Schema and Translation

Several years ago I met with Professor Daniel McIntosh, a psychologist at the University of Denver that studies religion. Afterwards, I read one of his works about how religion as a cognitive schema can help with coping. At the time I wasn’t aware of cognitive schemas, but they are the mechanism by which our minds process information (McIntosh 1995).  Schemas function to help process important information and discard what we deem not important. In many ways this may be why Jesus said we have eyes but cannot see. I myself have had the experience where I feel like I’ve read something in my Bible that I had never seen before!

I began to think about the ramifications of cognitive schema when it comes to our interpretation and translation of the Bible. I came across an interesting example in Matthew 23. In the context of the whole passage Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for how they've led the people of Israel. He admonishes them for loving the position of Rabbi rather than actually loving God’s people.

In Matthew 23:15 the Greek word γεέννης is translated as “of hell.” However, most “thought by thought” translations change the translation in verse thirty-three. Consider the two verses from the ESV below (added emphasis mine):

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” Matthew 23:15

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Matthew 23:33

However, the NASB, a word by word translation, translates Matthew 23:33 as the following: 

You snakes, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

Does the preposition change from “of hell” to “to hell” make that big of a difference? I suggest that it might stem from a cognitive schema that assumes that 1) Hell is a metaphysical place of punishment and torment, and 2) that Pharisees are the ultimate bad guys that just might deserve eternal suffering and anguish in the fires of hell.

Now, I am oversimplifying the translation process, and more than one translator helps in that process. However, it is an interesting question to ponder nonetheless. It would be interesting to consider how the awareness of cognitive schemas may affect a translation. It might be pertinent to have any one participating in translation work to undergo a psychological evaluation to better understand these items. We often talk about eisegesis and reading ourselves into the text, but it’s highly possible to write ourselves into the translation as well.

For me this idea does not undermine my faith in the text at all because I believe that God is still present in process of translations as well. But we are also called to be wise and to ignore something like this seems foolish.

Reference

McIntosh, D. N. (1995). Religion-as-Schema: With Implications for the Relation Between Religion and Coping. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0501_1