Here I am again doing some musing on things deemed controversial. I labeled certain writings as musings because they aren’t fully fleshed out and filled in. Musings contains things that I know or at least believe to be true, that differ from mainstream ideas. They are put on the public square in order to be read, tinkered, or even challenged. Scrutiny will help me to make sense of what I am thinking, by either replacing my theory with a better one or sharpening my theory to take into account things unconsidered. This entry includes some of my thoughts on translation philosophy. My preferred translation and method of translation is a balance between formal equivalence (Literal) and dynamic (the HCSB calls this optimal), and despite what anyone claims even the more literal translations resort to dynamic equivalence from time to time. The NIV, and others is not the big bad wolf, despite what a few little preachers have to say, but listen to his side of the story, he simply had a cold and needed to borrow some sugar. This isn’t a repudiation of formal equivalent bibles, just some cases for dynamic equivalence. I briefly discuss verbal plenary inspiration, and say enough to get me in trouble, and then from there give some of my thoughts on translation.
This article was prompted by some thoughts from Earle Ellis on deficiencies in dynamic equivalent translations. I don’t wholly disagree with him but I do disagree in philosophy so I decided to temper some of this thoughts, or at least try to, his thoughts are:
(1) It rejects the verbal aspect of biblical inspiration.
(2) It gives to the translator the role that rightly belongs to the preacher, commentator and Christian reader.
(3) It assumes that the present-day translator knows what contemporary words, idioms and paraphrases are equivalent to the prophets’ and apostles’ wording.
(4) It advocates conforming biblical language and concepts to the modern culture rather than conforming the modern culture to biblical language and concepts.
(5) It appears to discard the Protestant principle that Christian laity should have full access to the Word of God written without interposition of clergy or of paraphrastic veils.
1. His assumption is that Verbal plenary inspiration is true. I find VPI to be flawed, and even damaging if looked at rationally:
1. God’s word is inspired.
2. VPI says every single word is inspired by God.
3. The autographs are inspired.
4. We don’t have the autographs.
5. We rely on textual criticism to restore the original text.
6. Textual criticism cannot completely restore the original text.
7. We don’t have every word of God.
8. We don’t have God’s word.
This is largely problematic. I believe the Spirit carried along the writers and that they were not left to their own but the exact dynamics are not really laid out. I am sure that God’s message does not lose its word-of-godness when word order is altered, words are updated, and foreign concepts are given a more familiar touch (without altering the message). Technically, once you translate a scripture to another language it is no longer the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word or words that God “chose” but an approximation from the receptor language. Wouldn’t the assumptions of VPI make translations not scripture? If VPI was the case then you would expect NT writers to painstakingly copy the words verbatim without any alteration, yet we find phenomena like this:
εγω μεν υμας βαπτιζω εν υδατι εις μετανοιαν ο δε οπισω μου ερχομενος ισχυροτερος μου εστιν ου ουκ ειμι ικανος τα υποδηματα βαστασαι αυτος υμας βαπτισει εν πνευματι αγιω και πυρι (Matt 3:11)
και εκηρυσσεν λεγων ερχεται ο ισχυροτερος μου οπισω ου ουκ ειμι ικανος κυψας λυσαι τον ιμαντα των υποδηματων αυτου (Mark 1:7)
απεκρινατο λεγων πασιν ο ιωαννης εγω μεν υδατι βαπτιζω υμας ερχεται δε ο ισχυροτερος μου ου ουκ ειμι ικανος λυσαι τον ιμαντα των υποδηματων αυτου αυτος υμας βαπτισει εν πνευματι αγιω και πυρι (Luke 3:16)
απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιωαννης λεγων εγω βαπτιζω εν υδατι μεσος υμων ον υμεις ουκ οιδατε οπισω μου ερχομενος ου ουκ ειμι [εγω] αξιος ινα λυσω αυτου τον ιμαντα του υποδηματος ταυτα εν βηθανια εγενετο περαν του ιορδανου οπου ην ο ιωαννης βαπτιζων… κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν, Ἐφ’ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ’ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. (John 1:27-28, 34)
ὡς δὲ ἐπλήρου Ἰωάννης τὸν δρόμον, ἔλεγεν, Τί ἐμὲ ὑπονοεῖτε εἶναι; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγώ: ἀλλ’ ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετ’ ἐμὲ οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος τὸ ὑπόδημα τῶν ποδῶν λῦσαι. (Acts 13:25)
