht als ein monolithischer Block zu sehen ist, sondern in großer Differenzierung als eine ungeheuer plurale und vielfältige Größe, welche…

“The subject of the second sentence is “Diese Beurteilung”/This judgment/evaluation. “Verdankt sich zu + dative” can sometimes be rendered as “is due to” or “can be attributed to”, but I think the wooden “owes itself … to” may be better here. The past participle “verändert” has the force of “changed” or “altered”. Here “Blick auf + acc” can be rendered “perspective on” or “view of”, with “das Judentum/Judaism” being dependent upon “auf”. “das” introduces a subordinate clause, which causes the verb phrase “zu sehen ist” to go to the end of the sentence. I have rendered it as “should be viewed” (cf. “sind zu verstehen” above) since “must” could be misunderstood in the sense of “does not have to be” rather than “is not to be” or “should not be”). Its meaning is complemented with the phrase “als ein monolithischer Block”/”as a monolithic block”. It is difficult to translate the word “auch” here – it conveys the force of not only against earlier positions but also against newer positions. It is often best to translate the comparative “neuerer” as “recent” rather than as “more recent” as I have done here. Meinungen, and thus the adjective “neuerer” and the “participle “anderslautender”, is in the dative because it is governed by entgegen = against or contra, “wie der” means “such as those of” – here the dative plural article is short for “der Meinungen”. After “sondern/but” one may supply “es ist zu sehen”/”it must be viewed” which is complemented by “als eine ungeheurer plurale und vielfältige Größe”/as an extremely plural and varied entity”. The construction in 2a-2b is “nicht … als … sondern … als. The very strong word “ungeheuer” could be rendered with “immensely” or “terribly” but I have selected the weaker “extremely” for the sake of readability. The viewing in question is modified by the prepositional phrase “in großer Differenzierung”/in great differentiation.

2b) …, welche sowohl Überzeugungen diametralen Widerspruchs als auch solche von frappierender Nähe im Hinblick auf die paulinischen Aussagen liefert, so dass Paulus als eine pointierte Stimme in dieses polyphone Konzert eingeordnet werden kann.“

The character of the entity in question is then specified with the indefinite pronoun “welche”/which. It is feminine singular because it looks back to Größe and nominative because it is the subject of the verb “liefert” (which goes to the end of the sentence in a subordinate clause). Sowohl … als auch has the force of “both … and”. “Überzeugungen” and “solche (Überzeugungen)” are the direct objects of the verb “liefert”. The –s that has been added to Widerspruch lets you know that this is in the genitive (it is modified by diametralen). The force of the genitive here is comparable with the force of “von … Nähe” in what follows. “im Hinblick auf” has the force of “with respect to” or “in relation to”. It could be better to translate this entire segment more freely as “which provides/supplies both convictions that are diametrically opposed to the Pauline statements and convictions that are astonishingly close to them.” “so dass” has the force of “so that” or “with the result that”. The verb “can be placed” goes to the end of the sentence. It is hard to capture the fuller meaning of “eingeordnet”, which has the sense of “ordered into” or “classified into”. Here “pointierte” can probably be rendered as “pointed”, “sharp“, or perhaps “intensified”. “dieses polyphone Konzert” is in the accusative with “in” here. The fact that he uses the dative in the first sentence and the accusative here could suggest that this segment should be translated as “integrated into” (or the like).

Substantive Analysis:

This post is already far too long, so I will forgo a substantive analysis today, other than noting that I doubt Simon Gathercole would be satisfied with Flebbe’s description of his presentation of Judaism, and to add that it would be interesting to compare what Flebbe says in this statement to what Joel says about John Barclay’s discussion of grace in early Judaism and Paul here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Jens Schröter on the character of every historical (re)presentation – with special guests Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne

Posted by

2

I was somewhat amused to see that Chris Keith stole my thunder on Friday by concluding his blog post on Jens Schröter with the same quotation that I had selected for this week’s blog post. But hopefully, this is more a case of “great minds think alike” than “Zwei Dumme, ein Gedanke”.

Like my other Schröter posts on historiography, today’s “key quotation” deals with the relationship between historiography and New Testament scholarship. It is taken from Jens Schröter’s discussion of “the historicity of the Gospels” in From Jesus to the New Testament.

