At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’ ‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’

But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us!’ But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’

(Matthew 25:1-12, TNIV)

I have to admit, I don’t think I’ve ever understood this parable. In my two decades of church attendance and learning from the Bible, no one has ever explained this one to me in a way I’ll actually comprehend. I suspect that’s because the next verse tells us the meaning of it (unlike many of the parables which come with no explanation and so must be taught and explained.)

But Jesus said more than verse 13 alone, and Matthew thought this story worth including. For this reason I think it’s important that we too ensure we can understand the story, both in the way we teach it, and in our Bibles themselves.

I can’t understand this parable not because of the words it uses, but because it describes something that is so culturally foreign to me. I went to two weddings on the weekend and at one of them this passage was read out. But neither of those weddings had the slightest resemblance to this parable, other than that they both had grooms.

I don’t know how to solve this problem. For sure this is something where study bible notes would be very helpful, and this blog is about “better Bibles” and that includes study notes! But there are a lot of times when notes won’t be available; most Bibles aren’t study Bibles after all, and then there are the times when the story will be copied into something like the wedding programme I read on the weekend. So I think the Bible texts themselves need to somehow bridge this huge cultural gap.

I don’t know how to do that. But I can leave you with some of the questions I’ve been wondering:

• Who are these virgins? And is their sexual history actually important? Should we instead be thinking of their marital state (ie, they are unaccompanied), or their young age? Some translations just say “girls”, but others say “bridesmaids.” Guys, which is it?!
• What does the groom want with ten virgins? There should only be one virgin on his mind… his wife! If instead they are bridesmaids then why aren’t they with the bride?
• Why are they waiting outside? What’s their role in the wedding and what obligations do they have? Why do they need to be there (outside) when the groom comes, and why do they need lamps?
• Finally, what kind of girl would sleep outside in her prettiest wedding outfit??

[…] A good, and frequently used homiletic example is where the Greek word proskyneō (προσκυνἐω) is translated worship. At this point the preacher will say something like:

What this word literally means is ‘I come toward to kiss’ and it reminds us how wonderful a relationship we are meant to have with our Father in heaven: when we worship him it is an act of love.

This is, unfortunately, almost entirely untrue in every way that matters. First, by the time we get to New Testament times it may simply mean worship, or pay homage. Alternatively it may mean, “kneel before, prostrate oneself before.” […]

I recommend Clayboy’s post on how not to use Greek exegesis in preaching. His analysis applies equally to Bible translation.

Read more: Clayboy: The preacher’s fallacy or, no, the Greeks didn’t have a word for it

There are different opinions about the chronology of the two sections of Galatians chapter 2. The discussions I have seen in various commentaries do not deal with the crucial matter of how a hortatory text is structured, and many people do not clearly understand the function of the Greek discourse connector DE which occurs in 2:11.

A hortatory text is intended to motivate the addressees to change their behaviour, and it is therefore very different from a narrative. In a narrative, the events are usually told in chronological order, but this does not apply to a hortatory text like Galatians. A hortatory text is not linear in structure, but has recursions, that is, it covers the same or similar ground several times in circles. Chronology is not important, but thematic progression is. The backbone of a hortatory text consists of four themes in ascending order of directness: 1. Stating the problem, 2: Building motivation for change, 3: Positive inducement for change and negative warnings about what happens if change is not forthcoming, and 4: Commands to change.

In addition, the text will usually have an opening and closing.

To illustrate a hortatory text, let me quote a short one I have from an African language, Sabaot, thanks to my friend, Fred Surai:

“My friend, I came early to your home (today) because of something that hurts me a lot. I have heard that they beat you yesterday to the point of bleeding. Well, when you drank beer last year, you got so drunk that you fell into the river. Had someone not seen you fall into the river, you would surely have drowned. Last year again, you beat your elder wife so much that you chased her away. Your home no longer looks like the home of a person. It is just like a deserted home. All your cattle you have sold and then you went to drink beer, and didn’t even buy clothes for the children. And if your wives talk to you, you beat them up.

My friend, you leave beer, please.

Well, the day before yesterday they beat you so much that you lost your teeth. Yesterday again, they beat you till bleeding.

Is this beer not enough for you? Or don’t you see that it is beer which is killing you? But if you think that maybe it is not beer which is doing all these things, then, okay, go on sleeping.

I really feel sorry for you, my friend! If I had had bad intentions against you, I would not have come this far to tell you to leave beer alone.

