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.

 

 

Urchristentum, Primitive Christianity, and Early Christianity

Posted by

0

In the first post of this blog, I discussed my reasons for translating Wissenschaft/wissenschaftlich as “science/scientific” in my 2013 translation of From Jesus to the New Testament and as “scholarship/scholarly” in my forthcoming translation (with Brian Pounds) of Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee—Savior of the World, both by Jens Schröter. While it is possible that I will continue to vary my translation of this term on a case by case basis, I think that I will most likely make a general shift in the direction of “scholarship/scholarly” in future translations, i.e., toward a translation that gives greater priority to the conventional language pattern of the target language. In this post, by contrast, I will discuss a case in which my thinking has moved in the opposite direction.

From the very first time that I read German works in translation it had annoyed me to read the words “primitive Christianity”. In short, the negative connotations of “primitive” always struck me as problematic and unnecessary. Accordingly, I never seriously considered employing these words as a translation for “Urchristentum” in my translation of From Jesus to the New Testament. Instead, my initial plan was to translate this phrase as “earliest Christianity”, which would allow me to maintain a distinction between “Urchristentum” and “Frühchristentum”. Upon further consideration, however, I settled on “early Christianity” for both terms, regarding the desire to maintain a distinction between them as less important than the priority of readability. While this approach seemed quite sensible at the time, I have subsequently changed my mind for two reasons. In fact, against my earlier inclinations I have decided to translate Urchristentum as “primitive Christianity”. What changed my mind?

First, I came across John Bowden’s translator’s note at the beginning of his translation of Gerd Theissen’s work Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie der urchristlichen Religion (2000/2009), which was published by SCM as A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion (1999) and by Fortress Press as The Religion of the Earliest Churches: Creating a Symbolic World (1999). Bowden’s note convinced me that the meaning of “Urchristentum” was not adequately conveyed with translations such as “early Christianity”, “earliest Christianity”, or “nascent Christianity”. This note reads as follows:

“One aspect of this translation calls for comment, namely the way in which I have chosen to render the words Urchristentum and urchristlich which occur so often in this book. I recognize that many New Testament scholars regard ‘primitive’ as a ‘taboo’ adjective to apply to Christianity. However, I have discussed the question at length with friends who are expert in this field, both in Britain and in Germany, and they have confirmed me in the conviction that there is no other possible translation. ‘Ur-‘ does not mean ‘early’ or ‘earliest’ or ‘nascent’ or ‘in the making’, even if such terms are commonly used. It is a far richer term. ‘Primitive may not be the ideal rendering, but I hope that readers will agree that it does the job effectively.”

(For my own memories of John Bowden’s advice for translators, see here)

Secondly, a passage from my current BMSEC translation project, namely Christoph Markschies’ book Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen (Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire) strengthened my conviction that it was necessary for the translator to maintain a clear distinction between “Urchristentum/primitive Christianity” and “Frühchristentum/early Christianity”. In short, through Markschies’ work I became aware of the fact that there has been extensive discussion within German scholarship about the connotations and appropriateness of the term Urchristentum, with some scholars arguing that this term should be  replaced by alternatives such as or “Frühchristentum/early Christianity” (S. Alkier) or “frühe Christentümer/early Christianities” (F. Vouga). Markschies himself contributes especially to the question of whether it is preferable to speak of “Christianity” or “Christianities” in relation to the findings of the second and third centuries (see p. 6 and pp. 337-383).

In relation to the term “Urchristentum”, Markschies (p. 5) observes that Francois Vouga (Geschichte des frühen Christentums, p. 13) has raised two objections against the use of this term: 1) it is said to imply “the equation of beginning and nature and the falling apart of truth and history” and 2) it is also said to contain “the idea of a degeneration of an original unity into groupings and heresies that are independent of one another”, which is viewed as untenable after Walter Bauer’s work. Moreover, Markschies notes that Stefan Alkier has both carefully traced the ideological implications of this term in his 1993 book Urchristentum. Zur Geschichte und Theologie einer exegetischen Disziplin (pp. 5-254!), and argued that the term “Urchristentum/primitive Christianity” should be abandoned in favor of the alternative term “Frühchristentum/early Christianity” (261-266). On the other hand, Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer have explicitly challenged the validity of Alkier’s line of argumentation (Jesus und Judentum, p. 5n. 8).

