Comments on: Theologically Manipulated Translations

By: Bill Caulfield

Bill Caulfield — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 22:46:12 +0000

Here is how I explained Gal 5.6 in a church class:
This verse, which provides the reason for verse 5, can be paraphrased as: “For ‘in Christ Jesus’ neither ‘doing’ nor ‘not doing’ Torah is effective [before God] – the only thing that matters [now] is [our] faithfulness [to God] having an effect [on others] through [our activity of] love.”

Probably way too DE for everyone; but I think Paul wouldn’t mind.

By: Top Translation Traps: Relying on Structure « God Didn't Say That

Top Translation Traps: Relying on Structure « God Didn't Say That — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:58:03 +0000

[...] I discussed energeo (responding to discussions by J.R. Daniel Kirk and on BBB — then BBB followed up, as did T.C. Robinson), one comment noted that I “miss[ed] the [...]

By: Biblical Studies Carnival LI « Anumma

Biblical Studies Carnival LI « Anumma — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:05:07 +0000

[...] the perennially favored topic of apologetic translation, David Ker at Better Bibles engages a post by Daniel Kirk at Storied Theology on theological manipulation in a translation of Gal [...]

By: How Not To Use Context « God Didn't Say That

How Not To Use Context « God Didn't Say That — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:04:24 +0000

[...] our translation say X.” For example, in translating Galatians 5:6 (recently discussed here, here and by me here), some people try to figure out what Paul believed about circumcision, faith, and [...]

By: Faith, Love, and What Matters in Galatians 5:6 « God Didn't Say That

Faith, Love, and What Matters in Galatians 5:6 « God Didn't Say That — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:57:34 +0000

[...] Galatians 5:6 A conversation started by J.R. Daniel Kirk at Stories Theology (picked up by BBB here), addresses two questions: What does energeo mean in Galatians 5:6, and have translators purposely [...]

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:54:37 +0000

I accept that the any translators’ theological viewpoint is reflected right through their translation, and that in the case of NIV and others that is especially clear in this verse. I’m not sure that “theological manipulation” is the best way to describe it, as to me that implies a deliberate process.

As for the particular rendering “expressing itself”, that is not what I would go for. But if the verb is understood as middle voice, rather than passive (these two are not distinguished in the Greek present), the meaning must be something like “putting itself to work”, which is probably the meaning intended by “expressing itself”. After all, how can something express itself without doing some kind of work?

By: iverlarsen

iverlarsen — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 04:28:29 +0000

Just a small side comment to JRDK. If you consider NIV and TNIV to have vigorously applied the dynamic equivalence method of translation, then we have different definitions of what DE is. I would call NIV a modified literal translation, somewhat in the centre of the literal-dynamic continuum, but in the literal half.

I do agree that the theology of the translators show up in translations, even quite literal ones, simply because you cannot do exegesis in a theological vacuum and exegesis is a requirement for translation.

By: Mike Sangrey

Mike Sangrey — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:05:32 +0000

Is it just me, or are there other people that question the value of a method which builds a theological position from specific, independently considered, word choices?

Personally, I believe a minimum of a paragraph is needed for a theological building block. Obviously, that appears to very rarely be practiced. At least I do not have any Systematic Theology books on my shelf which build their systems based on paragraph sized texts.

If that method is questionable from a linguistic and communicative perspective, then at what textual level (ie. text chunk size) should we be dialoging about when we raise the ‘traduttore, traditore’ objection?

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:30:08 +0000

Peter, I can’t speak for Daniel, but I for one do think the ‘bias’ in this case is deliberate – not accidental. But just for a moment, let’s not be negative.

Surely the team discussed how to avoid confusing people, among other concerns, and surely a very large block of Zondervan’s market was indeed more familiar with putting things in terms from the protestant tradition.

For the sake of argument, I’m just pointing out that from some perspectives, “theological manipulation” doesn’t have to be a bad thing. In other words, one could possibly embrace Daniel’s “accusation” and say, “Yes, but it’s still the clearest translation for the idiom of our time, especially according to the interpretation of our tradition.”

Chicken & the Egg, you know. Bawk, bawk.

By the way, Peter, didn’t the Old Testament say bloggers should avoid online flame wars during the first year of marriage?

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:30:01 +0000

Daniel, thanks for the apology. Of course I was saying that you could not have made that assertion, because you are clearly not ignorant of translation theory. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I will now go ahead and correct my post – I didn’t have time earlier.

I accept that every translation reflects the theological biases of its translation team. One reason why Bible societies etc insist on multiple levels of checks of translations is to reduce this bias effect. But they cannot eliminate it completely. However, this accidental bias is a quite different thing from the deliberate theological manipulation which I thought you were accusing some translators of.