So, if you hear my words, please, you leave beer alone.

Just take a break for one year so you can see how your home will then develop. But if not, you are close to death. They will beat you to death, and it is beer which will have done it, not a person. I do know that when you are drunk, you don’t know what you are doing, and other people seem insignificant to you and you don’t care whoever they may be. You have picked a fight with everybody around here. No one has been left out. Is it not like that? Or do you want to say they started the fight? Even if you keep quiet all these deeds are yours. I know that while I am speaking like this right now, you are thinking, “Where can I find beer today to go and drink?” It is that very beer you are thinking of that is going to kill you.

So, my friend, these deeds of yours hurt me greatly. Please leave beer alone. If you are clever, you’ll listen to what I have said. But if you are stupid, do what you always do.

Good bye.”

Notice how the speaker shows empathy with his friend throughout. He gives several examples of the negative results of beer drinking, and these are not in chronological order. These examples state the problems associated with beer drinking. There are both inducements for change and warnings as well as commands. The request or command to leave beer drinking is repeated 3 times with growing urgency.

I’ll now give a brief sketch of some of the elements found in the hortatory text of Galatians:

1:1-5 Building rapport and trust (especially 1b). Problem hinted at: the core of the gospel, what Christ paid to give us freedom.

1:6-9 Problem stated: Fanatic Jews have caused you to almost desert the grace of Christ. Indirect warning: Such fanatic false teachers will be punished. (The rebuke of the Galatians is still indirect with focus on the false teachers.) This happened after Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).

1:10-24 Building trust in Paul, his authority and his message. Paul received his message by revelation from Christ (11-12, 17, expands on 1b). He was not taught by Peter or the other apostles, even though Peter was a friend, who could fill him in on the life of Jesus. Paul builds rapport through his own testimony, and he gives himself as an example of a fanatic Jew. But he has changed now. (This is an indirect motivation for the Galatians not to go back to what Paul has left – sets the stage for 4:12.)

2:1-10 Building trust in Paul and his message and also building the case for non-circumcision of Gentile believers. Problem restated: Some fanatic Jews had come to Antioch from Jerusalem to preach a different “gospel”. Indirect suggestion: We did not give in to them for one moment (5), neither should you. Paul’s position and message approved by the highest church authority of  the time (6). Peter’s authority over the Gentiles downgraded, but Paul’s authority supported (7-9).

2:11-21 Problem restated with Peter as example. Some fanatics came to Antioch. Time not stated, but probably before the “false brothers” who occasioned the trip to Jerusalem. By rebuking Peter, Paul is indirectly rebuking the fanatics or false teachers who would not accept Gentile Christians without circumcision. By Paul refusing this teaching he is indirectly asking the Galatians to do the same. Up till now, Paul has only stated that this false teaching is in opposition to the good news he ahs been preaching and that those who teach it will be punished, whoever they are. Now he not only rebukes the great apostle Peter for aligning himself with this teaching, but he also explains in considerable detail why it is wrong. Paul’s speech starts in v. 14 and ends with v. 21. This long reasoned rebuke is placed immediately before Paul goes on to rebuke the Galatians in a similar way, explaining more about why this teaching is wrong.

3:1-5 Direct rebuke of the Galatians for having accepted the teachings of these fanatics. In order to support his refusal of this teaching, Paul explains in great detail the relationship between salvation by grace (Paul’s message) and salvation by law/works (the false teaching).

3:6-9 Inducement to accept the faith option: You receive the blessings of Abraham.

3:10-12 Warning: Judgment if you choose the law/works option.

3:14 Inducement: Blessing restated.

3:15-25 Inducement: Exposition of the advantages and blessings of the faith option.

3:26-29 Inducement: Blessing restated.

4:1-7 Inducement: Advantage of position of son over slave.

4:8-11 Indirect reprimand. Why have you gone back to slavery?

4:12a Appeal for change.

4:12b-16 Building rapport again with an indirect reprimand in v. 15.

4:17-18 Rebuking the fanatics again.

4:19-20 Building rapport again.

4:21-31 Inducement: Consider the blessings of freedom over slavery.

5:1 Command: Do not turn back to slavery.

5:1-12 Warning: By following the false teaching you are leaving the truth and the grace of Christ. You will then come under the same judgment as those false teachers.

5:13-6:10 Exposition about what the new life in freedom entails. This is an indirect response to the false teachers.

