# Did Jesus translate the Bible in a Dynamic Equivalence manner?



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2011)

> It is interesting that Jesus and the apostles regularly quoted from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), even though the Septuagint was often a "dynamic equivalence" type of translation from the Hebrew. Should this encourage Christians to be more accepting of dynamic equivalence or paraphrastic translations of the Bible in today's versions?



How do I respond to my friend here, who is a tribal translator? 

Many translations among tribals are solid, but others are quite loose, translating horse as a type of pig, or Jesus as the sweet potato of God since the people didn't know about bread, etc.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 29, 2011)

The LXX doesn't really matter except as an historical footnote, since it's not an inspired translation.

I think the fight for an essentially literal translation is particular to more developed languages like English. In other languages, like tribal, essentially literal translations would be nearly incomprehensible. Many, many Bibles in tribal languages are left unused because the translation simply wasn't clear enough. 

One thing essentially literal translations try to do is have one word/phrase for every Greek/Hebrew word. However, it's a lot easier to find a word in the English language, with its immense vocabulary, that matches the Hebrew or the Greek, but in tribal languages you don't have that luxury. You may have to use five or ten words to have the same precision of meaning.

Also, the Western mindset and language has been so shaped by the Bible that in English we use many of the same idioms of the Bible. In a tribal language, you won't have that luxury -- you'll have to modify the idiom or include some explanation of what it means.

Pergamum, do you do much language interpretation where you are at, for sermons and things? If you do, do you strive for an essentially literal translation (word-for-word), or for functional equivalence (meaning-based)?


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2011)

Don, 

How do you suggest modifying the idiom if the idiom is not in the Greek? 

God inspired those idioms, too, didn't He? 

I am sure you wouldn't change "Lamb of God" to "God's Seal-pup" among the Eskimos would you? 

Evangelical missionaries among the mslms in SE Asia are taking out references to the Son of God and changing it to Messiah or Exalted Representative in some contextualized translations.

---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 PM ----------

Don, 

When I am able I give the text and then give a running transliteration and explanation for understanding (explaining what cows and sheep are, for instance, and denarii, etc). I am still learning the local language.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 29, 2011)

Modifying idioms:

The KJV literally translates Philippians 1:8 "For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ." The idiom doesn't translate well into English, and may even mislead you to think the opposite of what it actually means. Therefore, most translations, including the ESV, substitute "with the affections" for "in the bowels."

As I noted, English picks up a lot of idioms from the Bible, but other languages won't be nearly as kind. There will probably be many more "in the bowels" type of passages that you'll have to smooth out to preserve the meaning.

Concepts like Lamb of God are so specialized that it would be nearly impossible to match up with something in the indigenous culture. It depends so much on the Old Testament sacrificial system. "God's Seal-pup" doesn't even work with a functional equivalence philosophy because the meaning isn't equivalent.

Same thing with the mslm translations. There's a perfectly equivalent term for Son of God in Arabic that's a cognate with Hebrew. In one sense I'm sympathetic to this one because mslms are taught that Christians believe that God had sex with Mary to produce Jesus. They misinterpret the meaning of the text when they read "Son of God."

If there were a way to translate it such that taught sonship without the connotation of physical union preceding it, we ought to go with that. However, "Messiah" or "Exalted Representative" simply won't do -- the meaning is changed. This isn't the result of careful Bible translation but a deliberate attempt to change the meaning because it's offensive.

I'm thinking more of the practice of using "rice" instead of "bread" in some countries. For example, לֶחֶם and ἄρτος can refer to bread, but also food in general. In some places of the world, the word for rice also can mean food in general, and is the closest equivalent. Those countries would understand rice as the staple food in the same way that bread was in the ANE. So Jesus is the "rice of life" in many translations.

However, it gets difficult when you get to the Lord's supper, in which you may have to qualify what type of "rice" they partook of. "Rice made into a loaf," or something.

Meaning-based translation is actually much harder than literal. To do it well, you have to really study the passages and come to a good understanding of the meaning before you begin to translate and try to get that meaning across.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2011)

Don,

I believe that every word and phrase of the bible is inspired and i am sure that you do as well. 

Therefore, the main criteria to judge a good translation is mainly accuracy, though readability is also key. 

The best way to preserve accuracy and increase readability is often by means of footnote or additional pictures or notes in the margin or bracketted in the text to explain what the original means (for example, a certain amount of denarii can be footnoted to give how much this would be in local currency, or foreign foodstuffs and animals can be illustrated or explained in the margin instead of turning every horse into a pig, etc.) 

In a day when globalization has stretched even to remote regions, I see no reason why bread cannot be used or the more generic "food" instead of importing the term rice into the text of an Ancient Near East document where "rice" was unknown. I think we do locals a disservice if we hide the text of the original from them in the name of readability and there are easy ways to preserve both the original as well as explain what the original is in easier-to-understand terms (hours of the day, currency equivalencies).

Also, when the translator who is new to a culture believes he has innocently exchanged a term for a neutral cultural equivalent, this is naive. For instance, one professor i had changed the name of a bug in a translation and found out later that this bug, known for its mating habits, was a symbol of sexual lust. Can you imagine someone substituting "pig" for "sheep" or "lamb' in a NT translation and the huge impact this would have on meaning - especially to Muslim peoples? I would propose that substituting even "rice" for "bread" may also have such baggage. Using local animals or vegetables instead of the god-inspired animals and plants is not merely a neutral matter.