Against the background of this extensive discussion around the connotations and appropriateness of the term “Urchristentum” within the German language sphere, it now seems essential to me that translators not only translate “Urchristentum” in such a manner that it is clearly distinguished from “Frühchristentum”, but also that we render it in such a way that it reflects something of the nuance of meaning that has given rise to such debates about its appropriateness. And with this in mind, it seems to me that “primitive Christianity”, despite its shortcomings, comes closest to achieving these goals. This does not necessarily mean that Vouga’s analysis of the implications of the term is correct or normative. And it certainly does not mean that a given German author is necessarily using the word “Urchristentum” to imply what Vouga suggests the term implies, since some German authors may simply alternate between “Frühchristentum” and “Urchristentum” for reasons of style. But it does mean that unless the German author clarifies that “early Christianity” is the force that is intended throughout, the translation should reflect the word choice of the German version, so that the possibility of a difference in meaning and connotation may be considered by the English reader. This doesn’t, however, necessarily mean that it was a bad decision for Fortress Press to revise Bowden’s initial translation of the title of Theissen’s work, for one of the most important aims of a publisher is to sell books, and it makes sense to conform the wording of a book’s title to the speech conventions of the target audience if this is likely to improve sales, even if this should not always be done with the work itself.

Appendix: for the relevance of this question for translation, consider the following sentence from Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen/Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire (p. 76/p. ?): “Über ur- und frühchristlicher Lehrer und die Unterschiede zwischen beiden Gruppen sind ausführliche Monographien und detaillierte Aufsätze geschrieben worden”/”Comprehensive monographs and detailed articles have been written about primitive and early Christian teachers and the differences between the two groups”.

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.

 

Always Choose the Stronger Word and Beware of False Friends: A Translator’s Memories of Martin Hengel (1926-2009) and John Bowden (1935-2010)

Posted by

9

Reflections

As a way of marking Martin Luther King Jr. Day, it seemed appropriate to attempt my first post in the category of “reflections”. For the most part, these will be related to German New Testament scholarship, though I may deviate from this plan now and then. In this post, I will simply share a few memories that I have of Martin Hengel and John Bowden, two of which bear directly on the task and challenges of translation.

Martin Hengel

Although I participated in one of Hengel’s block seminars during my studies in Tübingen, it was only later, during the time of my PhD, that I had the opportunity to speak with him at greater length. Two memories have stuck with me from these conversations.

As someone who struggled deeply to complete his PhD, I remember especially well the helpful advice that Hengel gave me about writing a PhD (even if I can’t remember if we were speaking in German or English or the extent to which my resulting memory reflects his words or my paraphrase of what he said):

1) Sit down and write your dissertation;

2) Make a selection of the most important works from the secondary literature, and give priority to the full range of relevant primary sources;

3) The real art of a scholar resides in the ability to improve what s/he has written.

(For further reflection on these points, see my discussion of them in the PhD section of my document “A Roadmap for Aspiring New Testament Scholars”.)

My second memory comes from a series of discussions that I had with Hengel concerning my translation of his contribution to Graham Stanton’s Festschrift, The Written Gospel, namely “Eye-Witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels.” I had dutifully completed my first draft translation, marking in workmanlike fashion the many passages and words for which I sought his advice. Coming to the first word in question, I tentatively asked him whether he thought this word or that word was more appropriate for his purposes. Leaning forward slightly, he said to me: “Always choose the stronger word; this, you see, is a polemical essay” (since I can’t remember if we were speaking in English or German, I remain very uncertain about the extent to which this represents an exact quotation of what was actually said). This exchange, I think, captured well one of the most striking features of Hengel’s character: he was a fighter, at least when it came to convictions that he held deeply. And I think that much good came from this polemical forcefulness, even if I also think that it sometimes became unwieldy and unhelpful. For me, however, it also shed some light on the task of translation. In short, the translator should make at least some attempt to capture the tone of a work, which may indeed mean “always choosing the stronger word”.

For further reflections on Martin Hengel’s life and work, see esp. my translation of his essay “A Young Theological Discipline in Crisis” in Earliest Christian History (cf. e.g., Larry Hurtado 1 and Michael Bird) and Roland Deines’ heavily documented essay in this same volume. See also e.g. Roland Deines, John Dickson, Larry Hurtado 2, David Neff, Daniel B. Wallace, and The Telegraph.

For my other blog posts on Martin Hengel, see here.

John Bowden

I remain uncertain of the exact occasion when I met John Bowden, but I believe that it was at the commemoration of Martin Hengel’s 80th birthday in Cambridge. Two points have stuck with me from our conversation, and I hope that I will succeed in passing them both along, especially the first!

At the outset of our conversation I said something like, “It’s a great honor for me to meet you Dr. Bowden”. Unfortunately, I pronounced the “Bow” in “Bowden” as if it rhymed with “Now” or “Cow”, whereas it actually rhymes with “Snow” or “Know”. And accordingly, he responded by saying something like “It’s Bowden not Bowden, but that’s ok, you get to say it wrong once, but only once.” And I have been correcting people’s pronunciation of his name ever since.