6:11-18 Conclusion including further inducement (16) and warning (17).

In this brief overview of the hortatory structure it is clear that chronology is irrelevant, but building up the case for change is important. Before Paul can rebuke the Galatians directly, he rebukes the false teachers who came to Galatia recently, he then explains about how he got the highest support for rebuking the false brothers from Jerusalem, friends of James, who had come to Antioch shortly before the Jerusalem meeting as described in Acts 15 and also in Gal 2:1-10, and finally he tells about how he had to rebuke Peter on the same issue. The people being rebuked have progressively higher authority with Peter being the highest, and only after having told about this rebuke of Peter, can Paul proceed to rebuke the Galatians. It is likely that the visit by Peter to Antioch would have been early in the history of that church. Peter would be curious to see this new development for himself, since he was the one whom God used to “open” the door for Gentiles to become Christians. It probably took place during the extended time that Paul and Barnabas were in Antioch (Acts 11:26). It was common for them to get visits from the main church in Jerusalem. One such visit is mentioned in Acts 11:27. It is unlikely that Peter would have acted as he did in Antioch after the matter had been extensively discussed and sorted out at the Jerusalem meeting. It is also unlikely that Barnabas would have been drawn into it, if it was after the watershed meeting in Jerusalem.

The main reason to suggest that Gal 2:11-21 happened after Gal 2:1-10 is the assumption that things ought to be told in chronological order, but as I have tried to show, such an assumption does not apply to a hortatory text. The problems and admonitions in such a text are rarely told in chronological order, since that would be irrelevant for building up the case for change.

Heb 1:7 is an interesting exegetical challenge, because it is one of those rare cases where the vast majority of translations seem to have gone astray. This mail is a bit long, and I have already discussed it in other fora, so if you know what I am going to say, skip it.

Let me start by quoting some English versions:

KJV: Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
RSV: Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.
NIV: He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.
TEV: God makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.
NLT: messengers swift as the wind, and servants made of flaming fire.
CEV: I change my angels into wind and my servants into flaming fire.
—————-
NJB: appointing the winds his messengers and flames of fire his servants.

The last one is different from the others for very good reasons.

The passage is a word for word quote from the LXX version of Psalm 104:4 (103:4) with a very minor adjustment of the last two words from “flaming fire” to “flame of fire”. The last expression with the Greek noun FLOX is more common than the corresponding verb FLEGW. FLOX (a flame) occurs 7 times in the NT and 61 times in the LXX, whereas FLEGW (to flame) does not occur in the NT, but 22 times in the LXX.
The flaming fire is associated with the awesome presence of God as on Mt. Sinai and also with punishment. In Rev 1:14 Jesus is described as having eyes like a flame of fire.
It is at often associated with lightning or the fire that results when lightning strikes. For instance:
Isa 29:6 “the LORD Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire.” It is likely that the thunder and flames of a devouring fire (lightning) are connected by chiasm.
Isa 30:30 “The LORD will cause men to hear his majestic voice and will make them see his arm coming down with raging anger and  consuming fire, with cloudburst, thunderstorm and hail.”
Isa 66:15 “See, the LORD is coming with fire, and his chariots are like a whirlwind; he will bring down his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.” (Another chiasm).
Ps 105:32 “He gave them hail for rain, and lightning that flashed through their land.” (RSV)
Ps 105:32 “He gave them hail for rain, [and] flaming fire in their land! (KJV)
Notice how “flaming fire” was correctly translated by “flashing lightning” in RSV.
Jer 23:29 “Is not my word like fire, says the LORD, and like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces”
(Although the Hebrew here has only “fire”, the LXX has “flaming fire” the exact same phrase as in Ps 104:4). The image suggests lightning.

It is a fairly common theme in the OT for God to use the elements of nature in fighting against his enemies. When Barak and Deborah defeated Sisera’s army by the wadi of Kishon, the army was swept away by torrential rains and a surge of water through the river. See Judges 5:20-21. In this kind of attack from heaven, the thunderstorm, the lightning and the rain combine to a serious force against an army that depends on chariots that can get stuck in the mud.

So, the “winds” referred to in Heb 7:1 and Ps 104:4 must be the thunderstorm that God is using as his “messengers” to combat the enemy. Likewise, the “flames of fire” must refer to lightning and possibly accompanying fires that go with a thunderstorm and also are used by God as his “servants” to combat the enemy. The NIV study note for Ps 104:4 says: “The winds and lightning bolts of the thunderstorm, here personified as the agents of God’s purposes (see 148:8, cf. 103:21).”