---------- Post added at 02:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 AM ----------

Back to the OP;

Did Jesus and the Apostles treat the Bible lightly by loosely paraphrasing it? or, phrased another way, it seems they used the LXX - did they, and what does this mean for us?


----------



## elnwood (Jun 29, 2011)

I whole-heartedly agree with what you wrote regarding accuracy and readability, and that every word and phrase of the bible is inspired.

I think the "bowels" in Philippians 1:8 is inspired, but I don't have an issue replacing it with affections within that context.

Anyway, back to the LXX -- the issue is actually more complicated than that. I think the NT uses the Septuagint reading in many places, but often not exactly. In Acts 15:16-17, James speaks, quoting Amos 9:11-12 regarding the Gentiles seeking the Lord. Only in the LXX, not the Hebrew, are the Gentiles seeking the Lord. And even then, the wording seems to be a paraphrase from what we see in LXX.

So what does that mean for us? Well, for one, I don't think that the NT writers were terribly concerned about quoting verbatim the way we are -- they simply needed to quote enough of it, or paraphrase enough of it, so that the listeners/hearers knew where they were going with it. When I quote Scripture, I'm not all that concerned that I get it exactly right.

However, I'm not sure if this pertains directly to translation, which is a significantly more substantial than quoting Scripture as a reference to make a point. In translation, you're preserving God's words; quoting, you're just trying to get your point across.

There's a saying goes "all translators are traitors." I would say equivalently that all translations are paraphrases -- you can never have all the nuances of the original in a translation. What translators have to do is figure out what nuances are most important for conveying the meaning. You have to make sacrifices somewhere.

No one tries to preserve the Hebrew acrostics, for example. I think Hebrew acrostics (and other poetic elements) are very significant, as well as inspired, but not as important as forming the poetry into cohesive English sentences. I've yet to see someone try to translate, say, Psalm 119 as an acrostic poem.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 30, 2011)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/1985_limits_of_dynamic_equivalence.pdf

Here is a good article by D.A. Carson

---------- Post added at 06:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 AM ----------

Against the Theory of Dynamic Equivalence

Here is another good link, and a good quote:



> Familiarity with ancient agriculture is necessary to understand many things in the Bible. As just one example of this, consider the complex metaphor used in Micah 4:11-13.
> 
> And now many nations are assembled against thee,
> 
> ...


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 30, 2011)

This is an interesting conversation thanks for the posts and links. A question (for whoever).

In translating pig for sheep etc. are translators trying to do to much in your opinion? What I mean is this. Not everything in Scripture is plain and simple even in Greek, Hebrew or English. God has ordained the church with its preachers and elders to instruct Christians in the meaning of Scripture. So in trying to get the meaning of everything into the idiom or receptor language are translators over-stepping the purpose of the written Word? I guess this is a laudable principle in theory, but is it problematic and wrong in practice?

I also think we Westerners underestimate just how far removed we are from the ANE and Graeco-Roman culture and just how much we have learned over the centuries that we may understand the Bible. It took centuries. This was God's plan. For us to get the Bible in English and understand it men had to learn the languages, cultures, Jewish theology and a host of other things, and then pass that on through seminaries, elders, pastors etc. Again I ask, are the translators whether that be the Message 'translators' or in missionfields trying to bypass all that in the 'new worlds'?

Hope that makes sense, if not ask for more explanation. I might be able to explain it more, maybe not.


----------



## TimV (Jun 30, 2011)

Pigs are mean and kill baby goats and stink and aren't meek and are a horrible replacement for lambs. And all tribal people have at least heard of bread. The Septuagint may replace and ambiguous tree for a terebinth tree, but that's arguable since no one can prove the Hebrew Bible we have is the one the translators of the Septuagint used. Any comparison as in the OP is just false, since the Septuagint never does anything like switching lamb with pig. The man's reasoning is either uninformed or malicious.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 30, 2011)

Some recent posts on the inadequacy of DE: For His Renown | That the glory of the Lord might cover the dry land as the waters cover the sea


----------



## steadfast7 (Jun 30, 2011)

You know, I've thought about this a lot, and have butted heads with many a Wycliffe missionary during my year's training in SIL. I think we should be as literally as possible, even at the risk of causing total confusion or blank stares. 

My reasons:
1. Our theology of inspiration says that WORDS, not concepts are inspired.
2. As the church matures, they will want a more literal translation anyway
3. Dynamic and meaning-based translation typically have no intention on staying and discipling the people through systematic instruction in the Scriptures. Their aim (well meaning) is to translate, then leave - no wonder they seek to render every passage so that it's immediately meaningful and easy to understand. 
4. Every Bible has not been perfectly understandable when the readers first read it (even the KJV); why should tribalists have it any differently?
5. dynamic equivalence attempts to be wiser than God with the "what he meant to say was ..."
6. there is much in Scripture that is more suited and understandable for agrarian peoples and tribals than for us in the technological age.
7. a less readable, but more faithful rendition of the Scripture may help to weed out those who are not willing to put effort, and keep interested those who are serious about God. that's who we want in the church.