After this somewhat awkward start, we then had a very enjoyable conversation about translation. Among other things, he shared with me how he had begun by translating words as the unit of translation, and then moved on to sentences, and then to paragraphs (I am mostly still on words, I’m afraid). But it was another tip that made a deeper impression on me, namely his warning that “false friends” are the greatest danger to the translator, by which he meant that there are sometimes words that are the same (or similar) in two different languages but have rather different meanings. For example, the translator may make a slip and translate “Art” as “art” (instead of “kind/sort/type”) or “sensibel” as “sensible” (instead of “sensitive”). For it is one thing to say that your friend is sensibel (sensitive) and quite another to say s/he is sensible (vernünftig), though s/he may, of course, be both.

For further reflections on John Bowden’s life and work, see e.g., Robert Morgan, Robin Baird-Smith, Jim West, Mark Goodacre, and The Telegraph.

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.

Constructing History with Droysen and Jens Schröter

Posted by

7

German Mondays

In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I have decided to commit myself to making one post each Monday. Hopefully, I will be able to stick to this plan and it will prove a good way to start the week for me and for others.

Model Sentences

In my last post I commented on the phrase “Es geht um” and the words “Wissenschaft/wissenschaftlich” under the category of “words and phrases”. In this post, I wish to introduce the category of “model sentences”, which will involve an English translation of a German sentence (or several German sentences) that I regard as especially insightful or important as well as a concise grammatical commentary and perhaps some critical analysis. In some cases, I will select these sentences from works that I have translated or am translating, but I also want to invite my readers to submit German sentences that they regard as especially important or insightful. For instructions on doing so, see here.

Constructing History with Droysen with Jens Schröter (pp. 25-26; cf. # 2 on p. 31).

As a number of bloggers (see C. Keith 1, M. Skinner, A. Le Donne, L. Hurtado, C. Keith 2, C. Keith 3) have indicated in their responses to the publication of Jens Schröter’s work From Jesus to the New Testament, this book is especially important for its discussion of the relationship between new developments in historiography and New Testament scholarship. In my own view, it is important not only because of the specific perspectives that Schröter himself advances, but also for the way in which he develops these in relation to earlier phases of (German) research (cf. Schröter’s own assessment on p. xi), especially in chapters 1-4. Here, Schröter’s sustained engagement with Johann Gustav Droysen’s work is particularly important (see esp. pp. 11-12 and 22-32). Accordingly, my first “model sentence” will be taken from a section in which Schröter attempts to show how more recent developments in historiography have moved beyond Droysen. I will first provide the quotation in English and then in German, so that my grammatical commentary directly follows the German quotation.

From Jesus to the New Testament, p. 26: “Rather, the occupation with the historical material represents from the beginning an interpretative, meaning-creating activity that does not first begin, as it still does in Droysen’s conception, after the steps of the heuristic and criticism. Rather, the hermeneutical process must be defined more comprehensively than is the case with Droysen: the selection of the sources and their critical analysis are already interpretive activities and thus constituent parts of historical knowing.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, p. 28: „Die Beschäftigung mit dem historischen Material stellt vielmehr von Beginn an eine interpretierende, sinnstiftende Tätigkeit dar, die nicht erst, wie noch in Droysens Entwurf, nach den Schritten der Heuristik und Kritik einsetzt. Der hermeneutische Prozess ist vielmehr umfassender zu bestimmen, als dies bei Droysen der Fall ist: Bereits die Auswahl der Quellen sowie ihre kritische Analyse sind interpretierende Tätigkeiten und damit Bestandteile des historischen Erkennens.“

Vocabulary Help

“Beschäftigung” can sometimes be translated as “occupation”, but “engagement” is often better. “Vielmehr” can often be translated as “rather” or “instead”, though it sometimes has the force of “to a greater degree”. The most difficult word is “Entwurf”, which I have almost always rendered as “conception” in From Jesus to the New Testament (I hope to devote a blog post to this word in the future).