The interesting thing about the translation of Heb 1:7 is that everybody agrees that this is a quote from Ps 104:4. So, how do these same translations render Ps 104:4? For ease of comparison, I am copying the rendering of Heb 1:7 from above as the first line. The second line is Ps 104:4:

KJV: Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
KJV: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire

RSV: Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.
RSV: who makest the winds thy messengers, fire and flame thy ministers.

NIV: He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.
NIV: He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants.

TEV: God makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.
TEV: You use the winds as your messengers and flashes of lightning as your servants.

NLT: messengers swift as the wind, and servants made of flaming fire.
NLT: The winds are your messengers; flames of fire are your servants.

CEV: I change my angels into wind and my servants into flaming fire.
CEV: The winds are your messengers, and flames of fire are your servants.

NJB: appointing the winds his messengers and flames of fire his servants.
NJB: appointing the winds your messengers, flames of fire your servants.

It is not clear why some versions say “your” rather than “his” for Ps 104:4, because the BHS text has “his”. I  assume it is a translation decision to avoid the poetic shifts between 2. and 3. person in this Psalm. In any case, this is not significant, since the reference to God is clear enough.
It is interesting that only KJV and NJB are consistent in giving the same translation of the Hebrew and LXX text. The KJV is clearly wrong, and it does not make sense. The other versions of Ps 104:4 make good sense in the context, since it talks about the power of God as the ruler of all creation, using the winds as his chariots and the thunderstorm as his weapon. I think the TEV did very well for Ps 104:4, but made nonsense out of Heb 1:7.

Why is NJB (New Jerusalem Bible) alone in making a translation that makes sense and recognizes that the author of Hebrews is quoting this Psalm, intending the same meaning? The point in Hebrews 1:7 is that the angels are not up there at the same level as God and Jesus (and not to be worshiped). Even the thunderstorm and lightning are used by God as his “angels”, i.e. messengers. “Jesus is far above the angels” is the major theme of this passage in Hebrews.

Let us look at exegetical summaries and commentaries. The Exegetical Summary gives two exegetical options:

1. The articular nouns TOUS AGGELOUS ‘the angels’ and TOUS LEITOURGOUS ‘the servants’ are objects of hO POIWN ‘the one making’, and the anarthrous [accusative] nouns PNEUMATA ‘winds’ and FLOGA ‘flame[s]‘ are predicates [Alf, Blm, EGT, GNC, Hu, Lg, Ln, My, NTC, TH, TNTC, WBC; all versions except NJB];
2. ‘Winds’ and ‘flames’ are the objects, and ‘the angels’ (= ‘messengers’) and ‘the ministers’ are predicates [NIGTC; NJB]: who makes winds his messengers and flames of fire his servants. The Septuagint cannot carry the other interpretation [NIGTC].

One brave commentator (NIGTC) and one brave translation (NJB). NIGTC is Paul Ellingworth’s excellent commentary on Hebrews.
The UBS Handbook on Hebrews was written by Nida and Ellingworth in 1983. It says for Heb 1:7: “The Hebrew text of Psalm 104.4 may mean either (a) God makes winds and flames into his messengers and servants;  (option 2 above) or (b) God turns his servants into winds and flames. (option 1 above). The Greek text can mean only (b).”

Paul Ellingworth’s commentary was published in 1993, and it says:
“The meaning of the quotation is ambiguous in the MT, which may mean either:
(a) who makes winds/spirits his angels/messengers , or
(b) who makes his angels into winds.
The LXX cannot mean (b).”

The reader ought to be confused by now. The Handbook by Nida and Ellingworth says that the Greek text of Hebrews 1:7 can only mean (b), the same as option 1. Ellingworth says 10 years later that the Greek text of the LXX cannot mean (b), the same as option 1.

But the Greek text is exactly the same. I would say that both statements are overstatements. The Greek text is open to both interpretations, and what it can or cannot mean is the subjective evaluation of the exegete. If we take context and common sense into account, there is no doubt in my mind that Nida (and Ellingworth) was wrong in 1983 and Ellingworth right in 1993, and that the NJB gives the correct interpretation of Heb 1:7, although not a very clear translation.