Five different versions of John’s message, and some interesting theological points are made if we are careful. For the synoptics, Jesus’ immersion of the Spirit is a future promise (they view the statement from Jesus chronological point of view) in John it’s a present reality for all believers–the shift in tense from future to present was not accidental. John is noted to focus on pneumatology more than the other gospel historians—his shift in tense is the starting point for his pneumatic theme. This suggests that exact word order could be altered and the messages integrity maintained. When you compare Exodus 20 with Deuteronomy 5 there are deviations in word order and even insertions. Of course my view needs to be tempered. We need to translate as accurately as possible, but accuracy isn’t necessarily “literalness” sometimes wooden literalisms are mistranslation.
Translation isn’t just about transferring words in their exact order but also making the thoughts intelligible in the receptor language. For example, when describing the healing of the paralytic man, mark says “ἀπεστέγασαν τὴν στέγην” but Luke says ἀναβάντες ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα διὰ τῶν κεράμων. Mark addressing Roman’s uses the common word for a Roman roof (see Matt 8:8 and Luke 7:6–this is a gentile speaker), but Luke is more accurate and describes the door at the top of Jewish houses. I think this conveys not only that restrictive syntax isn’t what early Christians believed but also that you could substitute a well- known concept or word in the place of a less well known one.
2. I partially agree with this. Everyone has the right to understand the Bible, but because we are removed by culture, beliefs, and timeline things need to be translated. The culture, the worldview, the sociopolitical atmosphere, the language etc…need to be translated. To take this premise to its logical extreme we should leave it un-translated (shouldn’t they be able to read without middle man?). If we agree that it should be made available in everyones receptor language and it should, why should it stop at word order, or exact part of speech replication (verbs and nouns function differently in different languages)? Now you know me well enough that I am primarily concerned with understanding the Bible in its original context—so I lean dynamic equivalence if its helps portray the original meaning better. The NIV translates “raqia” vault, instead of firmament or expanse (Genesis 1:6). This is a form of dynamic equivalence I like. OT and ANE scholars recognize that ancients viewed the sky as a dome to hold up the water above the dome. “Sky” and “atmosphere” are acceptable translations for a modern reader unconcerned with ancient culture but for my taste it is misleading and misses the beauty of ancient pre-scientific thought (but if Mark can call a Jewish roof a Roman one, then this is acceptable). “Expanse” is accurate but it doesn’t faithfully translate what an ancient would have read and understood. “Dome” or “vault” is spot on.
3. Formal equivalence assumes that modern readers “can’t” know “what contemporary words, idioms and paraphrases are equivalent to the prophets’ and apostles’ wording.” We don’t know in some cases but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try the best we can to get as close as possible
4. Not necessarily, my philosophy is to make the original meaning as accurate as possible, but sometimes this means using a modern idiom that is very close in approximation to the original one. This is difficult—for one I want to protect the integrity of the original author’s style and word choice etc…The expression, “Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι” does not make sense literally. “What to me and to you, woman,” has to be ironed out (and this is true of all translation, that’s why we generally don’t read interlinear bibles, they don’t make good sense). Once you iron it out, should we suppose that Jesus is calling his mother “woman”? If it was a term of endearment then, why not add “dear” to soften what sounds like a harsh expression to us? In a similar vein most translations, especially literal ones, tone down harsh idioms and expressions. Ezekiel 16 is hardly as offensive in English as it is in Hebrew—because we have to consider the receptor language. “Those who urinate on a wall” (1 Sam 25:22; 1 Kings 14:10) is an idiomatic way to refer to man—women can’t urinate on walls,but that’s a bit graphic for us—“men” is better.
