I agree.
That's why, according to your bibliology, you believe in ipsissima vox (the very voice) instead of ispissima verba (the very words).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Theological Basis for Translation Method?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
That's why, according to your bibliology, you believe in ipsissima vox (the very voice) instead of ispissima verba (the very words).
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Actually, I've been meaning to take that off since I meant for it to refer to something different than as would be used in a translation discussion. I am referring to the gospel accounts primarily. It is such a sub-category, I wasn't sure why I listed it in the first place.
As it relates to translation, I'd have to think a bit more how I would apply verba versus vox.
So, would you care to define your view of word for word translation? There are a number of differing definitions in the books in my library.
And yet here you are, participating in the debate in this thread, so you must not think it entirely unnecessary and fruitless, eh what?
The problem I'm addressing here is that very little debate has taken place (certainly not on the BB) on this very issue, the possible theological basis for translation methodology. Check the published works. You'll find very little. Even the KJVO side rarely discusses inspiration as a basis for methodology, I am finding as I go back through my library. They are all about preservation, and can't seem to stay on theology.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
I was only quoting from someone. The onus was on them to define what they meant by "word for word" translations.So, would you care to define your view of word for word translation? There are a number of differing definitions in the books in my library.
And yet here you are, participating in the debate in this thread, so you must not think it entirely unnecessary and fruitless, eh what?
The problem I'm addressing here is that very little debate has taken place (certainly not on the BB) on this very issue, the possible theological basis for translation methodology. Check the published works. You'll find very little. Even the KJVO side rarely discusses inspiration as a basis for methodology, I am finding as I go back through my library. They are all about preservation, and can't seem to stay on theology.
As far as theology as a method of translation, I'm not convinced either way. In fact, theologically speaking, I see the need for various methods of translations just as I see the need in various theological disciplines.
This is a wonderful discussion from the OP.
I'm of the opinion that all translation work is theologically rooted and all translations have a theological basis. If for no other reason that each chooses to use a specific kind of method in their approach. The NIV11 has a different theological approach in its underlying translation methodology that is different from the NAS95 as both vary from, say, the NLT. As we choose to approach the text in a method that is more formally equivalent or dynamically equivalent we employ a theological basis rooted in our bibliology. This also is found in the original texts we employ and how we approach textual critical issues with the discussion.
That's a good question. One of my first points, in replying to this in discussions in our local church or even in classroom settings, is to begin by examining how the writers of Scripture used existing Scripture in their work. It shouldn't be neglected that the NT never actually quotes "word-for-word" from the Septuagint and that the use of Hebrew in the NT doesn't inherently pursue such a method. Second, and I know we've disagreed about this here, my position on word-for-word translations between the original (inflected) languages and English (a non-inflected language) is that it is extraordinarily difficult (if not truly possible) to employ a consistent "word-for-word" translation, especially in Hebrew. Adding to this is the issue of unique facets of the ancient language, turns of a phrase, idioms, generational specific terminology, among other things that make "word-for-word" translation nearly impossible into English. Now, if you're translating into another language it is likely easier, English is an accursed language that is further evidence of the Fall.
That point notwithstanding, I tend to gravitate towards a mediating position that appreciates the necessity of dynamic equivalence. There are some passages which, because of all the eccentricities of language, cannot be properly understood "word-for-word" in 21st century English. I do like many formal equivalent translations and use them in personal study as well as preaching & teaching for secondary texts.
I hope this advances things.
I'm of the opinion that all translation work is theologically rooted and all translations have a theological basis. If for no other reason that each chooses to use a specific kind of method in their approach. The NIV11 has a different theological approach in its underlying translation methodology that is different from the NAS95 as both vary from, say, the NLT. As we choose to approach the text in a method that is more formally equivalent or dynamically equivalent we employ a theological basis rooted in our bibliology. This also is found in the original texts we employ and how we approach textual critical issues with the discussion.
That's a good question. One of my first points, in replying to this in discussions in our local church or even in classroom settings, is to begin by examining how the writers of Scripture used existing Scripture in their work. It shouldn't be neglected that the NT never actually quotes "word-for-word" from the Septuagint and that the use of Hebrew in the NT doesn't inherently pursue such a method. Second, and I know we've disagreed about this here, my position on word-for-word translations between the original (inflected) languages and English (a non-inflected language) is that it is extraordinarily difficult (if not truly possible) to employ a consistent "word-for-word" translation, especially in Hebrew. Adding to this is the issue of unique facets of the ancient language, turns of a phrase, idioms, generational specific terminology, among other things that make "word-for-word" translation nearly impossible into English. Now, if you're translating into another language it is likely easier, English is an accursed language that is further evidence of the Fall.
That point notwithstanding, I tend to gravitate towards a mediating position that appreciates the necessity of dynamic equivalence. There are some passages which, because of all the eccentricities of language, cannot be properly understood "word-for-word" in 21st century English. I do like many formal equivalent translations and use them in personal study as well as preaching & teaching for secondary texts.
I hope this advances things.
I've been at home with a virus (the flu kind not the PC kind), but here at Sbucks on Saturday I can get back to this some.
