Mendacious Translations
I’ve often wondered why the translators who produced the King James Bible chose, in the 13th chapter of First Corinthians, to translate the Greek word agape as “charity.” Agape clearly does not mean “alms-giving,” but rather refers to love in a deeper and wider sense, what the Greeks would have felt for their city-state, its people, and its Gods. Perhaps the translators were afraid the English word “love” would lead us to believe the Apostle was speaking of eros, another word the Greeks had for a similar emotion. That’s one of the problems with the English language: in order to get the proper meaning of some of its words you have to know and understand the context in which the words are used.
My main man, Spinoza, seems to have accepted that problem, even though he couldn’t speak English. He defined love as “. . . nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause.” Without knowing the identity or nature of the external cause, we cannot claim to understand our love. We may experience pleasure – sometimes intense – in our recollections of childhood sweethearts, and may make the mistake of believing that the source of our joy is the memory itself. But memories are not of other memories, but are of real people who, for one reason or another, we connect with our present joy. We’re prone to think of these memories – these experiences of remembered joy – as mere nostalgia. And so they are, but we should not necessarily take that word as anything other than a vehicle for casting our joy in a particular frame of time. The quality of our experience is not diminished by time, except insofar as we are led by reality to regard the source of our joy as remote and unapproachable. Nostalgia, therefore, unfolds partially as an emotion of sorrow. The context within which our joyful memories occur, happens also to include a measure of impossibility. Hence, we’re joyful and sorrowful at the same time.
The context within which the Apostle was writing contained nothing of that sort of confusion. He was speaking of his love for God, and left no doubt that he regarded his God as an eternal, here-and-now presence. He was completely absorbed in the love of God, absolutely unable (and unwilling) to escape the compulsions of his love.
If it weren’t that Paul and Spinoza lived centuries apart, I might believe they had exchanged notes, but as it is, I’ll just stay with the idea that they both fell in love with their own conception of God, and just happened to both be very intense in their devotion. I don’t think either of them would object to that characterization.
My main man, Spinoza, seems to have accepted that problem, even though he couldn’t speak English. He defined love as “. . . nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause.” Without knowing the identity or nature of the external cause, we cannot claim to understand our love. We may experience pleasure – sometimes intense – in our recollections of childhood sweethearts, and may make the mistake of believing that the source of our joy is the memory itself. But memories are not of other memories, but are of real people who, for one reason or another, we connect with our present joy. We’re prone to think of these memories – these experiences of remembered joy – as mere nostalgia. And so they are, but we should not necessarily take that word as anything other than a vehicle for casting our joy in a particular frame of time. The quality of our experience is not diminished by time, except insofar as we are led by reality to regard the source of our joy as remote and unapproachable. Nostalgia, therefore, unfolds partially as an emotion of sorrow. The context within which our joyful memories occur, happens also to include a measure of impossibility. Hence, we’re joyful and sorrowful at the same time.
The context within which the Apostle was writing contained nothing of that sort of confusion. He was speaking of his love for God, and left no doubt that he regarded his God as an eternal, here-and-now presence. He was completely absorbed in the love of God, absolutely unable (and unwilling) to escape the compulsions of his love.
If it weren’t that Paul and Spinoza lived centuries apart, I might believe they had exchanged notes, but as it is, I’ll just stay with the idea that they both fell in love with their own conception of God, and just happened to both be very intense in their devotion. I don’t think either of them would object to that characterization.
posted by Benedict S. at 10:16 AM
8 Comments:
Charity may not capture the meaning of the word when taken in isolation from the rest of the chapter, but agape is charitable in that it is extended without merit.Agape love is about the giver of love and not the reciever of that love. The agape love is unconditional, it is internal and it does not require the external object to be worthy of its gift.
Immanuel Kant argued as you do, anon. He claimed, as you apparently do, that a moral imperative, operating internally, without external cause, leads us to "do the right thing." But of course, we generally do what we think is right, so lng as doing it doesn't harm us all that much.
I suggest that when we act on an inward impulse (and nothing else) we are apt to create a world pretty much like the one we've got, a world where the forces of "lust, greed, hnger for power, and desire to control others" rule our lives. Better I think to judge the world "out there" and to love what is lovable. Even with a so-called obective object, our love may still be misdirected. But w/o such an object, the result would be predictably worse.
When the Greeks were being reasonable they loved their city and its people because they found value in doing so. They stopped loving their supernatural Gods when they finally saw that love to be destructive, with the greatest harm being the devastation it wrought upon their ability to think reasonably.
[That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.]
But your theory neglects the original premise of your blog, the sum of the inward impulses you speak of runs counter to agape- greed, lust, hunger for power, and the desire to control others is not found in the selfless act of agape.Agape gives without thought of how its giving may harm ourselves.
With all due respect (as they say), I do not anywhere suggest that agape or any other kind of love is a selfless act. A young lady (one of the many who resisted my teenage charms) once said to me that "all love is self love." I have been unable to find an exception to her claim.
What's more. I would suggest that so-called selfless love rests near the top of the heirarchy of immorality. To love without concern for the value of the object loved is to devalue the act of loving. The brightest and bravest among us love the lovable and "react negatively" toward whatever the opposite of "lovable" might be. ("Hate" is too strong a word for a timid old man to use.)
But you obvioulsy do not understand agape love. Agape love is not an enabler, it will not help its object along on the path of destruction; agape love is constant,it guides, leads, and convicts, it has standards and it will not betray its own character in order to win the affections of its object.
Anon, perhaps you are right. Maybe I do not understand agape. A few examples of it might serve to enlighten me. Don't bring up Sidney Carton, or any other fictitious character. Somebody real, some real act completely apart from self love.
[Hitler's suicide comes to mind for me. There was a deed, obviously not selfish, and certainly beneficial to humankind, even it it was delivered two decades too late.]
Examples can never replace experience.... although, I do know of a great example...
The buddhists set great store by the concept of benevolence. Is this a
reasonable translation for agape love? It seems to contain the same
ingredients - empathy for others, and a fellow-feeling born of understanding and identification, yet not such a deep involvement as to become an
attachment, and certainly not eros (though compassion perhaps contains an overtome of pity, which agape does notAIU.
The Buddhist idea which requires that one does not disturb one's calm and peace of mind.[1] 'Compassion' means 'suffering together' which seems fairly close to the Christian concept of agape -in that Jesus did suffer. But what is the Greek in 'God so loved the world...' I've heard that the Bible doesn't consistently use agape for right love and uses the various other forms.
"Christian love, whether exercised toward the brethren, or toward men
generally, is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered. Love seeks the welfare of all, Rom. 15:2, and
works no ill to any, 13:8-10; love seeks opportunity to do good to 'all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith,' Gal.6:10. See further 1 Cor. 13 and Col. 3:12-14." * [* From Notes on
Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 105.]
Agape love is not natural to humanity, and cannot be generated by
humanity. It is natural only to God, and is imparted by Him alone to
those who seek Him for it. If we do not seek for it, as "for hid
treasures" we will never possess it.
Post a Comment
<< Home