5. This objection seems to be a rewording of two and was addressed above.
I think we can all agree with the words in the introduction of The Wisdom of Sirach:
“Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. “
ה קול (Voice) 
D’Angelo, I applaud what you have said here. I cannot imagine any professional translator in any other field today operating under similar philosophies to those of the kind you have challenged. They are outdated—really just misguided thinking. The problem, in my opinion, stems in part from the way biblical languages are traditionally approached, forcing translation by students before any real internalization takes place and supposing that “rules” learned by rote and extensive analysis (disregarding and/or preceding any semblance of fluency) are the keys to understanding a language. This is a mistaken approach. Most who are doing this likely are not fluent in more than one language; if they were they would understand what it means to think in a language other than their mother-tongue and would be on the right track then to approach translation. Further, no one would dream of approaching their own mother-tongue (in most applicable cases English) in similar fashion to what is done to the languages of the Bible.
On Ellis’ point 3 above, when I read it I immediately thought, “That is precisely what the translator’s job is to know. That’s what a translator is supposed to be doing.” A language is not a code or a puzzle such that word-for-word correspondence is even possible. Meaning is found within the framework of the language and all that surrounds it. This meaning, in order to be accurately conveyed into another language (That is what we are trying to do, correct?) must be rendered in such a way as to be understandable, as closely as possible, as the same meaning within the target language and its framework. To provide an uncontroversial example outside the realm of biblical languages, in American Sign Language the signs “TRAIN ZOOM-OFF, SORRY” as an answer to a question mean that you aren’t going to get an answer on what is going on because you missed it, so too bad. In English, depending on the register and other factors, an appropriate translation might be “Sorry, you missed the boat,” which itself contains an English idiom. This is a good example of where the translator should make use of idiom in the target language if that is an appropriate match for meaning in context. This task belongs solely to the translator. C.S. Lewis had some good thoughts.
“The very formula, ‘Naus means a ship,’ is wrong. Naus and ship both mean a thing, they do not mean one another. Behind Naus, as behind navis or naca, we want to have a picture of a dark, slender mass with sail or oars, climbing the ridges, with no officious English word intruding.”
Ben Putnam
American Sign Language Interpreter
National Interpreter Certification: NIC Advanced
D’angelo,
I am really disappointed to hear what you have to say. To deny VPI is to deny the only thread of hope that maintains the concept of inspiration. If it is taken away then there is no assurance and anything the Bible says is true. It could all be false if VPI is not true.
But there are a few things I want to point out about what you claim to be your rational look at the translation philosophy.
You claim that we cannot restore in its entirety the autographs. Certainly, man cannot but God can. It seems in your rational approach you fail to consider that God’s providence reigns in this world and in the world of men. Have you not forgotten the fact that God’s providence can preserve what man needs. What man needs is the VPI of God’s word.
You have also failed to grasp the significance of 1 Corinthians 2:10-16. The only way we can know God’s message is by his words. If we cannot have God’s words, then we are left with nothing, no hope. The law of rationality, as used by Thomas Warren in his debate with A.G.N Flew as well as C.S. Lewis’ written debate with G.E.N. Anscombe, reveals that the only rational choice between the only two logical assumptions is that it exists. In other words given the consequences of what we find and the evidence afforded to us the only option is that God’s word and the English Bible is a translation of the autographs and we have VPI for everything God requires of man.
