Theological Basis for Translation Method?

[Van]

I did a little more looking at the NIV and behold, of the 200 or so occurrences in the NT, the word was translated "look" 14 times and "behold" 14 times. In the remaining approximately 172 cases 23 other words and phrases were used, many the same as found in the HCSB, to translate about 71 of the appearances. That leaves about 101ommisions. Thus the NIV practices the theology of omission and the theology of non-correspondence.

 

[Yeshua1]

One question, and a two-part answer:
The Septuagint, like any translation from the original language, is "the exact words" only insofar as it accurately represents that original. However, I believe that the NT autographs hold the exact words God intended, and that's equally true whether a particular OT quote was taken from the Hebrew or the Septuagint.

That would be a very good answer, as regardless of source material used, the Spirit Himself made sure that the right one got over to us in the N original books!

 

[Yeshua1]

What do you mean there would be no reason???

There is reason enough if we see Jesus prescribe this kind of hermeneutic and observe its practice among the apostles and early church.

Beyond that, this keeps us from moralizing the OT to simple stories we are to emulate and allows the gospel to be the main message of Scripture. If you don't see the value in that, then your theology is rather warped, IMO.

The Gospels and the NT as indded the "main message of the scriptures", as they are the full revelation iven to them of the truth of God, as they complete the partial understanding given to those under the old covenant with God!

 

[preachinjesus]

Okay, I think I have time to reply now. Apologies for the delay.

Thanks for posting. This post is a good contribution.

You're far too kind, thank you. You're a scholar and a gentleman.

So far so good, but I'm going to disagree with one point. I'm not convinced of a connection between translation method and textual criticism or a doctrine of preservation. Please elaborate.

I think I was linking together the points that all translations employ some kind of theological decision when deciding on a translation method and how they understand and process through textual criticism. However, I don't mean to indicate a high level of congruency in these areas. That said, there is some theology driving one's use of either the method or adoption of a textual critical basis imho. For instance, I prefer the critical text over something like the TR. Also, my preferred translation methodology is for something that is mediating between formal equivalency and dynamic equivalency, though I prefer more dynamic equivalency for preaching and teaching. Maybe I made too much of a point on something that should be an after-thought.

How the NT quotes the old is definitely a factor in giving us a translation method. I'm not sure you are right, though, that the NT never quotes the LXX word for word. Do you have that great book with all of the quotes in Greek and Hebrew by Gleason Archer? I can't consult it right now but I'll check it out when I get to my office Mon.

I'd also check the forwards/introductions to texts like Commentary on the NT Use of the OT by Beale and The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts ed Beale. While some shorter quotations don't fall into this rule, the longer ones seem to almost go out of their way to use other words or word order than the LXX. Now, this might have been for any number of reasons, not the least of which is multiple versions of the LXX, and include things like hermeneutical approach, translating from Hebrew rather than quoting from LXX, or simply quoting from memory a passage and not having the time (or ability) to find an appropriate scroll and look it up. I've got several texts in my study and can get them if we want a more in-depth conversation on this point.

Did I ever get your definition of word for word? That would help the current discussion.

We have talked about this before and I've noted that, for me, word-for-word is that every word in the original text (Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek) is directly translated into English. This is, imho, just beyond literal (or formal equivalency) and almost at an inter-linear level. Otherwise, you're talking formal equivalency. I've had some spirited conversations with some academic peers about this too, so I'm familiar with the disagreements.

Some think it means finding just one word in the target language for each word in the original, which is of course ridiculous. I don't define it that way.

Fair enough. I don't think a "one word for one word" is possible either. Particularly when one starts getting into the more complex Greek and Hebrew verbal constructions this breaks down quickly. Some Greek verbs need about five English words to get the sense. Nouns and prepositions are easier of course, but that isn't where the difficult parts of translation exist. However, when I use "word-for-word" I do mean that each word in the original is translated, mostly in the same order as the original, and the translator doesn't go far beyond those. Maybe that clarifies...apologies if I'm being overly dense.