I'm not totally against DE theory, I think it has its place, but we should move from literal to readable, not the other way around. let's make it tough for the early churches in other lands as it was for our forebears, they'll appreciate it in the long run. We've already seen what the Willow Creek method has accomplished (or not accomplished)


----------



## elnwood (Jun 30, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Here is a good article by D.A. Carson



Carson is really good about being balanced and clear about the pros and cons. That said, though, he defended the NIV/TNIV and inclusive language, which is farther than I would go (in English, at least), so the article needs to be read within Carson's general framework.

There are dangers in both approaches, and responsible translators have to consider both.



steadfast7 said:


> You know, I've thought about this a lot, and have butted heads with many a Wycliffe missionary during my year's training in SIL. I think we should be as literally as possible, even at the risk of causing total confusion or blank stares.
> 
> My reasons:
> 1. Our theology of inspiration says that WORDS, not concepts are inspired.
> ...



Steadfast7, quick thoughts.

1. The words are inspired, but they have no meaning without context. What does "run" mean? You can't divorce "words" and "concept."
3. That problem exists no matter what translation philosophy we use. I'm sure others use "bowels" in Philippians 1:8, pull out, and leave them to wonder. The problem there is not with translation, but not fulfilling the "teaching" aspect of the Great Commission.
4. I imagine the Greek and Hebrew, in terms of language, were quite readable to the original audience.
6. Definitely true.
7. I don't like this, because by this logic, we should just have everybody learn Greek and Hebrew. We're talking about preliterate cultures here. There are plenty of people who are serious about God, but some aren't even able to make the first step of learning how to read well enough, much less read something woodenly literal.

I think we're talking at too high level; we really need to talk about specific passages if we're to evaluate this properly.

I'd like to submit Philippians 1:8 as a test case for translation. Should it be translated "bowels" or "affections"? Why? As Pergamum said, accuracy is key, and I think in some cases, translating to literally will be more inaccurate.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 30, 2011)

Don, 

Good idea - let's start being more specific. Let's discuss the following:

(1) The use of Ancient Near East animals, foods and farming, which are unheard of in jungle cultures among tribals (eg., references to grain, threshing, horses,, jewels and pearl, wolves,sheep, donkeys as well as thrones, shepherds, banks, money-changers).

(2) Units of time and units of money (denariii, the third hour, and so forth),

(3) Idioms, such as "bowels of affection" or "The Bread of Life" or "The Lamb of God" and even offensive idioms such as "Son of God" in Muslim contexts (an important issue right now in missions to muslims)



I will go first:


About unknown units of measure, and unknown foods:

-I advocate keeping the original term and then placing an explanatory note or a footnote to explain the term, along with a possible illustration. Thus denarii would not become rupiah, nor lilies of the field become a native plant, nor would "bread" of life become "Sweet Potato of Life" nor would a Sabbath day's walk (Acts 1:12) merely be changed to about a kilometer but would be explained further because even this phrase might have "theological content" that needs preserving (showing brackets or footnotes to denote that these additional notes are not actually part of Sacred Writ would be helpful).

Another tolerable approach would be to try to change denarii into the actual amount using modern currency, but we all know how much modern currency fluctuates. I would not do this myself.


-About unknown idioms: 

I would preserve the idiom intact and then further explain it. Human language is highly idiomatic and there is no way to take out Ancient Near East idioms without changing MUCH of the Bible. Even these idioms are vessels which may contain theological/spiritual truth.

Bringing forth fruits fitting with repentance is even metaphorical language as are the references to fruits of the spirit, but we would never change this for an Eskimo culture that has no fruit trees.

---------- Post added 07-01-2011 at 12:17 AM ---------- Previous post was 06-30-2011 at 11:50 PM ----------

P.s. many folks advocate that we as Bible translators "reproduce the meaning" in a "contextual way" to a receptor audience. But, I do not trust the theological prowess of many of the translators I have met to "reproduce the meaning" - and this is one major reason for keeping a translation as close as possible to the NT Greek and differentiating the explanatory notes from the translation itself.

P.s.s. another article about dynamic equivalence: 



*About bowels:*

Splagchnon are the innermost parts. To say that we are in the innermost parts of Christ or that (splagnizomai) that we have feelings that come from the innermost parts is actually more of a way of thinking that aligns with tribal thinking, where missionaries get told by some tribes that their livers are happy to see them (there seems to be no mention of the brain as an organ being the center of thought and feeling in the bible, or in the thoughts of many tribal cultures). Thus retaining the bowel imagery might actually be a better fit for tribal translation.

Thus, the following verses are better if the bowel imagery is left in, because our feelings come from our innermost parts:




> 2 Corinthians 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
> 
> Philippians 1:8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Philemon 1:20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.



I suppose a dynamic equivalence translation would change this translation to mere feelings or heart, but bowels or innermost parts is the most accurate rendering and does not affect meaning (except in modern US cultures that equates bowels with merely pooping or merely the large intestine and colon instead of the more traditional understanding, meaning everything on the deep insides of a person).

Curiously this "bowel issue" is one of the reasons that I still read the King James Version mostly because it gives me a solid trust that I am getting an accurate and literal translation and not the mere opinions of a translation committee.


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> My reasons:
> 1. Our theology of inspiration says that WORDS, not concepts are inspired.
> 2. As the church matures, they will want a more literal translation anyway
> 3. Dynamic and meaning-based translation typically have no intention on staying and discipling the people through systematic instruction in the Scriptures. Their aim (well meaning) is to translate, then leave - no wonder they seek to render every passage so that it's immediately meaningful and easy to understand.
> ...