And finally, the use of rational thought seems to have escaped what you say about the Greek verses you use. You seem to forget that VPI requires that inspiration use the voice of the person through whom the message goes. Therefore, the consequence is going to emphasis on different things in a sentence. Another consequence is being more accurate in word choice for some rather than others. Even the most astute translator will provide no change to the voice of the originator. This is why modern idioms should not be used. For it is the requirement of the hearer to understand what is being spoken not the other way around. I am required to study to show myself approved unto God. The study is mine which means that I cannot demand someone speak like me but that I learn how the speak like the one speaking. I am responsible to find out why an idiom is the way it is. I am required to recognize that certain things do not translate well but that does not mean I cannot understand them correctly. I must know that it might take me a sentence or phrase more to adequately understand what the Greek states in one sentence or phrase. But these are requirements on me the listener not the speaker.
Your claim to rational thought leaves so much to be desired. You have not reasoned well in your understanding of VPI. Rather it seems as if you have completely regurgitated the ramblings of Graf, Wellhausen, Ehrman and other “higher” critical translators who want to damage the Biblical record. I certainly hope that his is done in innocence and that you have not truly seen the implications of what you have written and thought. My hope is that you will recognize the endgame implications of this line of thinking.
Mitch,
Your feed back is welcomed. As I said in the beginning, these articles are my musings, things that I am working through in my head and trying to make sense of on paper. This one in particular was on translation philosophy with a brief discussion on VPI (which I left myself open for criticism to by not giving my view on it). One theory of inscripturation that I have found most convincing is “incarnational theory” which sees scripture as seeing God speak through people within their vernacular, understanding, and worldviews, and of course illuminating their understanding.
I do believe that the Spirit of God was in those who wrote and what they wrote was God breathed (or that God breathed on them). But besides that I don’t really have an elaborate understanding of how Biblical writers went through the process of inscripturation. The Bible just does not tell us every case. There are instances where the Biblical author says, “the Lord said to me…” (Jeremiah 16:1), but this is prophetic not inscripturation. Jeremiah 30:2-ff would be an example of inscripturation, but the question that begs to be asked is “is God concerned with exact replication of the words–or the essence of his message?”
Luke on the other hand, compiled source material, conducted interviews, and wrote a narrative to Theophilus (allegedly to show Christianity was not a violent counter-cultural movement) (Luke 1:1-4). We would expect with VPI that Luke could just be illuminated from on high and write the gospel of Luke in two hours, not so. Luke informs us that he put a lot of work, and time, into the preparation of this account (so that it would be accurate), and it would be somewhat distinctive (and probably corroborative) with other narratives that were under taken (Luke 1:1). That other writers used sources, can be shown to be the case throughout scripture. This does not mean that God has nothing to do with the process–of course he did!
If God says, “D’Angelo, tell these people that their sin is great against me and if they do not help the those who are underprivileged then I will judge them, but I will forgive them if they do right” Would I be wrong in saying “children of God, God told me that you are committing great sins against him, God is ready to judge, but if you would only help those who are underprivileged he will pardon you. My concern is whether God “mechanically dictates” his message or does he expect us to be faithful to the “message” in our rendering.
And for reasons given in the article I tend to believe that God is more concerned with the essence of his message and not whether or not a synonym was used or not, when determining faithfulness to his message.
I don’t see 1 Corinthians 2 as referring to verbal (every word) inspiration, I think you are proof-texting Paul and using it to prove VPI, when that was not in his mind. I believe modern translations are right when they say : “we also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people” (HCSB 2:13-14). Paul’s point is wisdom from God is greater than the wisdom of the world which is foolish. Our message was revealed by the Spirit of God–interpreting the significance of the cross through his guidance.
With reference to “God keeps his word safe.” He did, we have plenty of manuscripts, but they don’t all look exactly the same, some are damaged, or incomplete, some have slight word order changes, synonyms, copyist errors, etc… The reason we rely on textual criticism is to reconstruct the biblical text to its original form as close as possible. But when you say God preserved his word 100% pure which manuscripts are you talking about? The LXX, DSS, Masoretic, Old Greek witnesses (the other books outside the Pentateuch that were translated), the witnesses of other textual tradition as seen in inner biblical quotes and echoes, the Byzantine text type, the Alexandrian, Caesarean, or Western, papyri witnesses or church lectionaries? The ancient early translations (which don’t look exactly like the KJV–although all translations and texts are very similar but there are variations). You seem to be much to reductionist in your approach to textual criticism (which is a phenomenon that is not just about restoring the biblical texts, but other ancient texts). You seem to assume that the KJV has the best manuscripts evidence behind it–you would be sadly mistaken if you believed that.