I agree with you there about English, but some other languages are equally nuts. Our Hungarian student says that language has 26 different cases, I think the number was.

That's a good note to remember. Some of the languages out there make things very difficult.

I would probably call your view of DE a kind of "free translation," a term which has been around since the 1st century Greek grammarians. The original DE method of Nida demanded an equal reader response to the original.

To the hard end of dynamic equivalency, yes that is more of a free translation utilizing the constrictions of the original language. As I've studied the nature of translation in antiquity, this is more in line with how they cited other texts. It was not common to have very formal or "literal" quotations or translations. Part of that was lack of access to materials and texts themselves.

This is the challenge of translation though.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, I think I have time to reply now. Apologies for the delay.

You're far too kind, thank you. You're a scholar and a gentleman.

I think I was linking together the points that all translations employ some kind of theological decision when deciding on a translation method and how they understand and process through textual criticism. However, I don't mean to indicate a high level of congruency in these areas. That said, there is some theology driving one's use of either the method or adoption of a textual critical basis imho. For instance, I prefer the critical text over something like the TR. Also, my preferred translation methodology is for something that is mediating between formal equivalency and dynamic equivalency, though I prefer more dynamic equivalency for preaching and teaching. Maybe I made too much of a point on something that should be an after-thought. 　

I understand. Most would agree with you here. Books strictly on Bible translation often start with "what original text you should choose." And then usually they do some textual criticism as they translate (both modern versions and the KJV). My view is, hey, choose your text and then translate it! Bible translators are not usually bonafide textual critics.

I'd also check the forwards/introductions to texts like Commentary on the NT Use of the OT by Beale and The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts ed Beale. While some shorter quotations don't fall into this rule, the longer ones seem to almost go out of their way to use other words or word order than the LXX. Now, this might have been for any number of reasons, not the least of which is multiple versions of the LXX, and include things like hermeneutical approach, translating from Hebrew rather than quoting from LXX, or simply quoting from memory a passage and not having the time (or ability) to find an appropriate scroll and look it up. I've got several texts in my study and can get them if we want a more in-depth conversation on this point.

Just glancing through my book by Archer and Chirichigno, I see that it is a very complex subject. I keep telling myself I'm going to do a complete study of the OT quotes for translation studies, but I guess I have too much on my plate. At any rate, you give a good summary here. There are some exact quotes (Decalogue, "Love your neighbor," etc.), but they are usually quite short.

We have talked about this before and I've noted that, for me, word-for-word is that every word in the original text (Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek) is directly translated into English. This is, imho, just beyond literal (or formal equivalency) and almost at an inter-linear level. Otherwise, you're talking formal equivalency. I've had some spirited conversations with some academic peers about this too, so I'm familiar with the disagreements.

Any practical definition of word for word has to include caveats (the Greek article, various particles, etc.).

Fair enough. I don't think a "one word for one word" is possible either. Particularly when one starts getting into the more complex Greek and Hebrew verbal constructions this breaks down quickly. Some Greek verbs need about five English words to get the sense. Nouns and prepositions are easier of course, but that isn't where the difficult parts of translation exist. However, when I use "word-for-word" I do mean that each word in the original is translated, mostly in the same order as the original, and the translator doesn't go far beyond those. Maybe that clarifies...apologies if I'm being overly dense.

No, you clarified well. And of course since the word order in Greek is not usually vital, I de-emphasize word order when I define it.

To the hard end of dynamic equivalency, yes that is more of a free translation utilizing the constrictions of the original language. As I've studied the nature of translation in antiquity, this is more in line with how they cited other texts. It was not common to have very formal or "literal" quotations or translations. Part of that was lack of access to materials and texts themselves.

This is the challenge of translation though.