Exceptionally well summarised. Thankyou for the clarity.


----------



## elnwood (Jul 1, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Don,
> 
> Good idea - let's start being more specific. Let's discuss the following:
> 
> ...




Sure, I'll take a crack at it.

(1) In almost every case I would learn towards coming up with new words or phrases for these unfamiliar animals, probably something descriptive in their language ("big cat" for lion, or something). If they're going to understand the Bible, they're going to have to have a geographical reference point, and that means knowing that there's a far away country called Israel with foreign animals, food, etc.

You used the term "contextual" translation. In the sense that you are using it, i.e. reading the Bible as if it were taking place in a different context, I don't like it, and I don't think it's the same as dynamic equivalence.

(2) I would tend to translate time of day to the local custom of telling time, i.e. third hour becomes 9 a.m.

Money I would probably either keep in original currency or "a day's wages" can work. Definitely against changing to modern currency, for your reason as well as what I wrote above regarding "contextual" translation. That's not even tolerable in my book.



Pergamum said:


> I suppose a dynamic equivalence translation would change this translation to mere feelings or heart, but bowels or innermost parts is the most accurate rendering and does not affect meaning (except in modern US cultures that equates bowels with merely pooping or merely the large intestine and colon instead of the more traditional understanding, meaning everything on the deep insides of a person).



The parenthetical statement is more of my point. If bowels work in certain tribal languages, great! But in English it makes you think of pooping. What if, say, you ran into a culture where only malice comes from the bowels?

Again, this is where I would define accuracy as conveying the original meaning. I tend to think that replacing animals makes a translation less accurate, but leaving bowels in is less accurate because it actually obscures the meaning.

--

Here's another "time" question: How do you end Psalm 23? Do you follow the English "forever"? Or do you go with the literal "a length of days"? I would tend to translate it idiomatically "for the rest of my life" in English.

This is a good example of a case where the meaning includes not only the meaning of individual words or individual phrases, but also in what affect they have on the listener. "A length of days" may be more accurate, but perhaps "forever" better conveys the feeling of hope that the original Hebrew readers had rather than the banal-sounding "length of days." Something to think about.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 1, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Don,
> ...




Questions:

(1) Wouldn't you be doing a great disservice if you make up new names for all those animals? After all, when tribals find out that an elephant is not really an "enormous pig with long nose" won't they feel a bit cheated that you didn't better prepare them to adapt better to the encroaching outside world which has standard regional names for animals? The world is globalizing fast.

(2) I agree that accuracy entails conveying the original meaning, but isn't there a danger in translators not being theologians and mistaking this original meaning? This can be lessened when using idioms by retaining the biblical idiom and writing in an explanatory note? But yes, you are right, we must be accurate in our translation and this means conveying the original meaning....so in cases where the meaning has changed though the words have stayed the same, this poses hard issues. I would prefer bowels of affection be rendered innermost parts in the english, by the way.

Okay, let's discuss more specific examples. 

I will look at Psalm 22. Too tired tonight (aargh, a very long day).


----------



## TimV (Jul 1, 2011)

> The use of Ancient Near East animals, foods and farming, which are unheard of in jungle cultures among tribals (eg., references to grain, threshing, horses,, jewels and pearl, wolves,sheep, donkeys as well as thrones, shepherds, banks, money-changers).



One mustn't be tempted to assumptions of ignorance. The chance that anyone reading this would ever run into such a tribe is zero. They all know what money is. They all know what grain is. They've seen pictures of horses and sheep, and all have leaders so a throne is the seat the leader sits on. They all have decorations and have seen valuable stones. Even if it's husking coffee beans, threshing is a concept that they get.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 1, 2011)

Tim: 

There are still a few places left where my assertions are true.


----------



## TimV (Jul 1, 2011)

Interesting. Even in the Highlands of PNG it wasn't the case. I still maintain that the likelihood of ever meeting someone like that is vanishingly small, and something as simple as a magazine with pictures would cure the problem.

Where would people be that had no concept of money? People that don't know a snake or jaguar skin can be traded for paper that buys rice and knives?


----------



## steadfast7 (Jul 1, 2011)

elnwood said:


> 1. The words are inspired, but they have no meaning without context. What does "run" mean? You can't divorce "words" and "concept."
> 3. That problem exists no matter what translation philosophy we use. I'm sure others use "bowels" in Philippians 1:8, pull out, and leave them to wonder. The problem there is not with translation, but not fulfilling the "teaching" aspect of the Great Commission.
> 4. I imagine the Greek and Hebrew, in terms of language, were quite readable to the original audience.
> 6. Definitely true.
> 7. I don't like this, because by this logic, we should just have everybody learn Greek and Hebrew. We're talking about preliterate cultures here. There are plenty of people who are serious about God, but some aren't even able to make the first step of learning how to read well enough, much less read something woodenly literal.


 You bring up some good points. In response.
1. Yes, you are right. We should not blindly translate words without considering context. When I say "words are inspired", I of course mean words as is used in normal language. The idea behind a theory of translation is not to view the Bible as a nebulous collection of universal ideas, but an historical record written in the context of a particular time, place, and language.
4. It was not long until our great theologians and expositors of Scripture did not know Greek or Hebrew with native-like proficiency. Interestingly, the NT writers, transliterated and then explained many Aramaic terms for their Hellenistic audiences - a great example for us to follow (in certain instances).
7. A text that's difficult to read is different from a text which has no meaning. No lay Christian needs to learn Greek or Hebrew to make sense of the text. this would go against our doctrine of Scripture. However, woodenness and archaic sounding Scriptures are not merely the domain of the Christian tradition, but nearly all world's religions. Many a translation has been rejected as holy scripture because it was too familiar and carried no sense of history or transcedence. The DE people don't realize this and end up shooting themselves in the foot.

In the end, it comes down to our doctrine of scripture. What do we believe it is that we're translating? DE unfortunately misses the point that God's gracious revelation began long ago, with a different people from a different part of the world, who didn't use pounds and inches. The gospel is _to the Jew first, _and _then _the Greek. 

Pergy, the Jesus is the "yam of life" is a nice example. Yam is their equivalent staple, and it's their name for foreign foods that look like yams. Seems reasonable. But is that what Jesus _said_? Has anyone considered the Old Testament allusions to Jesus' discourse about bread? You see, in a single word choice, Jesus words have been put into question, and the OT background has been eliminated.

Even if for the sake of the missionary's conscience, _alone_, it's better to translate literally, keep the Bible transcendent and teach people to wield around it (uncomfortable as it might be), rather than teach them that God's word bows to their own situation in every instance.

"The medium is the message", as Canada's own Marshall McLuhan said. We communicate values and ideals through our method of communication. I'm very wary of methods that stem from a desire to become too imminent to the receptor's situation. There's something very Arminian about DE, don't you think?

I agree with the hyperbole that even a ploughboy can understand Scripture, but thank God he has ordained the means of teaching and preaching to help explain the Bible!


----------



## Eoghan (Jul 1, 2011)

I was intrigued by one assertion that we have no quotes from the Septuagint in the NT until about 150AD. What we do have is translations from the Hebrew. 

It has always bothered me that the quotations from the OT were so "loose". Turns out they were (probably?) translating Hebrew into Greek NOT quoting from the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is not the original and sadly some translators are using it as an "earliest document" to "correct" the Masoretic Text which is a "later document". Thus working on the secular premise that earlier documents are more reliable instead of looking at the means of preservation (i.e. the MT was copied much more carefully). [or so I am told]


----------



## TimV (Jul 1, 2011)

> I was intrigued by one assertion that we have no quotes from the Septuagint in the NT until about 150AD. What we do have is translations from the Hebrew.



I don't understand that since the people who quoted the Septuagint and had those quotes recorded in Scripture were all dead by 150AD.



> It has always bothered me that the quotations from the OT were so "loose". Turns out they were (probably?) translating Hebrew into Greek NOT quoting from the Septuagint.



About 99 percent of the people who have studied the subject say that at least on some occasions NT authors quoted the Septuagint.




> The Septuagint is not the original and sadly some translators are using it as an "earliest document" to "correct" the Masoretic Text which is a "later document".



Neither are original. There were no Masorites until well after Christ, hence, no Masoretic Text. About the only thing we can be sure of is that the Septuagint is a couple hundred years older than the MT.


----------



## elnwood (Jul 1, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> (1) Wouldn't you be doing a great disservice if you make up new names for all those animals? After all, when tribals find out that an elephant is not really an "enormous pig with long nose" won't they feel a bit cheated that you didn't better prepare them to adapt better to the encroaching outside world which has standard regional names for animals? The world is globalizing fast.



Good point -- it would depend if there is a standard regional name. In many, if not most cases, that would be the best. But I don't think it would be that problematic for them to have a different word than the regional standard. We seem to get by with using "Germany" for "Deutschland." People understand that different languages have different words for things.

A tribe may really gravitate towards a particular description like "enormous pig with long nose." It may be technically not a pig, but there's no egg in eggplant or ham in a hamburger. A prairie dog is not a dog. Languages are full of such things because they develop organically rather than with scientific precision.

I think the way to do it is to show them pictures, videos, and describe the animals, tell them what other languages call it, and let them come up with a name. After all, that's what God did when he let Adam name the animals.



Pergamum said:


> (2) I agree that accuracy entails conveying the original meaning, but isn't there a danger in translators not being theologians and mistaking this original meaning? This can be lessened when using idioms by retaining the biblical idiom and writing in an explanatory note?



Of course. But I think that danger exists in both philosophies. Both are caused by inadequate understanding. I'm not sure if it's any better by preserving a meaningless idiom and having an incorrect explanatory note. The solution in either case is better exegesis.

Sometimes, though, the meaning of a passage is ambiguous (for example, the whole objective/subjective genitive debate). If you can convey the ambiguity in the translation, that's great, but sometimes your target language is limited that you may not have the option to preserve the ambiguity, and you're forced to make an interpretive option.

All this to say, it's easier said than done to say "do a literal translation" without digging into particular examples. Even a literal translation involves making translation decisions regarding meaning.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 1, 2011)

Dennis:



> Pergy, the Jesus is the "yam of life" is a nice example. Yam is their equivalent staple, and it's their name for foreign foods that look like yams. Seems reasonable. But is that what Jesus said?



This is a real example of a translation here. I know and respect the translator but there is, in fact, knowledge of bread in that tribe and I think his rendering was an unneeded change.

---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------




elnwood said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > (1) Wouldn't you be doing a great disservice if you make up new names for all those animals? After all, when tribals find out that an elephant is not really an "enormous pig with long nose" won't they feel a bit cheated that you didn't better prepare them to adapt better to the encroaching outside world which has standard regional names for animals? The world is globalizing fast.
> ...



Good points Don.



> All this to say, it's easier said than done to say "do a literal translation" without digging into particular examples. Even a literal translation involves making translation decisions regarding meaning.



Yes, indeed.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 PM ----------

Don, 

What, in your opinion, is the best way to combat evangelical trends in contextual bible translations whereby phrases such as "the Son of God" are exchanged for "Messiah" or "The Son that came from heaven", with the rationale that Son of God encourages the misunderstanding that God had sex with Mary? 

This is happening much in the country you are possibly heading towards (see Roger Dixon's article "Identity Theft: Retheologizing the Son of God" and other articles). I believe _Hious Tou Theou_ was given us for a reason and we must preserve phrases such as this in any local translation as much as possible.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 PM ----------

Don, 

What, in your opinion, is the best way to combat evangelical trends in contextual bible translations whereby phrases such as "the Son of God" are exchanged for "Messiah" or "The Son that came from heaven", with the rationale that Son of God encourages the misunderstanding that God had sex with Mary? 

This is happening much in the country you are possibly heading towards (see Roger Dixon's article "Identity Theft: Retheologizing the Son of God" and other articles). I believe _Hious Tou Theou_ was given us for a reason and we must preserve phrases such as this in any local translation as much as possible.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 2, 2011)

*Back to the OP:*
How would you respond to this observation from my friend:



> Because Jesus & the apostles' frequent use of the Septuagint, which was often a dynamic equivalent translation of the Hebrew, would indicate to me that dynamic equivalence is not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## TimV (Jul 2, 2011)

Perhaps cut to the pragmatic: Ask for a couple examples. PS I think you've got a great handle on translating.


----------



## elnwood (Jul 2, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> What, in your opinion, is the best way to combat evangelical trends in contextual bible translations whereby phrases such as "the Son of God" are exchanged for "Messiah" or "The Son that came from heaven", with the rationale that Son of God encourages the misunderstanding that God had sex with Mary?



Good question. I can answer from what I know and can see from being here on the sending side of missions.

A lot of it has to with the a) de-professionalization, and b) independency of missionaries. I have to start by saying that these aren't necessarily bad things intrinsically. I think there are a lot of places to serve in missions for people who aren't seminary-trained, ordained ministers. Similarly, missionaries need to be flexible and innovative in order to succeed in places where the gospel has not yet been preached.

But this has come at a cost. For de-professionalization, that means that many missionaries are out of touch with the important themes and doctrines of Scripture that a good seminary education will provide.

It also means that they are out of touch with the larger academic community, which provides helpful feedback. Tite Tienou of TEDS (Professor of Theology of Missions) and Mark Strauss of Bethel Seminary (NT Professor, NIV translator) were dialoguing about Muslim-friendly translations at a talk I attended, and both were in agreement that these "translations" were misguided and harmful. As far as I can tell, the Christian academic community at large here in the West strongly disapproves.

Similarly, for independency: many missions agencies give their teams complete independence. If there is too little accountability by the missions agency and the local churches, then the teams can go astray. (Note here that I'm not referring to organizations like Wycliffe, who have a lot of checks in place for their translation).

Above all, missions, like all ministry, is a community endeavor. Some missionaries have been doing "Muslim-friendly" translation for decades now, but it has only been in the last few years that the larger church has become aware of it, and now it's in Christianity Today. When teams do not benefit from the wisdom of the Christian community in their churches, seminaries, and sending agencies, they can stray into error without the accountability.

As far as what to do, I would encourage these missionaries to dialogue more with their home churches regarding their contextualization strategies. Our missions committee composed a document to serve as guidelines for proper contextualization to serve as a starting point for dialogue regarding on=going practice.

I would also encourage these missionaries to think of long-term church planting instead of getting converts as quickly and easily as possible. We certainly want converts, but eventually they're going to see that if we do things like call ourselves Muslims, or get rid of "Son of God," we're being deceptive. These are not good long-term discipleship strategies.

There's a trend in missions towards pragmatism and immediate results. Missions ought never be rushed. Language and culture learning take years, and there are no shortcuts. We need to take the time to understand their culture and be able to communicate the Biblical view of Christ's sonship rather than sweep it under the rug, and translate words with the whole scope of Scripture in mind.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 2, 2011)

Thanks, good stuff.


----------



## elnwood (Jul 2, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> 1. Our theology of inspiration says that WORDS, not concepts are inspired.





elnwood said:


> 1. The words are inspired, but they have no meaning without context. What does "run" mean? You can't divorce "words" and "concept."


 


steadfast7 said:


> 1. Yes, you are right. We should not blindly translate words without considering context. When I say "words are inspired", I of course mean words as is used in normal language. The idea behind a theory of translation is not to view the Bible as a nebulous collection of universal ideas, but an historical record written in the context of a particular time, place, and language.


 
Words vary from their use in "normal language." Take "run" for example. You can go "running," which is the "normal" use of the word. But you also "run a business," "run for office," "run it into the ground," "run an advertisement," etc. All of these are idiomatic uses of the word "run."

As translators, we ought not slavishly insert the word for "running" in every one of the cases, and say, "oh, we'll just add an explanatory footnote." Before long, your Biblical text will be indecipherable, and your footnotes will exceed the Biblical text.

Back to the "bowels" question. I don't think Philippians 1:8 is referring to Jesus' actual, physical bowels any more than "running an advertisement" has to do with moving one's legs to cover distance. "In the bowels" actually means "with the affection" in this context.

Some would argue that in the mind of the Greek writers, they actually saw emotions taking place in the bowels. Perhaps that's true, but perhaps not. Originally it may have, but idiomatic expressions generally stick around far past when the original conception. Maybe a long time ago, people thought prairie dogs were dogs. A long time ago, "Good bye" meant "God be with you," but it hardly has that meaning now.

As a closing thought, one of the most powerful things about doing Bible translation is when the people you're working with says, "God speaks my language!" You want to communicate God's word both accurately, and in a way that speaks the language of the people as if it were an insider. As Jesus was incarnated and dwelt among us, so the Bible should be incarnated and dwell among them.

I appreciate the sentiment towards literal translations as respecting the inspiration of Scripture, but I think that it works better in concept, than in practice.

I recommend trying to use exclusively Young's Literal Translation for a while. That has long been the most literal version around, sticking to both word-for-word translation and adhering to word order. It's doable, but it's difficult, and I woulds say it doesn't "speak to you" as well as something more idiomatic.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 3, 2011)

Don, 

I prefer the KJV and ESV due to their more literal quality of translation. There is a continuum and it is possible to have an accurate translation that is also very readable (i.e. the ESV) but, yes, sometimes one sacrifices one factor at the expense of the other.


Now, back to the OP again, a friend asked this:




> How come in Mark 12:30, Jesus quoting Deut 6:5 does not quote it the same but adds in the phrase 'with all your mind', and the teacher of the law in Mark 12:33 says it slightly different again? (And this is the most important commandment which is being talked about.)



and also:




> Second question I have - why in Acts 1:20 does Peter pluck the second half of a sentence from an imprecatory passage where the psalmist is requesting something negative to happen to his enemy ('may another take his place of leadership'), an...d quote it as if it was an instruction given by God to follow in cases where a leadership position has become empty? I get annoyed when people today quote verses or parts of verses out of context to support their positions, but when I see Peter does this I don't have any answers.




The implication seems to appear to be that Jesus and the Apostles loosely quoted the text, and therefore we may as well.

How do you answer this?


----------



## elnwood (Jul 3, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Now, back to the OP again, a friend asked this:
> 
> 
> > How come in Mark 12:30, Jesus quoting Deut 6:5 does not quote it the same but adds in the phrase 'with all your mind', and the teacher of the law in Mark 12:33 says it slightly different again? (And this is the most important commandment which is being talked about.)


 
Just so we're clear about the differences:
Deuteronomy 6:5 (Heb): לבב, נפש, מאד
Deuteronomy 6:5 (LXX): καρδία, ψυχή, δύναμις
Joshua 22:5 (Heb): לבב, נפש
Joshua 22:5 (LXX): διάνοια, ψυχή
Matthew 10:27: καρδία, ψυχή, διάνοια
Mark 12:30: καρδία, ψυχή, διάνοια, ἰσχύς
Mark 12:33: καρδία, σύνεσις, ἰσχύς
Luke 10:27: καρδία, ψυχή, ἰσχύς, διάνοια

Without getting into the nitty gritty too much, I would say that the lexical scope of the three Hebrew words is very broad, covering intellect, thought and feelings, as well as the entire soul, being, power and strength of the individual. Together, they mean the whole of the person, and all aspects of the person.

The meaning can be conveyed in translation into Greek language and thought in many ways by various words that highlight aspects that are present in the Hebrew. "All of your mind" is not "added" in Mark 12:30, but is present in לבב (and perhaps נפש) even though the word is usually translated "heart."


----------



## steadfast7 (Jul 4, 2011)

> The implication seems to appear to be that Jesus and the Apostles loosely quoted the text, and therefore we may as well.
> 
> How do you answer this?



there are times in the NT, where supposed quotes do not even appear in the OT at all. eg. Matt 2:23, "he will be called a Nazarene"; Matt 5:43, "hate your enemy." My answer is first, there may have been a body of tradition that came alongside Scripture that was taken collectively as flowing forth from the Scriptures (in their mind) and part of the Jewish consciousness - kind of like our Reformed tradition. Second, however the NT authors "redacted" the OT Scriptures, they did it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and for our benefit, so that gives them a "right" to quote however they want, so to speak.

Even while this may be the case, many people have been convinced that every OT reference in the NT is employed faithfully and according to its original context, so that's possible as well.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 4, 2011)

Dennis,

Yes, my line of argument with my friend is that Jesus and the Apostles loosely quoted Scripture due to inspiration but we may not because we are not inspired. 

Plus, they perhaps were paraphrasing from the Hebrew scrolls into the Aramaic or the Greek (perhaps reading a Hebrew Scroll and then Targum'ing it?). 

Is my line of argument a sound one? Is it shaky to propose that the NT writers employed a different exegetical hermenautic than we are to employ? Did the NT writers read Hebrew scrolls?


