Comments on: Common language Bible versions

By: Rich S

Rich S — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:01:15 +0000

Might it help, though, to see how a translation handled the Greek word throughout the NT, rather than just one verse?

By: Tim Chesterton

Tim Chesterton — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:37:54 +0000

I think the point about our personal theology intruding in interpretations is a good one. For instance, the so-called ‘New Perspective on Paul’, which has been widely influential through the writing of people like N.T. Wright, has a very different understanding of what ‘justification’ means, and the use of phrases like ‘put right with God’ does not communicate this understanding at all.

By: JJ Miller

JJ Miller — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:56:36 +0000

Dr. Decker makes a good point. I believe that using a common language translation is always going to come down to one’s theology. So, I really like the New Jerusalem’s “sinful inclinations” though someone else would be horrified. So, they tend to use another version since the term has significant theological implications. I think you see how MANY of the translations kept the most literal “Justify,” “Grace,” and “Flesh.” I think they did this precisely because it seldom offends, while some translations are simply not used because they attempted to use a common usage alternative.

In addition, any translation is a “commentary” on the text of Scripture. Therefore, most translators are careful about choosing a common English alternative that might not carry the full range of meanings of the word most often used. So, to choose aomething else presents a problem with the accuracy of the translation.

Translation accuracy (via range of meanings) and theological intent are both at work here and is most likely the reason that translators on even the NLT decided to keep: justify, grace, and flesh. I think they chose wisely. (BTW, look at the GREAT job the NLT does with Gen 3:16… awesome. Only NET comes close).

By: Dan Sindlinger

Dan Sindlinger — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:01:00 +0000

docdeer said, “I think the challenge is trying to find a word or two in the natural language that accurately conveys the theological depth behind these words. The only way I can think to do it is with phrases (and sometimes those need to be longer that a couple of words).”

I agree, and that’s why I chose not to mention how The Better Life Bible translates δικαιόω and χάρις in the Romans texts listed above. Not only would I have to list the phrases that the translator (incidentally, that’s moi) used for these terms, but I would also have to explain why the translator used such phrases, and that enters into the realm of interpretation, in which there is a great deal of latitude, in my opinion.

By: Hannah C.

Hannah C. — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:45:53 +0000

I can’t really think of a good word which could be substituted for grace. To me, “kindness” has the connotation of meaning well and being nice but nothing beyond that – it’s nowhere near grand enough to encompass God. I can’t think of any word which really conveys the same meaning as grace does in that context.

By: docdeer

docdeer — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:51:20 +0000

I think the challenge is trying to find a word or two in the natural language that accurately conveys the theological depth behind these words. The only way I can think to do it is with phrases (and sometimes those need to be longer that a couple of words). And, if I’m not mistaken, that may not necessarily be a positive for translators. It does indeed present an interesting challenge.

By: asiabible

asiabible — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:47:30 +0000

Wayne, the distinction you made was between “natural language” and “common language” mentioning differences of register. But the examples are of a sub-cultural use of langauge not really register. It is not a question of how educated or “cultured” someone is, but whether they are part of the Christian sub-culture. The Bibles that use words in such “specialised” ways are intended to exclude readers who were not socialised into their culture. They are simply sectarian productions, aimed to be comprehensible only by initiates of the sect, and not really translations at all!

By: J. K. Gayle

J. K. Gayle — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:57:19 +0000

Rod says But that doesn’t mean that 1st C. readers understood all the NT vocabulary in the sense the authors intended without thinking through the contextual statements and explanations. If they had to do that, then is it unreasonable to expect that of modern readers? Here's the very complexity you're asking for, Rod. Mike points out with his astute question (i.e., "Is it possible to not create an over-simplified picture in a blog post?"), there's no way to pinpoint all of what an author intends. And as your immediate readers even, there are only guesses in a context. Readers of your comment using other languages in different cultures two millennia from now are going to rely on translation. They're understanding, like Wayne's, won't presume that any of us now gets everything meant by any particular word you write here in 2009. But the complexity is a means to reflection and appreciation that is brought through inevitable translation. What Wayne's post gets at here is (given how we must have translation) that some translation is better than others.

By: Mike Aubrey

Mike Aubrey — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:11:38 +0000

Dr. Decker: Is it possible to not create an over-simplified picture in a blog post?

By: Rod Decker

Rod Decker — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:51:35 +0000

Hmmm. Do you really think that an average first century Greek speaker would have understood by δικαιόω, χάρις, and σάρξ what you say they mean in the NT? Yes, they were common words, but that’s only part of the question. It’s true that “The Greek of the entire New Testament was Koine Greek, which was the common language of Greek spoken and written during the time of Christ and for some time afterwards.” But that doesn’t mean that 1st C. readers understood all the NT vocabulary in the sense the authors intended without thinking through the contextual statements and explanations. If they had to do that, then is it unreasonable to expect that of modern readers? I don’t intend to argue for unnecessary complications in translation, but the arguments you juxtapose here present, IMHO, an over-simplified picture.