If you con't have your own definition (whether you devised it or borrowed it), how can you even discuss the subject except to ask for their definition (which you did not)?
The thread is not about theology as a method of translation (which makes no sense to me), but I'm asking if theology can form the basis for a methodology. For example, does verbal inspiration demand word for word translation? Is there a basis in any method which rests upon other views of inspiration?
Thanks for posting. This post is a good contribution.
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.
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.
Did I ever get your definition of word for word? That would help the current discussion.
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.
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.Now, if you're translating into another language it is likely easier, English is an accursed language that is further evidence of the Fall.
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.
Good post! ThumbsupI hope this advances things.
It certainly does not. And you have acknowledged such in the past.
I'm back. I was sick most of last week, and then there was the holiday weekend.
The first on record to connect theology with translation method was Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate. He wrote, “For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word.” (“To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating"). Though he said little else about theology in this letter, the statement does show that he considered Bibliology to be relevant in Bible translation.
Again, famous missionary translator Adoniram Judson clearly linked his theology of inspiration to his translation methodology. He wrote in a letter to his wife, "With all this, he has told me that he felt, when making his translation, an almost overpowering sense of the awfulness of his work, and an ever-present conviction that every word was as from the lips of God" (The Life of Adoniram Judson, by Edward Judson, p. 413).
Another relevant quote is from the preface of the NKJV: "In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, and in the inerrancy of the original autographs" (NKJV Preface, p. vi).
The first on record to connect theology with translation method was Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate. He wrote, “For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word.” (“To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating"). Though he said little else about theology in this letter, the statement does show that he considered Bibliology to be relevant in Bible translation.
Again, famous missionary translator Adoniram Judson clearly linked his theology of inspiration to his translation methodology. He wrote in a letter to his wife, "With all this, he has told me that he felt, when making his translation, an almost overpowering sense of the awfulness of his work, and an ever-present conviction that every word was as from the lips of God" (The Life of Adoniram Judson, by Edward Judson, p. 413).
Another relevant quote is from the preface of the NKJV: "In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, and in the inerrancy of the original autographs" (NKJV Preface, p. vi).
But doesn't Jesus and his Apostles argue though for the very words themselves being inspired by the Holy spirit in the original texts?
The Septuagint or the Hebrew? Which one was the exact words?
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
It is easy for translators to say all the right things, but by their work product should they be judged. Does any translator's "theology" say they do not worship the truth? Nope Do some translators "fix" the translation to make it say what they think it meant? Yep.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
What do you mean there would be no reason???Yeshua1 said:
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.
If we have, as Adoniram Judson did (quoted above), "ever-present conviction that every word was as from the lips of God," then we will seek to translate every word possible into the target language text. One translation which does not do that is the NET Bible. I don't have my hard copy with me, but recently I was looking at it, and they did not translate idou (usually "Behold"). The note given over and over says, "The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated because it has no exact English equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1)." (https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+1:18).
I thought, good grief, is that the best you can do? If the word is in Greek, and it has meaning (as in "adds interest and emphasis"), you can find an equivalent, even if it is a whole phrase. If the Bible is verbally inspired (and it is), it is then incumbent on the translator to find an equivalent in the target language. This does not include grammatical markers (the eth marking a direct object in Hebrew), particles such as ἂν in the Greek, semantic markers such as many direct articles in Greek, and discourse markers. It does include words which have "clear and present" meaning such as idou.
I thought, good grief, is that the best you can do? If the word is in Greek, and it has meaning (as in "adds interest and emphasis"), you can find an equivalent, even if it is a whole phrase. If the Bible is verbally inspired (and it is), it is then incumbent on the translator to find an equivalent in the target language. This does not include grammatical markers (the eth marking a direct object in Hebrew), particles such as ἂν in the Greek, semantic markers such as many direct articles in Greek, and discourse markers. It does include words which have "clear and present" meaning such as idou.
Last edited:
In case you missed it, JOJ "the note given over and over" points to the NET deleting the word (G2400) again and again. I did not do a total count, but of the 165 times it appears in the text, it usually is missing in the NET. But the footnote appears in its place.
I did count up Matthew, where the word appears about 43 times. It appears in the NET about 15times and is deleted about 28 times. Another reason to stick to the NASB.
I did count up Matthew, where the word appears about 43 times. It appears in the NET about 15times and is deleted about 28 times. Another reason to stick to the NASB.
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.
Is the NET actually the worst when it comes to deleting G2400 from the translation? I did a quick count in Matthew of the NIV and only found the word in the translation 4 times! Must be the theology of omission.
Now the HCSB usually translated the word, but it uses many different words and phrases, rather just "Look!" or Behold. We find suddenly, unexpectedly, see, there it was, immediately, right away, at that, just then, at this, there he saw, here is, consider, listen, take note, here's, at that moment, in fact, and remember, Must be the theology of non-correspondence.
Now the HCSB usually translated the word, but it uses many different words and phrases, rather just "Look!" or Behold. We find suddenly, unexpectedly, see, there it was, immediately, right away, at that, just then, at this, there he saw, here is, consider, listen, take note, here's, at that moment, in fact, and remember, Must be the theology of non-correspondence.