AARRGGHH!!  EVEN THE GREEKS
GOOPH UP THE ENERGY WORDS
IN THEIR ENGLISH RENDERINGS

© 2002, 2006 by Orchid Land Publications

[20020401, 20060127]

     A translator of Greek theology should know what the rôle of energy (with the corresponding verb and adjective) is in Orthodox theology, even if s/he has not checked out the Hellenistic and (therefore) Bible senses of these words in Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics.   I take the present opportunity to show how two translators of Greek theologians have rendered a passage in St. Vasil's 38th Letter (§4; see the Greek text in the first volume [p. 204] of The letters in in the Loeb edition with an accompanying translation by R. J. Defarrari.  The other translation is by a Greek, G. Dimopoulos.   I refer to his translation of John Karmiris, A synopsis of the dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Christian Orthodox Edition, p. 67.   I ignore the mistranslations of 26 instances of energy words in St. Paul's Epistles and the one in St. James's Epistle in all versions but one (The Orthodox New Testament) of the New Testament.  (How's that for rhetorical prætermissio?)
     The passage is preceded by the words "divine dýnamis"; it reads:  "We say that every good from the divine dýnamis ["potential" ["power, capacity, or faculty"] that can be and is to be energized by its paired energy] that may happen to us is [due to] the Energy of Grace energizing all things in all."  The participle energoúses (modifying "of Grace") and the noun enérgeian (accusative) are translated by Fr. Dimopoulos as "an <operation> of Grace <working> in all things" (cf. 1 Cor. 12:6, where eneryemáton "effects/results of energization[s]" precedes the energy words.  Note that neuter enéryema is not paired with a thinkable feminine enéryesis according to the usual (ancient) Greek pattern, since the feminine noun enéryeia "energy, energization" (inherently) does duty for the causation as well as the cause; modern Greek lacks the morphological pattern being referred to).  Defarrari renders the two forms <worketh> (he makes a relative clause out of the participial construct) and <working>.  

     Native-speakers of English have a feeling for what -ness means, for what -er (an agent or instrument, despite a few partial exceptions like slipper and fiver and some of the senses of boner), for what -ize/-ify and -ization/ification mean,for what -y means (at the end of syrupy, goophy, sloppy, and even iffy. 

This #i is not the -i in nouns like Mary, jiffy, hooey, honey, or the diminutive #i (often spelled "ie"] in kiddie, Joey.

Likewise did a speaker of ancient Greek have a feeling for the quite different force of -sis (-tis after -s-) and -ma.  And she or he of course nourished the feeling that languages don't normally use formatives in a willy-nilly manner.  (Some old words like mantis used -tis [before -t- changed to -s- in certain contexts] more or less for agents; but they were few--like the use of -er in English hammer (except when it means someone who hams it up),  etc.

     We might expect a Western scholar (which Defarrari may be) to miss the point and fail to understand the Greek-language Apostolic thought world; but see below on Western treatments of energy and Assimilation.  The Greek translator, however, should have been on a different level.  'Tis no wonder that most Western Christians cannot understand the Orthodox thought world (paradigm) when such translations float around like flotsam in a swamp of inaccuracies.  There is that "mystical" character of Orthodoxy that one speaks of to the befuddlement of a Western Christian reader, who understands "mystifying."  "Mysteric" ("sacramental" or "incarnational") is what is meant.  Recently, the Orthodox have let up a bit on  mis-translating LOGOS as "Word" in the ludicrous Western manner.  But the word for the Assimilation ('omoíosis; cf. Gen. 1:26) still gets mis-rendered as though it were its paired neuter--'omoíoma.  The same is true of mis-rendering "new creating in Christ" as a "new creature in Christ"--where "creature" (ktísma) would be the result of a creating (ktísis--the word St. Paul used).  Why is it so hard for Western Latins and Protestants to understand the difference between an energizing and its result?  One would have thought that the difference would be clear enough.  Even in English, we can speak of the <theme> of a <thesis>.
     Despite the number of books in recent years on Eastern energy by Latins like Maloney and Kuhlmann (and even Lonergan) as well as by Anglicans like Reid and Lutherans  like Wendebourg, not to speak of the Benedictine Merki's book on 'Omoiosis, translators of Greek writers seem to know less of energy than such Western scholars as have paid attention to what the Bible and the Fathers says.  How odd!  If translators of Orthodox materials continue to throw dust in readers' eyes by using Western terminology, there is little hope of Western  (or Orthodox) readers' getting a glimpes of the Orthodox phrónema. 

     As Snoopy would say, "Sigh!"   He might even go to R75.html.