I usually pick up the English readings to compare the different translations. Today, I accidentally discovered a totally different Chinese translation of the Gospel. It is Matthew 21:29-30.
他回答說：主，我去。但他卻沒有去。
他對第二個也說了同樣的話，第二個卻答應說：我不願意。但後來悔悟過來，而又去了。【思高版】
And he answered, 'I will not'; but afterward he repented and went.
And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, 'I go, sir,' but did not go. (RSV)
Puzzled, I went home to check the other versions.
他回答說、我不去．以後自己懊悔就去了。
又來對小兒子也是這樣說、他回答說、父阿、我去．他卻不去。【和合本】
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐ θέλω, ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν.
προσελθὼν δὲ τῷ ἑτέρῳ εἶπεν ὡσαύτως. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ἐγώ, κύριε: καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν. (NA26)
A note of translation: The Greek word in red "hetero" means a different one, another one, the other one etc. Since there were only 2 sons, translating it into the second son is accurate. However, the translator of the Chinese Protestant version has made one more assumption --- the father had asked the elder son first. Given that the first born always enjoyed a higher priority in the eyes of the father who might had already sent the elder son on a more important errant, or that he preferred sending the younger son to do some chores first or that the brothers might even be twins. Therefore, it is unwarranted to translate "the other one" into "the younger son".
The Chinese Catholic translation fares no better, It is different from all others by switching the roles of the two sons. Why? The next verse Matthew 21:31a is even more damaging.
τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; λέγουσιν, Ὁ πρῶτος.
Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first."
二人中那一個履行了父親的意願？」他們說：「後一個。」【思高版】
你們想這兩個兒子、是那一個遵行父命呢。他們說、大兒子。【和合本】
The Greek word in red means the first.
Consistent with their translations, the Chinese Protestant version translates it into "the elder son" and the Chinese Catholic version translates it into "the latter one"! What a blatant betrayal of the original text!
I am not learned enough to defend the Franciscan friars who were saintly Biblical scholars. Perhaps they had, in their possession, a certain Greek manuscript which carries such a rendition. Still, they owe us an explanation why they chose this manuscript and did not follow the Textus Receptus, the "Received Text".
The only reason which I can think of is that such a rendition follows Jesus' teaching: the first will become the last and the last first.
Since Genesis, God has consistently chosen not the first born. Isaac was the second son of Abraham. Jacob was the second son of Isaac. Judah was the fourth son of Jacob. Moses had an elder brother Aaron. King David was the last son of Jesse etc.Therefore, in this parable of the two sons, the Franciscan friars chose the latter one. This is the only hypothesis I can think of. What do you think?
This morning, Deacon Tsang brought up a new insight. Both sons did not keep their words though one of them did the father's will! No matter what, only doing the Father's will counts.
In the evening, I attended the Matrimony of my niece. Father Simon Li Chi Yuen, an alumus of my alma mater, officiated at the ceremony. He gave a new understanding of the famous line "and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24b). Usually, we interpret this text to mean the two persons share physically, psychologically, financially and spiritually.
No! The woman was made from the rib of the man. They were originally one flesh. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the wife is the other half of the man. Rather, the man finds himself in his wife and the woman herself in her husband. That is why when a man loves his wife, he loves himself.
let each one of you love his wife as himself (Ephesians 5:33a).
This is a brilliant opinion.
Dear Lord, strengthen us to do the Father's will. Amen.
Today, I brought up the issue to share with my new colleague Louis in school. He also noticed the discrepancy when he was preparing his address for the Morning Assembly in school this morning. Later, he showed me a book published by the Franciscan friars: 【思高聖經原著譯釋版系列──福音】Revised 3rd edition, February, 2011. In the footnote #15 on page 192, the friars confirm that there are manuscripts containing the text they chose. Moreover, their choice fits better with the context of the whole chapter and the next.
September 26, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment