• 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?

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But then what is your plumb line? It seems arbitrary. Who is to say what is "wherever possible" and "word for word as possible"? And that is my point. I find the emphasis on the text is its meaning and message NOT the text itself. Therefore, there is no theological guideline to sustain a "word for word as possible" standard.
I agree.
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
I agree.
That's why, according to your bibliology, you believe in ipsissima vox (the very voice) instead of ispissima verba (the very words).
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.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The absurdity was just to make a point. I also agree that terms need to be defined. But the definition is the heart of the matter, isn't it? I guess when it comes down to it, I see value in both formal and functional equivalent 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.
I see the never-ending debate on this topic, especially from a theological point of view, to be unnecessary and fruitless.
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
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.
I was only quoting from someone. The onus was on them to define what they meant by "word for word" translations.

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.
 

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is a wonderful discussion from the OP.

Do you think a theological basis for a particular translation method can be determined? If so, what is that basis?

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.

Why should I translate word-for-word or with a free method or with dynamic equivalence or something in between?

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. :)
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
I was only quoting from someone. The onus was on them to define what they meant by "word for word" translations.
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)?

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.
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?
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is a wonderful discussion from the OP.
Thanks for posting. This post is a good contribution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.

I hope this advances things. :)
Good post! Thumbsup
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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).
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree.
That's why, according to your bibliology, you believe in ipsissima vox (the very voice) instead of ispissima verba (the very words).

But doesn't Jesus and his Apostles argue though for the very words themselves being inspired by the Holy spirit in the original texts?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is a separate issue of interpretation, but let's just say I disagree. Not only do we see the apostles read the OT christologically, and not onlyd do we have the same Spirit in us, we also see the early church do the same as well. Thus Acts 15 is not just Luke theologizing from Amos but recording what and how the early church exegeted the OT. So I follow that standard. And Jesus pretty much tells us to read the OT that way anyhow.

There would be no reason for us today though to read into the OT text and see Jesus being foreshadowed as being called out of Egypt for example, so that would seem to imply that they were given a special means to deduce what the Spirit intended us to fully receive from the OT texts being read back intot the NT ones!
 

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
Yeshua1 said:
There would be no reason for us today though to read into the OT text and see Jesus being foreshadowed as being called out of Egypt for example, so that would seem to imply that they were given a special means to deduce what the Spirit intended us to fully receive from the OT texts being read back intot the NT ones!
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.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 
Last edited:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, translators leave words out (behold at Matthew 1:20 NET) and also add words that alter rather than clarify the message.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

OnlyaSinner

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Septuagint or the Hebrew? Which one was the exact words?

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

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.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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. :)
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OTOH, a look at Matthew in the LEB gives us the truth, G2400 is translated as "behold" all 43 times! Must be the theology of truth.
 
Top