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text. As a way of illustrating the different ways that a passage can be translated, I will include both Anthony Le Donne’s earlier translation of this passage in The Historiographical Jesus (thunder stolen once again) and my own translation in From Jesus to the New Testament.

The Historiographical Jesus, p. 75: “If every historical construction represents the relationship between event and story (even those that are written within the rubric of the historical-critical consciousness) then a contemporary portrait of Jesus cannot simply set aside the narrative representations of the person of Jesus in the Gospels. On the contrary, this portrait has to be related to these representations and be reconstructed within the rubric of contemporary epistemology. The outcome is not the ‘real’ Jesus behind the Gospels. The outcome is a historical construction which claims to be plausible within the rubric of contemporary epistemology.”

From Jesus to the New Testament, pp. 131-132: “If, however, every historical presentation presents a combination of event and narrative, including the kind that is composed under the conditions of the historical-critical consciousness, then a present-day Jesus presentation also cannot simply disregard the narrative representations of the person of Jesus in the Gospels. Instead, it has to orient itself to them and put them together anew under today’s conditions of knowledge. The result is not the ‘real’ Jesus behind the Gospels. The result is a historical presentation that claims to be plausible under current conditions of knowledge.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, 146: “Stellt jedoch jede historische Darstellung eine Verbindung von Ereignis und Erzählung dar, auch eine solche, die unter den Bedingungen des historisch-kritischen Bewusstseins verfasst wird, dann kann auch eine gegenwärtige Jesusdarstellung die narrative Repräsentationen der Person Jesu in den Evangelien nicht einfach beiseite stellen. Sie hat sich stattdessen an diesen zu orientieren und sie unter heutigen Erkenntnisbedingungen neu zusammenzusetzen. Das Ergebnis ist nicht der ‚wirkliche‘ Jesus hinter den Evangelien. Das Ergebnis ist eine historische Darstellung, die den Anspruch erhebt, unter gegenwärtigen Erkenntnisbedingungen plausibel zu sein.“

Selective Grammatical Commentary: Although I have translated “Darstellung” as “presentation”, it could also be rendered as “representation”, “portrayal” or “portrait” (Le Donne’s “construction” is more free, but I think it accurately unpacks what Schröter is saying). Here, I think it may be preferable to render Darstellung as “presentation” or “portrayal” so that it can be distinguished from Schröter’s subsequent use of “Repräsentationen”/representations. Similarly, “Verbindung” could also be translated as “linking” or “connection” rather than “combination” (Anthony’s “relationship” is also possible). The fact that the sentence begins with the verb “stellt … dar” followed by a subsequent “dann”, lets the reader know that we are dealing with an “if … then” construction. Anthony’s translation of “beiseite stellen” as “set aside” may well be preferable to my choice of “disregard”. As usual the verbs “verfasst wird” and “erhebt” are pushed to the end of the subordinate clauses in which they appear. I think that Anthony’s translation of “Ergebnis” as “outcome” is probably preferable to my choice of “result”. Although I prefer the word “contemporary” (Anthony) to “current” or “present-day”, I tend to avoid it since there is sometimes ambiguity about whether one means contemporary with the ancient or modern situation. I remain uncertain about Anthony’s translation of “unter den Bedingungen des historisch-kritischen Bewusstseins” as “within the rubric of the historical-critical consciousness” and “unter gegenwärtigen Erkenntnisbedingungen” as “within the rubric of contemporary epistemology”, but this may well represent an improvement on my rather wooden translation of these phrases.

Substantive Analysis: In this quotation Schröter makes clear that both past and present-day historical presentations of Jesus involve a combination/linking of event and narrative. In other words, past and present historical portrayals do NOT differ in this respect, but rather in the conditions of knowledge under which they are composed. On the basis of this view of the nature of all historical presentations/portrayals/representations, Schröter then argues against the practice of disregarding/setting aside the narrative representations of the person of Jesus in the Gospels and for an approach that takes its orientation from these portrayals, with the goal of putting them together anew under the respectively current conditions of knowledge. Against this backdrop, it would be interesting for me to hear more about the extent to which Schröter thinks that the presentations of Jesus in the Gospels could (or should) play a role in shaping present-day conditions of knowledge. I also think that it would be interesting to compare Schröter’s approach with that of Udo Schnelle, another German giant who has attempted to appropriate recent research on the theory of history into his scholarship (e.g., Theology of the New Testament and  Apostle Paul). So perhaps this could be a good paper topic for some ambitious young graduate student.

