It seems entirely plausible to me that discrepancies between various and sundry theologies are simply the result of a series of loose or approximate translations, botched by a series of individuals; the utilization of overblown or excessive hyperbole, and perhaps the insertion of substitute names for those momentarily forgotten by the storyteller. It makes sense. If a mother wished to impart a moral lesson to her child, by way of a theological anecdote, she could easily achieve this end by telling a vague approximation of the story, using whatever names she pleased, and changing little details or adding her own ornamentations as she so desired. Enough renditions down the line, and as in a game of telephone the product barely resembles the original, if at all.
We fight wars over religious differences. Who can possibly make the claim that language has little importance in our world? In terms of how we use it, there may be arguably little difference; but in terms of what we make of it, and what we make of the subtle differences, the impact that it has is significant. One innocent mistranslation somewhere along the line could inadvertently be the cause of the death of millions.
So, yes, I think it's important to look at theory of meaning for language so that we can get to the heart of the matter and point out the fact that we actually have some common ground. The harder it may be for us to discover such a theory, the more able we might be to show that we all have something in common that is more biological than we realize. Whether we may be able to shed light on the nature of our similarities or the nature of our differences does not matter. Either may prove to be infinitely useful and enlightening.
The man who picks out a single word in the Bible as a means of making a point, especially if the "point" that he is making could determine the future of another (freedom or imprisonment, life or death, marriage or not marriage), is the man who puts his entire trust of morality and ethics in the hand of, perhaps, one man from somewhere in the prior chronology of translation, and his entire sense of morality could revolve around one decision made by that particular man, such as, "Should I translate this word in this way, or in this way? Both seem almost synonymous..."
Guess what? "Almost synonymous", a few times over, is the same thing as "entirely different".
And we justify killing and prejudice and racism and bigotry by way of quoting the Bible? Surely I'm not alone in thinking that this is a terrifying notion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