For those who know Greek, let me quote the Greek text:

hO POIWN TOUS AGGELOUS AUTOU PNEUMATA
KAI TOUS LEITOURGOUS AUTOU PUROS FLOGA

Literally: He who makes/uses winds [as] his messengers
and [a] flame of fire [as] his servants.

Greek has a flexible word order so that one cannot know by the order what phrase is the object and what is the predicate. The order in this case is probably influenced by the Hebrew word order, since the LXX here is an extremely word-for-word Hebraic-sounding rendering. Nor does the case marking solve the issue, since both the objects and the predicates are in the accusative.
That the Greek words for winds and flame are without the definite article probably reflects that the Hebrew words have no articles here. But it also agrees with the indefinite nature of “winds” and “lightning”. The text is not talking about specific winds and a specific bolt of lightning, but of wind and lightning in general. God can use winds as his messengers, and lightning as his servant. It is certainly possible to understand the Greek text in Heb 1:7 and in the LXX in sense (a), option 2. If we did not have context to go by, both the Hebrew and Greek text might be open to both interpretations, but the context is decisively against sense (b), option 1 in both Ps 104:4 and in Heb 1:7.

The literal rendering “make” doesn’t make much sense in English. The idea is that God commissions or uses winds as his messengers and lightning as his servants in the context of war against his enemies or punishment of his enemies. Just think of Elijah who called down fire/lightning from heaven (2 Ki 1:10), and the “sons of thunder” who were tempted to do the same (Luk 9:54, cf. also Rev 13:13 and 20:9).

My suggestion for translation would be something like the TEV for Ps 104:4, but the same in both places (except possibly a “your” in the Psalm and a “his” in Hebrews.)

A footnote is needed in Heb 1:7 to explain the relationship between “messengers” and “angels”, unless the receptor language uses the same word for both.

Further proof that we’re living in a crazy world: one of the most outspoken critics of modern Bible translations has some nice things to say about the New Living Translation:

it’s a pretty good translation. i have two ‘test passages’ for any translation – jeremiah 25, and romans 8.

if translators can do justice to these two passages (both of which are very significant) then more than likely they’ve done a good job throughout. but if they bungle these two sections, chances are pretty good they will bungle most.

so, that said, the nlt handles those test texts well enough.

From: Tyndale Is Launching a New Site

This week while away from my Contemporary English Version I’ve been reading the NLT and have enjoyed it so much that I considered pinching the copy I found at our office. Fortunately the book is so big that it won’t fit in my luggage and so I won’t be guilty of stealing a Bible.

1. 1 Peter 2:17

I thank Danny Silk, whose material on honour I linked to in a post on my own blog, for pointing out that something rather strange has happened in many translations of this verse. The verse starts with pantas timesate, and ends with ton basilea timate. That is, the same verb is used in the first and the last of the four clauses. The first is an aorist imperative and the last is a present imperative, but the significance, if any, of that difference is unclear.

So it is interesting to see how different versions have rendered this verse. NIV, TNIV and The Message have different renderings for the first and last clauses (I am taking most of these texts from Bible Gateway, hence the mostly American spellings):

Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. (NIV)

Show proper respect to everyone, love your fellow believers, fear God, honor the emperor. (TNIV)

Treat everyone you meet with dignity. Love your spiritual family. Revere God. Respect the government. (MSG)

All the other versions I looked at use the same verb in the two clauses:

Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. (KJV)

Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (RSV)

Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (NRSV)

Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. (NASB)

Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. (NKJV)

Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (ESV = HCSB)

Respect everyone, and love your Christian brothers and sisters. Fear God, and respect the king. (NLT)

Respect everyone and show special love for God’s people. Honor God and respect the Emperor. (CEV)

So, are NIV, TNIV and The Message justified in using a different verb here? They might claim that it is not good English style to repeat the same verb so quickly. Then it probably wasn’t good Greek style either, but that is what the author did – with a variation in verb form which might have been stylistic, to avoid exact repetition. Or the translators might claim that the difference reflects their interpretation of the different verb forms – but it is unlikely that the author intended such a significant difference between them.

I am not one to press for complete concordance in rendering Greek verbs. But in cases like this it probably is best to translate concordantly. I can hear in my mind preachers trying to explain the difference between the “honour” we are to give to kings and the (perhaps lesser) “respect” we are to give to all people. But that was surely not Peter’s point in this verse, which is obscured if different verbs are used.