----------



## steadfast7 (Jul 4, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Dennis,
> 
> Yes, my line of argument with my friend is that Jesus and the Apostles loosely quoted Scripture due to inspiration but we may not because we are not inspired.
> 
> ...


 I think the line of argument is perfectly fine. The NT authors were either paraphrasing on the fly, or redacting, or using the LXX, or some combination(s), but the moment the Holy Spirit guides the writer to put pen to parchment, it's infallible. Our modern categories of precision simply cannot be used to judge how the ancients handled texts, and the argument that covers all bases is that what they did, they did by divine inspiration and felt justified in doing it because they saw God's word as living and active.

The distinction between what the NT authors did in contextualizing their message and what the modern missionary is permitted to do is THE pivotal issue. There's no doubt that there's TONS of contextualizing going on in the Apostles mind, but are we authorized to do the same and how much? Dean Flemming's "Contextualization in the New Testament" argues YES! But I can't help but notice that this is what Arminian missions is all too keen and excited about, while the Reformed folk seem more hesitant. This is an indicator to me. We also see this in the Platonic synthesis of the early church and so much of church history, fair enough.

_But_ contextualizing the gospel and Bible translation are actually two different things. The gospel is given to us in many different contextualized forms in scripture, because it touches human experience on so many different levels and deals with so many problems. But Scripture, on the other hand, is a single canon of infallible writings, once for all delivered to the saints. What else are we expected to do with it except translate it as literally and accurately as possible, while explaining and teaching it through contextualized language?


----------



## 3John2 (Jul 4, 2011)

Perg, have you found a GOOD translation in Bahasa? My wife says most are NOT very good when compared to the KJV or the NKJV, ESV etc. She says they are very watered down, weak translations.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 4, 2011)

The line between hermeneutics (interpretation) and translation gets fuzzy. But it sounds to me like some of these translators are taking hermeneutical principles, and confusing them with translational principles. They are denying any functional difference in the tasks.

Arguing: that the apostles present OT texts in ways that _interpret_ them--and therefore, translators are free to render the inspired word in whatever plastic-fashion suits the moment--is overly pragmatic, and confuses the task of the translator with that of the preacher/teacher.

It is not the job of the translator to remove every bit of "strangeness" or "opacity" from the text for his readership. There is a really big philosophical disparity here, when it comes to deciding what sort of "sound" God's Word should have in a given person's language. It appears as though some translators want to overleap a natural process _that ordinarily takes several generations,_ in which the unique text and cadences of the biblical-world get woven through a new culture's language and understanding, by attempting an artificial short-circuit that supposedly makes the Bible instantly accessible in the most pedestrian way to the present generation.

Has none of these people thought about the potential harm this does to the following generations? Just think of "translations" (same basic concept) in English, some of which have actually been tried: the hip-hop translation, the ebonics translation, the valley-girl translation. These are basically overly narrow, and culturally stunting "translations" (even as the "Good News Bible" was). To the extent that such become entrenched anywhere, they are effectively useless in one generation. The following generation requires "its own" idiomatically-precise rendering. *This make translation all about catering to particular people, rather than bringing people who need transformation to a God who does not.* Its a philosophical issue.

And another facet of the philosophical question is also apparent: if all the emphasis is placed on the value of every sentence and phrase "speaking immediately to a person" in his heart, where is the place for the value of the "exotic," the "other" that is also part of the uniqueness and beauty of God's Word? It's an _arrogant_ stance that decides to take that part almost entirely away from a people just getting the Bible in their hands. I think, in the end, people will feel ripped off. As evident as it became in days gone by that after several generations of one translation, a new one was called for, in the case of some more recent attempts (in new languages) they won't even get a few generations. The Bible, supposedly in their own language, will be a foreign book to the very next generation.

The Bible teaches that people need teachers of the Bible! Does the story of the Ethiopian eunuch show that it was "too bad" that the man needed Philip's explanation of the text? *God forbid!* (get it?)

I don't see any other solution than to limit "idiomatic translation" to certain idiomatic expressions found in the Bible itself--and even there, we must take extreme care, because of the inevitable distortions and obscuration that results from such rendering. Otherwise, we must give a word-for-word translation, allowing for the vagaries of the different language-forms. This (It seems to me) is the truly "loving" and "respectful" translation-philosophy, and it shows the receiving people that we love God and his revelatory Word *MORE* than we love them. We simply want them to love the God we love, so that we can be together with them forever, glorifying this God.


----------



## 3John2 (Jul 4, 2011)

"It appears as though some translators want to overleap a natural process that ordinarily takes several generations, in which the unique text and cadences of the biblical-world get woven through a new culture's language and understanding, by attempting an artificial short-circuit that supposedly makes the Bible instantly accessible in the most pedestrian way to the present generation."

I strongly agree here with Bruce as this is what appears to have happened with the Indonesian translation. It's really a BAD translation, kind of like the "Good News for Modern Man" garbage that the Catholics put out. I have my work cut out for me in having to redo certain verses for clarity when some of them are weak.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 4, 2011)

Frank:


Not only is the quality of the translations often weak, but many Westerners are turning _Hious Tou Thou_ into the words _Messias_ or _Junjungan_, in the name of Mslm contextualization, because the term "Son of God" is too offensive to be used in Bible translations. And many Western missionary journals support such a move and have the perpetrators writing articles for these journals.


----------

