A Doctrine of Translation

[John of Japan]

You can almost hear "taint so, taint so!"
You look could not be trusted as your claim is false.
I made no attack on JOJ, he is a missionary and is due double honor. I reject his efforts to claim you need a special gift to be able to assess which translation choices are best. It is a skill that can be learned.

Stop lying about me. I have made no claim that "you need a special gift to be able to assess which translation choices are best." My claim is that God gifts translators.

 

[John of Japan]

JOJ used the phrase "obvious gift of translation ability" to suggest if a person is not gifted in the non-miraculous gift of tongues, they should be excluded from suggesting errors by other translators. Hogwash

This is a lie. I never said, thought, or wrote this.

 

[John of Japan]

Tell you what, folks, I'm going to have to put Van on "Ignore" again so I can ignore his lies and continue to post.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm going to copy and paste one more of my lecture outlines on the OP, hoping to get this thread back on track.

The Bible Translator’s Favorite Verse
Nehemiah 8:8

“So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”


INTRODUCTION: Evidently many of these Jews, newly returned from Babylon, had let their Hebrew language skills lapse, speaking only the Babylonian dialect of Aramaic. Therefore, they needed someone to interpret the Word of God for them. Speaking from personal experience as a missionary for many years, it is not hard to lose some of the language of your homeland, especially if you do not return for years. A generation gap is even more destructive.
How should a Bible translator be thinking about the source and target texts? This verse informs us. We should be concentrating on the exegesis of the original before producing a text in the target language. This means the translator must pay attention to hermeneutics. “As a theological discipline hermeneutics is the science of the correct interpretation of the Bible. It is a special application of the general science of linguistics and meaning. It seeks to formulate those particular rules which pertain to the special factors connected with the Bible.”[1]


I. “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly”

1. The original ought to be read distinctly.
   1. A good knowledge of the original language is required. This requires much study.
   2. The Apostle Paul wanted his Bible (2 Tim. 4:13), obviously for study.
2. This was an oral culture. Perhaps few of the listeners could read themselves, so how the Bible was read became very important.
3. How great it would be if all believers knew the Bible well and could quote large portions of it. However, it is much more important to have it in our hearts (Ps. 119:11). Understanding what we read is far more important than just reading the Bible. Remember the example of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39, esp. 30).

II. “And gave the sense”

1. The sense of the original is to be given in the hearer's (or reader's) language.
2. Notice that the meaning in the original language has priority over the meaning in the target language.
3. That is, the original language document is always authoritative. This is standard among secular translators, so it is against basic linguistic principles to insist that a translation of the Bible is more authoritative than the original text.
4. The Bible was given in the original languages of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek (2 Tim. 3:16-17). This means that the Bible in those original languages is always authoritative over any translation.
5. Textual criticism is a different matter entirely, and should not color our thinking on which is more authoritative, the original or the translation. For example, the argument that no one has ever seen the Greek or Hebrew autographs is bogus, because no one has ever seen the original hand-written manuscripts of the King James Version either!
6. “If translation is regarded as an extension of communication, any changes (or lack of changes) to the source text could only be justified by a feeble pragmatic excuse such as ‘this is how it is usually done,’ which is no justification at all.”[2]
7. Chinese translation scholar Jin Di broke with Eugene Nida on this very issue, writing, “The idea [of dynamic equivalence] is that things hard for the target-language readers to comprehend may be replaced with something familiar to them in their own culture. In fact, this is exactly Dr. Nida’s view which I have taken exception to in the aftermath of our cooperation in 1982. I will not repeat what I think I Have made clear in some of my essays, except that the issue arose over Dr. Nida’s support for replacing ‘a holy kiss’ with ‘a hearty handshake’…in the New Testament.”[3]

1. The Apostle Paul knew this, and the importance of the original, and used the original in his teaching, clearly indicating by his exegesis of an Old Testament passage that the original had priority over the LXX translation (Gal. 3:16).

III. “And caused them to understand the reading”

1. This is the final goal of the translator.

1. The translator wants new believers to understand the Bible, the precious Word of God (1 Peter 2:1-3). The Bible is absolutely necessary for discipleship (Matt. 28:18-20).
2. The translator wants believers to grow through understanding the Bible (Heb. 5:12-14).
3. The translator wants lost people to understand the Bible and get saved (Rom. 10:17).