The NIV (but not TNIV) punctuation at least is good here. The first of the four commands is surely the generic one, to honour everyone, human and divine. (There is no word for “men” or “people” in the text.) Then Peter gives three examples of how this is to be put into practice. Fellow Christians are to be honoured by showing agape love to them. God is to be feared. And even the emperor, the feared persecutor, is to be honoured like everyone else.

So this is a clear place where NIV and TNIV need to be updated, if only back to the wording of older translations. Unfortunately it is too late to present this as a formal submission for the NIV 2011 update, but maybe the suggestion can still be slipped in somehow.

2. John 13:12

There is an interesting variation in how Jesus’ words in this verse have been translated, in more literal versions:

Do you understand what I have done for you? (NIV = TNIV)

Know ye what I have done to you? (KJV)

Do you know what I have done to you? (RSV = NASB = NKJV = NRSV)

Do you understand what I have done to you? (ESV = MSG)

Do you know what I have done for you? (HCSB)

(Emphasis added to all of these)

Consider the difference in English between doing something to someone and doing something for someone. The latter is always for their benefit. The former carries the clear implication that what was done brings them harm or disadvantage.

Is what Jesus did in the previous verses, washing the disciples’ feet, to be understood as for their benefit or for their disadvantage? The Greek in this verse, a simple dative, is ambiguous (it could be a dative of advantage or a dative of disadvantage, for those who understand this kind of classification and find it meaningful – I’m not sure if I do). But in the wider context it is clear (or at least I think it is) that Jesus’ action was for his disciples’ benefit.

Now in English in this place, as in so many other cases, it is impossible to preserve every possible ambiguity in the original Greek. That causes a difficulty where in context the Greek is really ambiguous. But many of the supposed ambiguities, like this one, can be resolved with a little thought. Unfortunately in this case most of the translators don’t seem to have given that little thought to their rendering, but have mindlessly rendered the Greek dative with English “to”.

So this time three cheers to NIV and TNIV (also to HCSB, although “understand” makes much more sense than “know” here) for getting this one right.

3. Matthew 18:21

This one is a bit of light relief, which I could call “Out of the Mouths of Babes and Sucklings”. In this verse the Greek adelphos is clearly intended to refer to men as well as women. Does anyone question that? But Tominthebox News Network reports how Brother Cites Matthew 18 – Intends to Never Forgive Sister Again:

“Ha! It doesn’t say anything in the Bible about forgiving your sister!” screamed an excited Jared. “I’m so glad we went to church. It was awesome. She has to forgive me because I’m her brother, but I don’t have to forgive her for anything, because she’s a girl!”

It seems that small children understand that “brother” in English does not include sisters. So why don’t some translators understand this?

Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? (NIV)

Lord, how many times shall I forgive someone who sins against me? (TNIV)

This is a clear example of when TNIV is a great improvement on NIV, and that improvement needs to be preserved in the 2011 update.

A standard that most of us who are involved in Bible translation hold to is that a translation must strive to be clear, accurate and natural. That is the ideal, though sometimes a trade-off is involved. These are the three criteria for a good Bible translation. Sometimes acceptability is added as a fourth criterion.

I want to examine the relationship between clarity and accuracy. When there have to be trade-offs in how to translate the scriptures, I believe most people would say that accuracy is the highest goal. It is possible for a translation to be clear and accurate but not natural. It is possible for a translation to be clear, accurate and natural but not acceptable (perhaps because the audience expects and wants a translation that resembles another one that they perceive as trustworthy). But I want to challenge the idea that a translation can be accurate but not clear.

I see accuracy and clarity as two sides of the same coin. Clarity always has to be with respect to someone, as in “It wasn’t clear to me.” A text, such as a Bible translation, cannot be objectively clear. The clarity always has to be with respect to a certain audience. A Bible translation might be clear, for example, with respect to an audience of Biblical scholars, but not with respect to an audience of construction workers. So to say that a translation is clear, you have to state what kind of audience it is clear to.

Communication is a two-way street, and Bible translation is a type of communication. If the intended meaning is not understood, then the communication fails. That is why we firmly believe that a translation must be tested, to ensure that the intended meaning is communicated. And to be worthwhile, the testing process requires the further step of refining the translation to the point where the intended meaning gets across.

If a translation is not understood properly by the target audience, then can it be acccurate? I would say no, because in this case the meaning that the audience gets from the translation is not accurate and complete. (Someone could say, I suppose, that a certain translation is accurate to the extent that I understand it.) When you analyze how people use the term “accuracy,” you realize that it is used to denote that what is considered the proper meaning is clear to those who are qualified to judge the validity of  a translation. “Clarity” is used to denote that that proper meaning is accessible to the target audience.