As I understand it, the first century dialogue on the subject referred to word for word translations as that which a language teacher might use in teaching. Even nowadays I have to keep my mouth shut when my beginning Greek students go overly literal, though I do mention occassionaly having proper English style, and a few students catch on.

When I was in Africa recently I sat in on a Bible school class and winced (but kept my yap shut) when the teacher (a good man) proclaimed that the word order must be kept in the target language--often impossible.

 

[Van]

Speaking of English translations, where one group of scholars thinks "behold" adequately communicates the Greek G2400, but another elects to simply omit it about 100 times, we have to face the fact the omitters were making an effort to "fix" or "improve" the very words of God. Scripture has unkind words for those who adulterate scripture.

 

[Rippon]

I did a little more looking at the NIV and behold, of the 200 or so occurrences in the NT, the word was translated "look" 14 times and "behold" 14 times. In the remaining approximately 172 cases 23 other words and phrases were used, many the same as found in the HCSB, to translate about 71 of the appearances. That leaves about 101ommisions. Thus the NIV practices the theology of omission and the theology of non-correspondence.

You are practicing non-sense.

 

[Rippon]

Speaking of English translations, where one group of scholars thinks "behold" adequately communicates the Greek G2400, but another elects to simply omit it about 100 times, we have to face the fact the omitters were making an effort to "fix" or "improve" the very words of God. Scripture has unkind words for those who adulterate scripture.

You making absurd claims. To charge NIV and HCSB translators with adulterating Scripture is bogus. Further, because both versions sometimes elect not to use the old-fashioned English word behold is ridiculous on your part. There is nothing sacred about having to use that particular word as if the authority of Scripture depended on it is just plain silly.

 

[Van]

The NIV omitted behold about 100 times. The result is adulterated scripture.

When someone reads the NT, should they use a translation that omits words and phrases, adds other words and phrases, and rewrites verses to alter the meaning of still more? As for me, I will stick to the NASB95 and other less liberal translations such as the LEB, WEB, and NKJV. The theology of Truth.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you think a theological basis for a particular translation method can be determined? If so, what is that basis? Why should I translate word-for-word or with a free method or with dynamic equivalence or something in between?

I think verses like Psalm 12:7-8; Proverbs 30:3-4 should lead us to take a very humble attitude towards translating the Scriptures. I suggest that translations should be as close to the original as is consistent with good English (or Japanese).

 

[Yeshua1]

I think verses like Psalm 12:7-8; Proverbs 30:3-4 should lead us to take a very humble attitude towards translating the Scriptures. I suggest that translations should be as close to the original as is consistent with good English (or Japanese).

If one holds holds that every word in the original texs were from God, then why would we not choose to adopt ad use formal method to tranlate the scriptures then?

 

[John of Japan]

I think verses like Psalm 12:7-8; Proverbs 30:3-4 should lead us to take a very humble attitude towards translating the Scriptures.

I believe you mean Ps. 12:6-7 and Prov. 30:5-6.

Using these Scriptures mean that you are setting a foundation of the preservation and verbal inspiration of Scripture as your theological basis, correct?

I suggest that translations should be as close to the original as is consistent with good English (or Japanese).

I believe that this is exactly the position we should take based on verbal inspiration.

Here is an interesting quote on that from Eugene Nida's friend and defender:

"Nida's approach...appeared to challenge the view of Scripture that many translators from conservative theological backgrounds had always held (and many Bible translators came from such backgrounds). Most Bible translators and church leaders would affirm that in some way God provides the ultimate source of the Bible. But many also hold a view of how the Bible expresses that divine source, a view that connects the divine source with actual words and forms. They see God directing in some way the writing and canonization process. For translators who believe that not only were the thoughts of the Bible inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, but also the words themselves, a translation approach such as Nida's contradicts their theology because it puts a premium on the message rather than the form" (Philip C. Stine, Let the Words Be Written, p. 59).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe you mean Ps. 12:6-7 and Prov. 30:5-6.

Yes. Thank you. I must have been even more confused than usual when I wrote that.

