Did Jesus translate the Bible in a Dynamic Equivalence manner?

[elnwood]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.