For a complete list of my Schröterposts, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For three interviews with me about the BMSEC series, see here, here, and here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

 

Gerd Theissen on Evil and the Aporia of the Theodicy Problem

Posted by

3

Being relatively new to the blogosphere, I have been enjoying the way that a diverse range of blog posts have been exposing me to new ideas and reminding me of things that I had nearly forgotten. For example, Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne’s announcements of an upcoming Conference on Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Earl Christianity at St. Mary’s University turned my thoughts to Gerd Theissen’s characteristically insightful reflections on evil and theodicy in his 2007 book Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen: eine Psychologie des Urchristentums (Experience and Behavior of the first Christians: A Psychology of Primitive Christianity), which I reviewed here for RBL.

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the grammatical commentary directly follows upon the German passage.

English Translation (WMC): “We have seen that the theodicy question leads to varying causal attributions of evil to God, Satan, and human beings. It is always ‘causal factors’ that are filled out as roles with subjects that are equipped with intentionality and interactivity.  We found the key to overcoming the problem of theodicy in the Christ figure, the central role offering of primitive Christianity. It [the Christ figure] makes possible a communitarian theodicy:  because God, as God who became human, suffers in Christ, the human being is reconciled with his/her suffering and stands in community/fellowship with God even in suffering. Because God acts as a human subject in Christ, the human being is strengthened in his/her responsibility and not crushed by God’s almightiness.

Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen (p. 326): “Wir haben gesehen: Die Theodizeefrage führt zu wechselnden Kausalattributionen des Bösen an Gott, den Satan und den Menschen. Immer sind es ‘Kausalfaktoren’, die als Rollen mit Subjekten ausgefüllt werden, die über Intentionalität und Interaktivität verfügen. Den Schlüssel zur Bewältigung des Theodizeeproblems fanden wir in der Christusgestalt, dem zentralen Rollenangebot des Urchristentums. Sie ermöglicht eine kommunitäre Theodizee: Weil Gott als menschgewordener Gott in Christus leidet, wird der Mensch mit seinem Leid versöhnt und steht auch im Leid in Gemeinschaft mit Gott. Weil Gott in Christus als ein menschliches Subjekt handelt, wird der Mensch in seiner Verantwortung gestärkt und nicht von Gottes Allmacht erdrückt.“

Selective grammatical commentary: I am uncertain whether the force of “wechselnden“ is alternating, changing, or varying in this context. Thanks to Laura Hunt for alerting me to the fact that I had incorrectly translated “Immer sind es” as “they are always”. It should, I think, be translated “It is always”. The translation of “über … verfügen” is difficult: the sense seemed to be “equipped with” but “have power/control over”, “dispose over”, or “have … at their disposition” could be better. I have discussed my reasons for translating “Urchristentum” as “primitive Christianity” here.  I am very uncertain about the translation of kommunitäre, since I think that this is also a loaded word in German. Is “communitarian” on target or should a less loaded translation such as “community” or “communal” be adopted? I am also uncertain about the word order for the translation of “Weil Gott als menschgewordener Gott in Christus leidet”, but it seems to me that “in Christus” is more closely linked with “leidet” rather than with “menschgewordener Gott”. Though menchgewordener can often be translated as “incarnate”, it seemed preferable to retain the literal meaning of “having become human” here. I have written his/her to reflect the fact that der Mensch encompasses both men and women, but this solution might be too awkward for a published translation. And I have translated “auch” as “even”, though “also” might be preferable. I remain very uncertain about the best word order for the translation “Weil Gott in Christus als ein menschliches Subjekt handelt”. I have translated Allmacht as “almightiness”, though “omnipotence” could be better.

Substantive analysis: I have selected this paragraph as today’s “key quotation” both because I think that it is an attractive attempt to approach the topic of evil, suffering, agency, and theodicy from the perspective of an early Christian understanding of the person of Jesus Christ and because I think that Theissen’s broader discussion of evil and the aporia of the theodicy problem in this chapter is one of the more learned, sophisticated, and insightful attempts to investigate the ways in which this subject area was grappled with within early Judaism and early Christianity. Hence, I hope that my readers will not only find this quotation helpful, but that it will also direct you to Theissen’s larger discussion of this topic.

