We all know that the New Testament was written mostly in Greek, with a little Aramaic. Hmm, well unless Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, as Pappas says, in which case the Matthew we have is a second version and a translation. However, that is not my point. Unless you are a Greek scholar, who knows both the language as it was spoken in the first century and the culture, you have to rely on a translation. And the problem with a translation is that once in a while it may not fully reflect the fulness of the original word.
One such example is found in the Gospel of John 1:1. In Greek it says, “en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.” In English it is translated as, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In Spanish it is translated as, “En el principio era el Verbo, y el Verbo era con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios.” Now, let me back translate the Spanish into English. It says, “In the beginning was the Verb, and the Verb was with God, and the Verb was God.” So, in English the word logos‚ is translated as “Word” while in Spanish it is translated as “Verb.” Please note that in Latin the word is translated as Verbum. The translation is, “In principio erat Verbum . . . .”
So, which is the best translation, “word” or “verb?” Well, the answer is that neither fully captures what the word logos‚ meant to a first century Greek philosopher. Both are partially correct and both are partially wrong. However, the bigger problem is if we start building major philosophies on a particular translation, we can end up with an emphasis that is not exactly what the Apostle intended.
So in USA culture, particularly Evangelical sub-cultures, we make a big deal of Jesus being the Word, and we tend to hook that with the written Word of God. So, we make a big deal out of the Word of God being both Jesus and the written word. In fact, we tend to equate the two. But, in Spanish one cannot equate the two because Jesus is not the Word of God, he is the Verb of God. And, so, even among Spanish Evangelicals one does not hear the arguments equating the Bible and Jesus like one hears among English-speaking Evangelicals. But, more than that, the Spanish translation focuses more on action, so that it becomes more important to behave as a Christian, whereas the English-speaking Evangelical tends to focus more on believing as a Christian. Is either approach wrong? Well, no not really. But, neither approach contains the fullness of what the Apostle was communicating. Let us remember that both John and James were the “sons of thunder.” And, both John and James shared the idea that faith without works is dead. And, so the word logos‚ carries not only the idea of intellectual knowledge, but also the idea of active participation. Both faith and works are important.
See how important it is to do some studies in the original languages and in alternate languages?
According to those Spanish speakers, Sabado is Saturday when everybody knows that the Sabbath is on Sunday. (Baptist humor) 😉
Yes, there is the tendency for evangelicals to view Word as noun and equate it with the written word. But within Reformed circles there is also the [lesser] idea of Word as spoken word. In the beginning, God spoke, so Christ is at least sometimes viewed in an active sense. Living and active and sharper than any two edged sword.
I grew up non-denominationally protestant so I don’t know how much this has penetrated evangelical circles, but I was always taught that Christ being the Word is a direct reference to God “speaking” the world into existence in Genesis. Christ as the Father’s agent of action. Everything God does God does in Christ, by speaking and Christ being that Word spoken.
We never talked about the Trinity, not because we were for it or against it, but that our theology was deliberately kept primitive in an effort to avoid controversies (in effect this just exchanges one set of controversies for another). Which is one of the reasons why we had no idea at all what the Holy Spirit was. I’d heard the odd sermon here or there that mentioned the Holy Spirit, but only tangentially.
i think all the man is saying is the fact that if god is the verb it simply means that god is the one who is becoming not us, we are simply seeing this becoming but we can play the part and see first for ourselves what is god becoming anyway………….
Hey Steve & David, I was not saying that the idea of the Word as action is missing in evangelicalism, anymore than the idea of the Verb as reason, intellect, etc., is missing among Latin American evangelicals. It is a matter of emphasis, not a matter of it being absent.
Fr. Ernesto, I agree with you here. It’s not a matter of it being absent, it’s that sometimes people can emphasize one over the other, like you said in your post.
Oh, I don’t mean Word as Verb, I gave a mis-impression. I meant Word as Agent. Word as Verb was completely missing from my experience.
I was thinking about the Holy Spirit thing, and I did remember one strange sermon about the Holy Spirit being the scriptures (arising from a need to explain away the lack of post-Apostolic spiritual gifts “when the perfect has come [the scriptures] the imperfect [gifts] will pass away”. So the Holy Spirit was, or was the agent for, the scriptures which were superior to Apostolic gifts. You come up with some very strange stuff when you sit alone in a room and try to make up a religion for yourself. 🙂
I think opening up the scriptures in other languages withouta doubt sheds new light on things. I studied Italian and French at Uni and 1 of the things you soon learn is that there is this whole semantic spectrum out there within which words position themselves. When you set two spectrums together representing 2 different languages the words in each only occasionally match up side by side with one another. More often than not they only equate to a part of the meaning of the word in the opposite language.
Carlo, I mostly agree. I would tend to say that university linguistic departments overemphasize the differences in the semantic spectrum. Many of those departments are heavily influenced by post-modernism which tends towards pessimism when it speaks of languages. I have lived in several countries. Because communication is not simply verbal, but also non-verbal, the spectrum differences are less than just looking at the language might lead you to believe.
I tend to agree – they probably do overemphasise it. I guess it’s just helpful in putting a bit of balance and perspective to the one-sided view that often comes up in relation to the word of God.
But back to the question of reading the scriptures in other languages, I would say ‘yes – absolutely’, doing it can only widen and enrich your understanding of God.
Two points: It seems that there are certain words in Scripture, “logos” being one of them, which should be left untranslated.
Second, this issue, as with the “regulative principle,” underscore the fact that it is impossible to fully and correctly understand Scripture apart from the rest of the Tradition.
There have been cases in Bible translation in which a word has not been translated precisely because there was no equivalent concept in the receiving culture. For instance, when the Roman Catholic Church went into Andean South America, the available words for god(s) were all personal. There was no good general word that they wished to use. And, so, though the Scriptures were translated into Quechua, the word for God was kept in Spanish, Dios.
However, please note that God heartily approved the translation of the Old Testament into Greek, as can be seen from the fact that the Septuagint was the main translation used by the missionary Christians. And, given the position of the Vulgate in Church History, apparently God liked Latin as well. And so on . . . . I would prefer to translate into already existing cultural language than to skip translating a word unless it were an absolute necessity.
I do agree with you that Scripture, apart from the rest of Holy Tradition is not as “perspicacious” as some in the Reformed tradition would claim.
“Let us remember that both John and James were the “sons of thunder.” And, both John and James shared the idea that faith without works is dead. And, so the word logos‚ carries not only the idea of intellectual knowledge, but also the idea of active participation. Both faith and works are important.”
They were not , just John. This James is not Zebedeus´s son, is brother of Jesus. Please James or Jacobos son of Zebedeus was the second martir after Stephen.
Hch 12:1 Por aquel tiempo el rey Herodes echó mano a algunos de la Iglesia para maltratarlos.
Hch 12:2 Hizo morir por la espada a Santiago, el hermano de Juan.
We are sure that the epistle was not written at this time or not?
Best Regards
Any way they both beleived in deeds confirming their faith.
Excuse me
Hch 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
Hch 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Good point. The James who wrote the epistle was the relative of Jesus. James the brother of John was killed early in the life of the Church.