Comments on: translation gaps

By: Eddie Gonzalez

Eddie Gonzalez — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:00:17 +0000

Patrick: but that is precisely why cross references need to be more than a simple one or two verse reference. The team putting together the translation should recognize the need for the reader to go back and grasp better the context and concept in mind. E.g. instead of Num. 15:19-21, what about Numbers 14-16 (didn’t verify that case in point exactly, just throwing out something of an example). If a reader has a problem reading all of that reference, that is a case for the elders/spiritual helpers of that individual to help him/her understand the importance of doing so.

Agreeing with what you allude to, the short, focused cross references perpetuate the standard problem of taking texts out of context.

By: Translating the Whole Bible « Kouya Chronicle

Translating the Whole Bible « Kouya Chronicle — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:57:14 +0000

[...] my ramblings, or if you have read them and remain unconvinced, it is well worth taking a look at a recent post on Better Bibles’ Blog which demonstrates very clearly why it is unwise to translate the Epistle to the Romans but not the [...]

By: Are Bible publishers making us stupid? - Sansblogue

Are Bible publishers making us stupid? - Sansblogue — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 05:11:55 +0000

[...] second post Dissection Headings and especially the comments there. Then Wayne asked about translation gaps meaning places where a straightforward (rather than lengthily explanatory) translation leaves a [...]

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:51:36 +0000

I wonder if part of the issue is that the translation that Wayne was checking is of a stand-alone NT with no OT, and no intention of producing an OT in this language. I know that Bible translation organisations commonly work like this. While this is better than nothing, it certainly shouldn’t be considered adequate for any people group, in my opinion. Passages like this give a large part of the reason.

By: Patrick Rietveld

Patrick Rietveld — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:33:23 +0000

But even crossreferences might be misleading. People might just read the references without the context in which the reference is. But at least it is a good start.

By: Wayne Leman

Wayne Leman — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:23:58 +0000

Tim wrote:

But that’s one of the purposes of a list of cross references!

Thanks, Tim. Yes, cross references are important tools for filling in translation gaps.

By: mark escobar

mark escobar — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:14:43 +0000

Biblical literature echoes countless incidents that explore vision quest that represents a mirror or a test of what it means to be a disciple and what the way of discipleship really means. Those archetypal characteristics in the bible particularly in the politics of survival, the economics of exploitation, and the symbolism of Messiahship correspond to what they represent as the “unfinished business” to which we must attend still.

The school of humanities enables us to discern, explore, understand better, internalize through our openness to the challenge of repentance and renewal.

Hope we’re transparent enough to face the harsh realities of life in today’s world. Pace bene!

By: Tim Bulkeley

Tim Bulkeley — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:51:44 +0000

But that’s one of the purposes of a list of cross references! To assist beginning readers of this canon of writings to “hear”, and not miss, possible textual allusion and reference to parts of the same thought world. Any Bible without cross references is “obviously” geared only to ideal readers

By: Wayne Leman

Wayne Leman — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:10:57 +0000

May I further ask if you believe that Romans 2:25-3:1 (and so on) is mistranslated because it requires knowing that circumcision is a Jewish custom?

I think I must have miscommunicated something in my post. I’m not talking about any mistranslation in this post. I’m referring to gaps in the knowledge of those who are not familiar with the background that Paul had when he wrote Romans. I am saying that those gaps need to be filled in by a variety of means, one of which, you correctly point out, should be Torah study. I did not intend my list of resources for understanding background to be exhaustive.

The basic point of my post is that we need to be alert to logical inferences in the translation text that don’t work for ourselves or for those we help teach, due to insufficient background. I am saying that we need to fill in those gaps so that we and others can get the full meaning that the original author intended.

By: Wayne Leman

Wayne Leman — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:05:11 +0000

I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with you here. It is not really possible to read Romans with any comprehension without having read the Pentateuch first, and thus the relevant reference at Numbers 15:19-21.

Well, I’m glad to say that I fully agree with *you*.

We cannot understand much of the N.T. without understanding its Jewish background. I hope I have blogged on this before, but I just assumed it in this post. Yes, by all means, someone who just picks up Romans will not understand it unless they understand all the references to Torah teaching. Too much teaching on the book of Romans, for instance, neglects to refer to Torah as a key to understanding Paul’s repeated references to “law”.