Links to some other blog posts relating to Gerd Theissen: Anthony Le Donne,  Johnny Walker, Jeremy Cushmann, Tim Henderson, Larry Hurtado, Jonathan Clatworthy, Diglotting, Matt J. Rossano, Michael Kok, Tanner Gish, Michael Kruger, Neil Godfrey, Michael Barber, Nijay Gupta

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

 

Dietrich-Alex Koch on Paul’s Use of the LXX and Vorpaulinische Septuagintarezensionen

Posted by

2

As a way of properly marking February 8th as “International Septuagint Day”, I have decided to supplement my usual Monday blog post with a bonus post devoted to a key work from the field of Septuagint Studies, namely Dietrich-Alex Koch’s 1986 book Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums.

Today’s post will also introduce a new category entitled “key quotations”, which will involve key passages that are slightly longer than “model sentences” and thus only include a selective grammatical commentary.

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the grammatical commentary directly follows upon the German passage.

English Translation (WMC): “Even if Paul fundamentally presupposes the Greek translation of Scripture designated as ‘Septuagint’, it has nevertheless always presented difficulties to derive all the quotations from this translation. Multiple Isaiah quotations and the two Job quotations of Paul are not taken from the LXX; they are much closer to the MT and in part also show clear correspondences/agreements with the (later!) translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. This simultaneously points to the fact/view/conclusion that Paul does not independently reach back to the Hebrew wording here, but rather in these passages he uses a Vorlage/existing text that has been adjusted to/made close to the Hebrew text.” Note 3: “The view that in these passages Paul reached back directly to the Hebrew Text and provided an independent translation is scarcely advocated any longer. An exception is Ellis, Use 15, 19-20, 139-141; on this see p. 80 below.”

Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums, p. 57: „Auch wenn Paulus grundsätzlich die als >Septuaginta<  bezeichnete griechische Übersetzung der Schrift voraussetzt, hat es doch immer Schwierigkeiten bereitet, sämtliche Zitate von dieser Übersetzung herzuleiten. Mehrere Jes-Zitate und die beiden Hiob-Zitate des Paulus sind nicht der LXX entnommen; sie stehen dem MT wesentlich näher und zeigen z.T. auch deutliche Übereinstimmungen mit den (späteren!) Übersetzungen von Aquila, Symmachus und Theodotion. Dies weist zugleich darauf hin, daß Paulus hier nicht eigenständig auf den hebräischen Wortlaut der Schrift zurückgreift, sondern an diesen Stellen eine dem HT angenäherte Vorlage verwendet.“ FN 3: „Die Ansicht daß Pls in diesen Fällen direkt auf den HT zurückgreift und eine selbständige Übersetzung bietet, wird kaum noch vertreten. Eine Ausnahme bildet Ellis, Use 15.19f.139-141; dazu s.u. S. 80.“

Selective Grammatical Commentary: die Übersetzung is modified by “als >Septuaginta<  bezeichnete” and by “griechische”. In such cases, it is usually best to relocate one of the modifiers in English. “bezeichnen als” is usually best translated as “designate as” but “refer to” is sometimes better. It could be preferable to translate “Schwierigkeiten bereiten” more freely as “created difficulties” or even more freely as “been difficult”. While one could translate “stehen” in a wooden manner as “they stand much closer”, it is often better to translate this German idiom as they “are” much closer. It is always difficult to translate z.T. (zum Teil). I have rendered it literally as “in part” but “sometimes” or “in some cases” might be preferable. “darauf hin, dass”/“to this, that” needs to be filled out either as “to the fact that” or “to the view that” or “to the conclusion that”. zurückgreift could perhaps also be translated as “go back to” or “make recourse to” or even “draw on”. Translators usually allow themselves the luxury of leaving the technical term “Vorlage” untranslated: here it refers to an already-existing Greek version that Paul is using. It is difficult to capture the force of angenäherte – a free translation such as “adjusted to” or “conformed to” is probably preferable to a wooden translation such as “made near to” or “approximated to”.

