I am continuing my survey of Bible Translation books, now reading Donald Kraus’ volume, Choosing a Bible For Worship, Teaching, Study, Preaching, and Prayer. Kraus is Executive Editor for Bibles at Oxford University Press and presents a fairly even-handed review of translation philosophies, from strict interlinear to cultural paraphrase, though most of his time is spent in the space between the NASB and The Message.
I wanted to note one passage from the book: his consideration of the opening verses of John. Kraus considers the RSV, NIV, NJB, NLT, Moffat, TEV, CEV, The Message and Phillips translations for this passage. After discussing the various treatments of the Greek logos, he turns to “the verb katalambano (katelaben in the text - a past tense).”
This verb means “to take (as in the hand) in such a way as to hold firmly or fully.” By extension it means “to understand, comprehend.” [...] In the final phrase of this extract, “the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not katelaben it,” there is a classic translator’s dilemma. The writer probably meant both “hold so as to extinguish” and “understand the nature of” — the darkness has not extinguished the light, and the darkness has not understood the real nature of the light. In English, however, it is not possible to convey both of these meanings at once, and therefore it is necessary to choose.
For reference, here are a handful of translations of the verse in question, John 1.5:
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (NIV)
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (NASB; cf. KJV)
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it. (NLT)
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (ESV; cf. TNIV, HCSB)
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never mastered it. (REB)
Is Kraus correct in that there is an inherent dual meaning or ambiguity in the original Greek that cannot be represented in English? Perhaps not. In the same discussion as above, Krauss notes that “a similar overlapping meaning occurs in English with the verb ‘grasp’, which can mean both ‘hold physically’ and ‘understand’.” If we lean toward the REB’s choice of “master” instead of “extinguish” or “overcome”, then we might allow that the semantic range of “grasp” includes having control or holding firmly. Certainly the traditonal sense of “understand” or “comprehend” is included in “grasping an idea or thought.”
With that in mind, perhaps another way of translating this verse is:
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has been unable to fully grasp it.
I suppose the ultimate question is, when faced with a scenario of ambiguous dual meaning, is it better to translate to a word that naturally communicates the full sense of one of the meanings, but not the other (and presumably footnote the alternate meaning), or translate to a word that communicates some of the semantic range of both meanings? And if the latter, can we add a modifier, like “fully” above, that strengthens meaning while still retaining the ambiguity?
7 Comments
I am wary of saying, as Kraus does, that John used this word purposefully to display two meanings. His hypothesis is certainly possible (this kind of thing happens all the time in poetry and satire), and I couldn’t rule it out completely . . . but when we are trying to understand the meaning of a word, context is everything.
Contextually, the entire Gospel of John demonstrates over and over that while Jesus spoke truth, many people did not understand (3:10; 8:43; 10:6; 12:16; 13:7; 20:9) or accept (3:11, 32; 4:48; 5:38, 47; 6:53-66; 8:45-46; 10:25-26; 16:8-9) what he said or did. John’s purpose in writing the book (as given in 20:31 . . . “these things are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”) appears to be in hopes that this lack of understanding and belief will nto be the case for his audience. So in the “big picture” of the book as a whole, favor seems to go toward understanding katelaben in John 1:5 as “appropriation of the truth (about Christ) through understanding and belief.”
Even in the immediate context of chapter 1, this kind of thrust seems to be in play. John the Baptist comes as a witness to testify to the light (1:6-8). The world did not recognize the Light even though he was in the world (1:10). In fact, the world in general did not receive him (1:11).
To be fair, John certainly pictures Jesus as overcoming the world (16:33), and Jesus is displayed useing the word “katelaben’ in the context of speaking of light and darkness in 12:35 (and several translation render the verb with some form of “overtake”). So Kraus’ interpretation is possible. Yet I would point out that John uses a different Greek word in 16:33 to speak of overcoming (nikao), and even in 12:35 katelaben does not carry the connotation of “overcoming” someone or something else (conquering them, so to speak) as much as “coming upon” people so that they do not know (again understanding/knowledge/belief seems to be in play here) where to go.
Thank you, stuart, for that thoughtful comment - I really do appreciate it.
It’s interesting to me when the NT authors use Light and Dark formally - I always wonder if there’s an echo of the Essenes’ “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness” eschatology, especially with John the Baptist presumably having spent some of his youth among that sect. By the time John the Apostle wrote his gospel, the sphere of that influence would have faded, but perhaps linguistic echoes remained such that an interpretation of “overcome” could be seen against this background.
Brant Pitre just posted a great quote by Origen on understanding the gospel of John:
El,
It is certainly probable that such “linguistic echoes” could be at play in the interpretation of John. My question is whether John intended such echoes.
Again, I can’t say “no” with certitude, but unless there is clear, incontrovertible evidence to support a “double meaning” . . . I can’t say “yes” either.
What a linguistic fuddy-dud I am!
Sometimes an imagination is not a linguist’s greatest tool…
El,
I guess it depends on which definition of “imagination” you mean . . .
a) the act of forming mental images of what is not actually present
b) a foolish notion
c) the ability to understand and appreciate imaginative creations of others
d) resourcefulness in dealing with new or unusual experiences
e) an evil plan (an obsolete meaning today)
Personally, I think “an evil plan” is always behind the work of a linguist.
“Traduttore, traditore” indeed…