Finally, I didn’t find any of your thoughts about “how to translate ideas” compelling, you didn’t really give me any insights on linguistic, interpreting, or translation philosophy to support your claims.
Don’t take my above reply to mean I don’t look to be challenged any. I am working through many things–and i’m not gonna grow at all unless I am allowed to grow, ya know? In other words, I have a life time to figure many things out, and do all my fine tuning. The Bible is God’s word…that much is certain, “iron sharpens iron”…keep the replies coming.
Good thoughts here. Not enough space to respond fully, but a few things….I would agree that VPI, if defined as most define it, is not the most accurate way to describe the process of the giving of the word of God. It’s as easy as showing …that Luke’s Greek is much harder to read than John’s. Was it not the same Spirit inspiring both men? Yet, Luke used certain Greek grammatical structures that John did not (could not) use due to his linguistic limitations. It seems to me that they chose their own words in conjunction with their ability to express themselves in the language of record, a process which was guided by God, but never fully explained by Him. This one point alone undoes VPI. You said it best: “The exact dynamics are not really laid out.” This will not, though, keep brethren from arguing over it and even disfellowshiping those who don’t tow their line.
Since translation is not a precise science (God hasn’t spoken from heaven to say that “in” in English, for example, is the correct translation of “en” in Spanish), no translation will have the same authority as the autographs if we take VPI to its logical end.
Again, I agree with your assessment that the best theory is one that mixes both literal and dynamic. I think various factors determine whether you will lean more heavily on one than the other. For whom is the translation? Seekers? Schol…ars? Children? What is the form of the text? Law? Poetry? Apocalyptic? These questions, and others, affect translation, and they’re all subject to human judgment.
It’s funny how sometimes people will say that literal is always better. This is said out of ignorance. In Spanish, for instance, double negatives are not only allowed, but often the preferred way of negating. If we literally translated a Spanish negation into English, we’d be saying the exact opposite of what we should be saying, yet we’d be true to the “literalists” among us.
Generally, I think the greater danger is not in our discussions about NIV or KJV, but the overall slant of the English Bible, no matter what translation, in mis(leading) us, if we’re not careful, to some dangerous and unbiblical conclusions. A few examples: 1. John 1:17. The way this verse is translated (especially with the addition of the conjunction [and a contrastive one, at that] “but,” people think that John is implying that grace and truth were not in the law. However, the exact phrase “grace and truth” (hesed we-emeth) is found 20 times in the Old Testament, but the translators never translated it “grace and truth.” I don’t believe this was a coincidence. 2. “Ekklesia” is found several times in the Septuagint in reference to the Jewish people, but never once do the translators call it “church.” Yet, Jesus pops on the scene, and all of a sudden “ekklesia” means church even before it’s in existence (Mat. 16:18)? The result? Gentile Christians think that church was a new idea with Jesus, totally foreign to the Old Testament, and the inherent connection between Israel and the church is lost. 3. Psalm 8:5. Man was made a little lower than “God” is what the text says. The translators of the Bible could not accept this, so they put “angels” because in their worldview, angels are higher than man, but this is not the biblical/Jewish perspective. The result? Man has an incorrect, unhealthy understanding of his importance in the development of God’s plan. 4. Baptizo = Baptize. I don’t have to explain this one, do I? lol…. That’s a COC elementary preaching point, and yes, it’s true… it’s contributed to people misunderstanding biblical baptism.
There are tons more. But, I think you see what I mean.