Substantive analysis: while I remain somewhat puzzled/surprised (and I acknowledge that this may simply be due to my inadequate knowledge of the full extent and nature of the relevant data) by the confidence with which some (Septuagint) scholars appear to suggest/presuppose that Paul and other New Testament writers could never have (also) independently interacted with Hebrew versions of the scriptures in oral or written form (how could we know this, at least for those authors who may well have known  Hebrew?), I think that Koch and others have made a valuable contribution in stressing that in any given case it is at least equally likely and perhaps even more likely that a given New Testament author was making use of an alternative Greek version that had been adjusted to a Hebrew text, especially when there are resemblances to known Greek versions. In other words, I certainly think that these scholars have swung the pendulum in the right direction, even if I remain somewhat skeptical towards what I perceive as a certain dogmatism on this point.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

 

 

On preserving the distinction between bewahren and bewähren when tested: A note on the translation of Ernst Käsemann’s book On Being a Disciple of the Crucified Nazarene

Posted by

0

Since this post will focus on an issue of translation pertaining to the work of Ernst Käsemann, let me precede the blog post proper with some links to other material pertaining to Käsemann’s life and thought (see here).

The gist of this blog post is simple: readers and translators of German texts must take care not to confuse the similar words “bewahren” and “bewähren”, since confusing these two terms can result in a significant shift of meaning. The two words can be defined as follows:

bewahren: According to dict.cc: “to preserve, to retain, to conserve, to enshrine [fig.], to safeguard, to save, to husband”. According to Linguee: “preserve, keep, retain, save, perpetuate, screen (from), enshrine, conserve”.

(sich) bewähren: According to dict.cc: “to prove oneself, to stand the test”. According to Linguee: “stand the test”, “prove”.

In order to develop the importance of this point, let me develop it further in relation to my interaction with the translation of Ernst Käsemann’s posthumously published essays.

The process of writing my 2011 RBL Review of Ernst Käsemann’s book On Being a Disciple of the Crucified Nazarene played an extremely important role in the development of my thinking. In short, it both confirmed and sharpened my conviction that “Every decent theology was, is, and will be a theology of liberation” (Ernst Käsemann; cf. Bob Dylan’s great song Blowin’ in the Wind). As often before, Käsemann helped to shake me from my theological slumber and for this I remain deeply grateful to him and to the editors (Rudolf Landau and Wolfgang Kraus) and translator (Roy A. Harrisville) of this volume.

Prior to reviewing Käsemann’s work, I had greatly benefited from David Way’s 1991 book The Lordship of Christ. Ernst Käsemann’s Interpretation of Paul’s Theology, as well as from John Barclay’s 1994 review of this work in Scottish Journal of Theology (Volume 47, Issue 3). With respect to Way’s monograph, I would want to affirm the validity of John Barclay’s criticisms, while placing greater emphasis than Barclay on the abiding strengths and value of this work. Among other things, David Way alerted me to the significance of Ernst Käsemann’s use of “bewähren”. In Way’s words (p. 147n.63; cf. 164 n. 87): “Käsemann’s repeated use of bewähren expresses his understanding of the connection between, on the one hand, the doctrine of justification and, on the other, Christian life and ethics: Christians are not called to do ‘works’ which might be held to earn salvation; nor, however, are they to remain inactive. By service and discipleship, they authenticate, verify, prove, or confirm that they have been transferred to a new lordship” (my emphasis).

Though it is difficult to be certain, I think it was this observation in Way’s book that alerted me to an uncharacteristic slip in Roy Harrisville’s otherwise excellent translation of In der Nachfolge des gekreuzigten Nazareners. In short, while reading the English translation I came across a number of sentences where it seemed to me that the German word “bewahren” lay behind the translation, but where I wondered if the word bewähren may have been present in the German edition. Fortunately, it proved possible to investigate and confirm this hypothesis, and I have attempted to document these findings at the end of my RBL Review.

While this observation may seem minor or trivial to some, for me it has a twofold significance. First, it represents a modest contribution to the study of Ernst Käsemann, since it alerts readers of the English version to a mistake that inadvertently introduced an emphasis on “preservation” that is not characteristic of Käsemann, while simultaneously drawing our attention to one of Käsemann’s more noteworthy emphases, namely his stress on the need for Christians to authenticate, verify, prove or confirm their transfer (and current allegiance) to a new lordship. (As indicated by my addition of the words “and current allegiance”, I wonder if Way’s formulation may be too exclusively backward looking in relation to Käsemann’s viewpoint). Secondly, the fact that a gifted and accomplished translator such as Roy Harrisville appears to have inadvertently mixed up these two terms, reminds the rest of us to remain especially vigilant in our efforts to keep these words distinct.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.