Using these Scriptures mean that you are setting a foundation of the preservation and verbal inspiration of Scripture as your theological basis, correct?

That is correct. I am no great Greek scholar, but I know enough to know that a completely 'word-for-word' translation is not really compatible with readability. However, the aim of the translator should be to render the words of the text as accurately as possible and not to try to second-guess the Holy Spirit as to its meaning.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Thank you. I must have been even more confused than usual when I wrote that.

That is correct. I am no great Greek scholar, but I know enough to know that a completely 'word-for-word' translation is not really compatible with readability. However, the aim of the translator should be to render the words of the text as accurately as possible and not to try to second-guess the Holy Spirit as to its meaning.

This gord bckto translation philosphy, as shouldthe original texts be rendered as word for word asmuch as possible, or to do th DE as muh aspossible?

ALL version interprete at times, just some do it more often!

 

[Rippon]

Also, of course there are some things, especially idioms, that do no translate well and in those few cases some degree of dynamic equivalency is necessary to avoid the translation being unintelligible. (See "God forbid" in the KJV for example.)

I disagree. Instead of the irreverent G_ _ forbid, other sound translations use various expressions such as :May it never be, Of course not, of course not etc. These expressions are quite intelligible.

A primarily dynamic equivalent translation will be preferred by those who believe only in the Dynamic or Conceptual Theory of inspiration, IE conceptual (the idea, or thought, or concept is inspired) rather than verbal (the very words are inspired).

I have never heard of the "Conceptual Theory of Translation." Did you make that up, or do you have source for it?

Many godly men have participated in translating Scripture which does not use formal equivalence. Some of your relatives even and men you have expressed respect for.

 

[McCree79]

I have never heard of the "Conceptual Theory of Translation." Did you make that up, or do you have source for it?

.

He isn't making it up. Though the definition changes slightly between writers describing it. Robert Plummer lumps it in with Dynamic theory in his book on "Interperting the Bible", chapter 3. Paul Enns separates conceptual from dynamic and treats them as 2 modes of inspiration (Moody Handbook on Biblical theology; Chapter on Bibliology). Millard Erickson speaks of it in his work on Christian Doctrine as well; Chapter 5 "Inspiration ".



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

Yes. Thank you. I must have been even more confused than usual when I wrote that.

That is correct. I am no great Greek scholar, but I know enough to know that a completely 'word-for-word' translation is not really compatible with readability. However, the aim of the translator should be to render the words of the text as accurately as possible and not to try to second-guess the Holy Spirit as to its meaning.

Sorry, I didn't see this. I think what you are saying here is the practice among verbatim translators of trying to preserve the ambiguity in the target text when there is ambiguity in the original text. This is not always possible, but desirable when we can do so.

 

[Rippon]

I think what you are saying here is the practice among verbatim translators...

That is impossible. Verbatim means the exact words --not a representation, as in a translation. It's a
ludicrous position. Think about it. English words don't have exact equivalents of Greek. Verbatim translators is also an oxymoron. You really think that verbatim translations exist? How could there possibly be more than one translation? If you believe that a translation is expressing the exact words, then no other version could also be ispissima verba. No differences would be allowed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I disagree. Instead of the irreverent G_ _ forbid, other sound translations use various expressions such as :May it never be, Of course not, of course not etc. These expressions are quite intelligible.

Actually, I think "God forbid!" is quite a good translation. The Greek me yenoito is actually a prayer, "Let it not be!" So "By no means!" or "Of course not!" doesn't quite fit the bill since either of those is a strong assertion rather than a prayer. "May it never be!" is nearest to the original, but I don't know of any translation that uses it, perhaps because it's a bit clumpy.

 

[rsr]

New American Standard Bible: "May it never be!"

World English Bible: "May it never be!"

Lexham English Bible: "May it never be!"

Apostolic Bible Polyglot (sorry, but I like it a lot):" May it not be."