1. It was important for the hearers (or readers) to understand. A translation that is not understood is of little use. “Of Luther’s comments on his translation, the most widely known are those articulating his desire to make his translation German, generally comprehensible German: ‘to produce clear language, comprehensible to everyone, with an undistorted sense and meaning.’”[4]

CONCLUSION: Understanding and correctly interpreting the original documents of the Bible is vital for the translator. You cannot translate what you do not understand. Modern translators are every bit as responsible to follow Nehemiah 8:8 as the original priests were to do so.

[1] Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W. A. Wilde Co., 1956), 11.
[2] Katharina Reis and Hans J. Vermeer, trans. by Christiane Nord, Towards a General Theory of Translational Action (Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing, 1984, 2013), 77.
[3] Jin Di and Eugene Nida, On Translation—An Expanded Edition (Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press, 1982, 2006), 273-274.
[4] Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, Scripture and Translation, translated by Lawrence Rosenwald and Everett Fox (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994), 48.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There are two words for "interpret"/"translate" in the NT. The one used in the Gospels and Acts is μεθερμηνευω, "translate, give the meaning in a different language; passive be translated or interpreted" (Friberg's Anlex). The one Paul uses (only in 1 Cor. 12-14) is a synonym, διερμηνευω. It means, "translate (AC 9.36); interpret, explain (LU 24.27; 1C 12.30)" (Friberg). These are not miraculous actions. Therefore, the word "interpret" in 1 Cor. 12-14 is not a miraculous gift, but a providential one. The miraculous gift of tongues as in Acts 2 may have ceased (that's a different discussion), but it is not the same as in 1 Cor. 12-14.

JoJ, that doesn’t seem to have made the case at all.

If an English speaking group with no knowledge of Japanese traveled to Japan and one of them began interpreting Japanese into English for the group, would that not be miraculous? If another of them spoke Japanese to the natives on behalf of the group, would that not be miraculous?

Why would it only be miraculous if one of them went out and began speaking Japanese to the natives directly? Also, if he were speaking his own thoughts, would that not be interpreting? And if he were delivering the Scripture in Japanese, would that not constitute interpreting?

Acts 2:11b—“‘…[W]e hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!’”

 

[Van]

Van your POV on this matter is idiosyncratic.

That observation applies to JOJ, not me. I believe in the priesthood of believers, and that no special knowledge folks, gifted in non-miraculous languages can ban me from expressing my views.

The very idea strikes at the core of baptist beliefs.
About 40% of all Baptist pastors are cessationists. Hardly idiosyncratic.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Spare me, my sides are splitting.

you will see what I mean when I post my thread!

 

[Van]

Well, you didn't call me a Nazi. Nope, you just called me a Gnostic--and the Gnostics were pretty evil people. I just lectured on this. They believed that Jesus was not truly God, but only a demiurge, a lesser god who is an emanation from the true God. They believed that matter is evil and only spirit is good. They were dualists, believing that God and Satan were equal. I believe none of this, so by calling me a Gnostic you are calling me an arch-heretic. Nice.
And now you've gone off the reservation. I did not say any of this. I'm talking about Bible translating, "not rightly dividing the Word of truth," not comparing versions, not exegesis. So now you are lying about me.

Did I call JOJ a Gnostic? Quote please. Because this is yet another false charge.
Did he even address the actual issue, claiming a person must be supernaturally gifted with non-miraculous language skills to engage in assessing the validity of translation choices. This "special knowledge" is gnostic knowledge. Full Stop

 

[Van]

Stop lying about me. I have made no claim that "you need a special gift to be able to assess which translation choices are best." My claim is that God gifts translators.

Yes you did!!

I have interviewed people who wanted to be involved in our Japanese translation who should not go near a Bible translation effort. On the other hand, I graded some beginning Greek papers last week, a translation assignment, and marveled at the work of one young lady who shows obvious translation ability. Not coincidentally, she is surrendered to be a missionary to India, where she should have ample opportunity to use her obvious gift of translation ability.​

Thus those without the "gift" should not go near a bible translation effort, like picking the most valid choice, unless the person has the "gift of translation ability." Your words, not mine.

