Two Approaches: Linguistics and Exegesis

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I'm about done here. My main point has been that exegesis of the Scriptural text is the foundation of translation, and a good translation theory centers on that and not on linguistic theories such as code theory and transformational grammar.

I am not denying that linguistics is very helpful. But remember that until the 20th century, none of the great translators had the benefit of modern linguistics: Ulfilas, the LXX translators, Jerome, Luther, the KJV translators, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, etc. Yet they produced amazing translations.

Thanks for sharing.

Not everything given a discovery or research label today was unknown to the ancients. And many things so labeled today are not necessarily correct analyses, but only attempts at such. Much of it is motivated by ambition—the desire to make a name for oneself or to advance a pet theory—rather than a desire to advance true knowledge.

 

[John of Japan]

You make some good points here.

Thanks for sharing.

Not everything given a discovery or research label today was unknown to the ancients.

I agree. Now if you'll notice, I used the term "modern linguistics." Back before the 20th century, the term "philology" was used for what we call linguistics. And many of those old guys were pretty sharp in the ancient languages. Translators like Jerome, William Carey, Adoniram Judson (Burma), and Nathan Brown (Japan) were absolute geniuses at language. Ulphilas back in his day (4th cent.) no doubt had his own version of what we call phonology and morphology.

In the early 20th century, linguists such as Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield (my parents were taught from his 1933 text, Language), etc. They got a lot right, but some things wrong: etymology for meaning, the bogus Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, etc. But linguistics as a scientific discipline was launched, and that is what scholars call "modern linguistics."

And many things so labeled today are not necessarily correct analyses, but only attempts at such. Much of it is motivated by ambition—the desire to make a name for oneself or to advance a pet theory—rather than a desire to advance true knowledge.

Again, I agree. I think that code theory is one of those theories. Sounds real cool, but it doesn't hold up. There is much more to communicating than simply coding and decoding.