Grammatical Analysis

As a general rule, remember that the order of German phrases follows the acronym TeCaMoLo (Time, Cause, Mode, Location). Any element, though, can be in the first position, whereas the verb always appears in the second position. Here, the subject stands in the first position, namely “Die Beschäftigung mit dem historischen Material”. Since“mit/with” takes the dative we find “dem Material”. When a verb has two parts, part of it is placed in the second position (stellt) and part of its goes to the end (dar). Here, the compound verb is darstellen, which can often be translated as “present” or “represent”, though “portray” is also a good option in many contexts. “Von Beginn an/from the beginning” comes next, as one would expect since it concerns time (Te). The direct object of darstellen is “eine interpretierende, sinnstiftende Tätigkeit”: “eine Tätigkeit/an activity” is the noun, which is modified by the participles “interpretierende” and “sinnstiftende”. Though I was originally translating the former as “interpreting”, I subsequently decided that this was too wooden (at the prompting of Ron Herms) and settled on “interpretive”, whereas I adopted the awkward solution “meaning-creating” for “sinnstiftende” since it was not desirable to transform this participle into a relative clause here. A relative clause is then introduced by “die”, which is feminine singular because it looks back to “Tätigkeit” and nominative since it functions as the subject of the relative clause. Because it is part of a relative clause, the verb einsetzt moves to the end of the sentence. The construction “ist … zu + verb” in the next sentence is always difficult to render. While the wooden solution “is to be defined” is sometimes preferable, it is usually better to adopt translation options such as “must be defined”, “has to be defined,” or “should be defined”. The use of the comparative “umfassender + als” signals a comparison and the verb “ist“ moves again to the end of the subordinate clause. It is probably best to leave “dies” untranslated. In English, it often works best to translate “Bereits/already” with the verb. “Sowie” can sometimes be rendered with “as well as” but “and” is often better. “Damit” is always very hard to render: often it is best to leave it untranslated, but sometimes it can be conveyed well with “thus”, “with this”, or “thereby”. The infinitive “erkennen” has been transformed into a noun (“Erkennen”) by being capitalized, and the “s” together with “des” lets you know it is genitive.

Substantive Analysis

While I will usually forgo a substantive analysis of my model sentences or keep my comments to a minimum, I will be happy if people wish to tackle this (more important) topic for conversation in their comments. As I see it, Schröter’s point here is that while Droysen represented an advance over many of his peers insofar as he had a heightened awareness of the crucial role that was played by the interpretive activity of the historian for some decisive aspects of the historical task, his successors have taken this insight further by stressing that the entire process of constructing a conception of history is shaped by the historian’s interpretive activity.

For my other Schröter posts on historiography, 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 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.

 

Es geht um die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Posted by

11

Since much of my time is spent grappling with issues of German translation, I have decided that it might be helpful to me to start a blog on this topic, with the hope that it might also prove useful to others who are seeking to read or translate German New Testament scholarship. It is difficult for me to predict the exact shape that it might take, but I suspect that this blog will focus on the translation of various German words, phrases, and sentences. And perhaps it will sometimes include sentences concerning which I am badly lost or stuck between multiple options. For this initial post, I want to comment briefly on the expression “Es geht um” and the translation of “Wissenschaft/wissenschaftlich“.

I often find it difficult to translate the phrase Es geht um, as in Es geht um die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Options that I have adopted include “The concern is with New Testament scholarship”, “It is a matter of New Testament scholarship”, and “What is at issue is New Testament scholarship”. Often, however, I adopt the translation “We are dealing with New Testament scholarship”, which is less close to the German wording but seems to read a bit better in many contexts. And sometimes I basically drop the idiom and simply translate: “This is New Testament scholarship” if other options seem too cumbersome or unnecessary.

In my view, the translation of “Wissenschaft/wissenschaft” is much more difficult. Most translators render Wissenschaft and wissenschaftlich with “scholarship” and “scholarly”. I think there is much to be said for this solution, since it conveys with reasonable accuracy the force of the German term and since it accords especially well with the target language. Hence, I have also adopted this solution in my forthcoming (2014) translation (with Brian Pounds) of Jens Schröter’s book Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee—Savior of the World, with the rationale that this translation probably works best for the broad audience that is intended. For my 2013 translation of Schröter’s book From Jesus to the New Testament, however, I chose to translate these terms as “science” and “scientific” for two reasons. First, I think that the translation “scholarship/scholarly” is less loaded or strong than the German term Wissenschaft, and secondly I think the common use of Wissenschaft for a wide range of disciples, such as Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Geschichtswissenschaft, Literaturwissenschaft, Naturwissenschaften, etc. conveys a claim to a commonality or similarity among different disciplines that is worth retaining in a multidisciplinary work such as From Jesus to the New Testament. On the one hand, I can understand well that others may not agree with this decision, since the translation “science/scientific” is somewhat awkward and potentially misleading from the perspective of the target language. On the other hand, I think one of the most important principles of translation is that it is not usually a choice between a perfect translation and a bad translation but between multiple options that excel and fall short in different ways, and in my judgment the balance favored “science” over “scholarship” in this case. For further discussion of this point, 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 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.