A Doctrine of Translation

Brother, I do appreciate your expertise and efforts in getting out the word through translation and in teaching others to do the same, and even enjoy this exchange. But your knowledge of your profession may well be getting in the way of understanding here. When Peter told the man lame from birth to stand and walk, did he know how to heal like a medical doctor? No, of course not. Knowing how things work is fine in the natural, but does not dictate what happens supernaturally, and this is the subject at hand.

While it may be possible that the Pentecostal Galileans understood the thoughts being spoken, according to Luke the way we know what they were saying is that the hearers gave interpretive witness. Luke does not offer any quotes, only the general interpretation that they were “declaring the wonders of God.” Again, this witness is from the hearers. Some of those who didn’t understand attributed the seeming simultaneous gibberish to drunkenness (though I shouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to argue that they meant drunks make excellent linguists, but if so, I hope they do it in a separate thread ). There is no indication that the speakers understood the languages themselves, and there was no need.

BTW, you earlier seemed to assert that they were “proclaiming the Gospel in the various languages.” But this is not in the text. Rather, their diverse speaking drew a crowd, then Peter stood up and preached the Gospel, rather effectively, with no indication that he was speaking in anything other than the lingua franca.

Yes, interpreting and speaking are two very different things, and I explicitly indicated this. The point I made regarding difference was the original one, namely between speaking understandable languages at Pentecost and in Corinth. There was no difference. Any difference is imagined, or superficial, or is yet to be convincingly argued.

In the church, either the hearers should already understand the language being spoken, or it should be interpreted for them. Intelligibility is key.

 

Should we have godly translators to make sure all the world has a copy of at least NT in their natives language?

 

Oops. Didn't see this till after I posted my reply above. Thanks, for the thread.

 

Can anyone tell whether these were Thayer's own views, or whether he was accurately translating what Grimm actually wrote?