Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Theology

Editor-in-Chief: Taliaferro, Charles

1 Issue per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-6579
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Do We Translate the Original Author’s Intended Meaning?

David B. Frank
Published Online: 2016-07-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2016-0051

Abstract

Translation of the Bible or any other text unavoidably involves a determination about its meaning. There have been different views of meaning from ancient times up to the present, and a particularly Enlightenment and Modernist view is that the meaning of a text amounts to whatever the original author of the text intended it to be. This article analyzes the authorial-intent view of meaning in comparison with other models of literary and legal interpretation. Texts are anchors to interpretation but are subject to individualized interpretations. It is texts that are translated, not intentions. The challenge to the translator is to negotiate the meaning of a text and try to choose the most salient and appropriate interpretation as a basis for bringing the text to a new audience through translation.

Keywords: interpretation; textual meaning; authorial intent; philosophical hermeneutics; originalism

References

  • Arichea, Daniel C. and Eugene A. Nida. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. New York: UBS, 1976. Google Scholar

  • Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Aspen, 5–6 (1967). Google Scholar

  • Bork, Robert H. The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. New York: Free Press, 1990. Google Scholar

  • Derrida, Jacques. De la Grammatologie. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1967. Google Scholar

  • Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1883. Google Scholar

  • Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. New York: Seabury, 1975. Google Scholar

  • Hirsch, E.D. The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. Google Scholar

  • Ricoeur, Paul. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976. Google Scholar

  • Sanneh, Lamin. Whose Religion is Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Google Scholar

  • Scalia, Antonin. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997. Google Scholar

  • Schleiermacher, Friedrich. “Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens.” In Das Problem des Übersetzens, edited by Hans Joachim Störig, 38-70. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963[1813]. Google Scholar

  • Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Google Scholar

  • Walls, Andrew F. “The Translation Principle in Christian History.” In The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, edited by Andrew F. Walls, 26–42. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996. Google Scholar

  • Wimsatt, William K. and Monroe C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” Sewanee Review 54 (1946), 468–488. Google Scholar

About the article


Received: 2016-03-14

Accepted: 2016-04-25

Published Online: 2016-07-29


Citation Information: Open Theology, Volume 2, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 2300-6579, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2016-0051.

Export Citation

©2016 David B. Frank. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in