I was a little bit surprised to see a recent post of Bart Ehrman on translation, “Translating the Bible (and other ancient texts).”

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Bart sees translation as a balancing act, between the literal and idiomatic approach, and his final remark is, “(A translation should be) as literal as possible and as free as necessary.”

But the translation of a text is equivalent to the process of reading it. Anyone needs to read it first in its original language, understand it, and translate it into a new one.

There are two things the reader could do. The first is using the text. 

For instance, he can burn it, help a wobbling table, or change it in toilette paper. And these are only “physical,” but there is also a cultural and social usage.

There is no way to say that a particular use is not legitimate. The reader has total freedom in it.

Second, the reader could read the text. In this process, an interpretation of it is generated.

Any text could generate an infinity of interpretations since a single text contains in itself a small universe. A text is always an “open” text. 

So given some interpretations, it’s impossible to say which one is the best, but it’s easy to spot the bad ones.

If we use a little bit of common sense, we should be able to discard what is NOT a good interpretation.

The problem with an open text is to understand what the Author says through the “opera” itself. It’s called the intention of the text. When A. Dumas says: “Tous pour un, un pour tous!” in the “Les trois mousquetaires” we can translate it into “one for all, or all for one” but are we aware that the original motto is in Latin: “Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno”? Is Dumas referring to it? Are we missing something when we translate it into English? The point is, the open text starts to explode if we don’t take into account the overall economical structure of the society in which the Author lives and writes. The context is very very important.

Now, we know, fortunately, a lot about Dumas and his times.

Unfortunately, we know a little, if nothing about the alleged writers of the New Testament, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. How can we say  that some interpretations are completely bogus? Ther’s no way to report abuse on any particular text. 

Is told that in the US Library of Congress the books about Jesus are in the number not less than 20.000. The NT has generated at least the same number of interpretations, based also on different translations of the Greek, Coptic, or Latin “originals.” But probably there are as many different interpretations of the NT as people on earth.

Another mistake is to actualize modern fashion liberal nonsense into the text. Like inclusive language.
Bart Herman says: “The Bible itself was written in a thoroughly patriarchal context. The authors of the Bible were not inclusive in their thinking. […] But if that’s the case, then if you render the Bible *inclusively* aren’t you mistranslating it […] It’s a big problem.”** you do not have permission to see this link **

No, it is not. You’re only forcing a bad interpretation of the text for the sake of your personal agenda.