And btw, your name calling also hinders the ministry of Christ.

 

[Van]

you will see what I mean when I post my thread!

Have at it, Sir, I always believe folks should be able to present their views in the marketplace of ideas. I am not a dictatorial elitist.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I am not a dictatorial elitist.

are you sure about this?

 

[Van]

are you sure about this?

Did you forget your promised thread? You do know you are supposed to address the positions. As in this thread, the rules we should use to translate, or in my case, to evaluate various English translations. But to play, you need to have something in your quiver other than petty insults.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Did you forget your promised thread? You do know you are supposed to address the positions. As in this thread, the rules we should use to translate, or in my case, to evaluate various English translations. But to play, you need to have something in your quiver other than petty insults.

Remember, SbG lives in England. So, he is at least five to eight hours ahead of us.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

That observation applies to JOJ, not me. I believe in the priesthood of believers, and that no special knowledge folks, gifted in non-miraculous languages can ban me from expressing my views.

The very idea strikes at the core of Baptist beliefs.
About 40% of all Baptist pastors are cessationists. Hardly idiosyncratic.

I sat under some of the Old Northern Baptist greats, B. Myron Cedaholm, M. James Hollowood, Richard C. Weeks and Arno Q. Wenigar, Sr. I believe all of them would support JoJ's position.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Did you forget your promised thread? You do know you are supposed to address the positions. As in this thread, the rules we should use to translate, or in my case, to evaluate various English translations. But to play, you need to have something in your quiver other than petty insults.

It is coming, just be patient, it may be a few days yet.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It is coming, just be patient, it may be a few days yet.

Don't let Van badger you. Take your time and do it right.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Don't let Van badger you. Take your time and do it right.

thanks. I have done this a few years ago, but like most of my studies, they are very detailed and consume pages. I am in the process of editing it to a more readable and understandable format.

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ, that doesn’t seem to have made the case at all.

If an English speaking group with no knowledge of Japanese traveled to Japan and one of them began interpreting Japanese into English for the group, would that not be miraculous? If another of them spoke Japanese to the natives on behalf of the group, would that not be miraculous?

Why would it only be miraculous if one of them went out and began speaking Japanese to the natives directly? Also, if he were speaking his own thoughts, would that not be interpreting? And if he were delivering the Scripture in Japanese, would that not constitute interpreting?

Acts 2:11b—“‘…[W]e hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!’”

How is this different? In other words, if God gave someone the ability to interpret Japanese, why is that not the same as the miracle of Acts 2? In other words, the miracle of Acts 2 was the giving of a language (without anyone going to language school!) miraculously. In your scenario, the language is given miraculously to one individual, who is then able to interpret. But that's not the gift of interpretation, is the gift of the Japanese language, which then enables one to interpret.

So, in other words, you are putting an unnecessary step into the process. Why would God not simply give that gift of Japanese to the whole group? What would be the purpose of giving it to just one person so that person could interpret? And what would he interpret? A Japanese sermon so that the English speakers could get saved?

So, in Acts 2 the gift was for the particular goal of telling people about Jesus, of proclaiming the Gospel in the various languages. If the gift had been interpretation instead of languages, there would have been an extra step in the process. "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (v. 11).

 

[SavedByGrace]

So, in Acts 2 the gift was for the particular goal of telling people about Jesus, of proclaiming the Gospel in the various languages. If the gift had been interpretation instead of languages, there would have been an extra step in the process. "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (v. 11).

Hebrews 2:4, "while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

 

[John of Japan]

Hebrews 2:4, "while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

It is interesting that this verse uses all three of the NT words for miracle: "signs" (Greek semeion), "wonders" (teras), and "miracles" (dunamis, "powers"). Then, only after that, are gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned. In other words, there are many gifts of the Holy Spirit that are providential, not miraculous. In other words, the Holy Spirit gives many gifts through DNA, rather than through miracles. I believe that God has gifted me in the area of translation by my DNA, rather than by some miracle. I believe that many of the gifts of 1 Cor. 12 and Rom. 12 are simply God's providence, not miraculous, working in such a way that His purposes are done through gifted individuals.