So, really, both accuracy and clarity have to do with the proper meaning being accessible in the text, but accuracy focuses on the meaning that people on the production end see in the translation (including translators and consultants and third-party critics who consider themselves competent to judge a translation), while clarity has to do with the meaning that people on the receiving end see in it. A successful translation is one where the translators’ intended meaning and the audience’s perceived meaning are in agreement, where all parties are on the same page, literally, seeing the same thing in the text.

It would be good to avoid saying of certain translations that they are accurate but not clear. If they are not clear, that means that the translation has not accomplished its purpose in getting the audience to understand the translation the way the translators intended, and that is not good. It means that the communicative purposes have not been realized. The translation then is accurate only for the translators, and not accurate for the audience.

Similarly, it is certainly problematic to say that a translation is clear but not accurate. Something in the text may be clear, but if it is not the meaning that the translators were trying to convey, then communication has broken down, and the translators and audience are seeing two different things in the text.

So accuracy and clarity are the same thing viewed from different perspectives. Let’s avoid saying that certain translations are accurate but not clear. What that really means is that the translators are confident about what the translation they produced means, but other important partners in the translation process, namely the target audience, don’t grasp the intended meaning. Maybe the audience could get the meaning of an unclear translation if it is explained to them, but then in that case you can’t say that the translation itself that is clear and accurate with respect to the target audience, but rather it is something outside the translation, such as footnotes and teaching, that fill in the communicative gaps left by the translation.

This may not improve Bible translations, but it does relate to the challenge of translating meaningfully.

Since Denmark is a small country, the plethora of American movies (and some British films, too) that inundate our living rooms through cables and tubes or LCD screens have Danish subtitles. This is a good way for Danes to improve their English, since they listen to the English dialogue and read the Danish texts at the same time. Subtitles is the most read literature in Denmark. It also means that many people earn their living by translating and writing subtitles. The organisation of “texters” as they call themselves has a website with documented goofs in translation. I’ll give a few below, but sometimes a translator simply has to give up.

I remember a James Bond movie where James was in a lift going up to see the villain in a mansion floating in the ocean. We saw the floor of the lift open up and also saw the ocean beneath him. He managed to spread his legs and stand at a ledge at each side of the lift floor so that he did not fall into the ocean. When he entered the room where the villain sat, James said dryly: “I believe you wanted me to drop in!” The texter gave up on that one.

For the following goofs I shall give an English back translation rather than the actual Danish translation:

The Book of Job – What can I become? (The title of a well-known Danish book series telling young people about job possibilities.)

Jim is a Vietnam vet – Jim is a vet in Vietnam

It’s nice to have an early bird dinner - I enjoy this fowl dinner (English spelling rescued me here. Not natural English, I know. It is a back translation.)

The Spirit of Christmas Present – The spirit of Christmas presents

In these PC times you can’t make jokes about anything – In these computer times you can’ t make fun of anything

You are grounded - You are not allowed to fly (Said by a father to his son).

Everyone relates to her - she is related to everyone

You can say that again! – You can repeat that!

She went to Reading University – She went to a reading class (Cheers to our British literacy friends.)

He hates my guts – He hates my courage

I hope it isn’t my tax return – I hope it isn’t my tax refund

Now you are dating yourself – Now you are having a date with yourself

There are similar examples from the world of Bible translation, but they are not quite so funny, and some are almost tragic.

I’m checking a translation of Genesis these days. I came across a passage where the translation spoke of God “cutting” a covenant. I had never heard anyone refer to cutting a covenant before, so I had to check to see if the word “cut” was a typo or accurately reflected something in the Hebrew original.

The translation in question is based on the Hebrew words karath b’rith which literally refer to cutting a covenant. The Hebrew words form an idiom whose meaning we normally express in English with wordings such as “make a covenant” or “establish a covenant”. The Hebrew idiom is, as so often, descriptive and powerful, for Hebrew speakers, at least.

In the Bible translation process we are interested in what speakers of the biblical languages understood their idioms to refer to, and we use that information to help us sort through the options for translating the meaning of those idioms to other languages.

If you came across the wording “cut a covenant” in an English Bible, would you have known what those words referred to? If so, how did you learn what those words refer to?

I said that in Biblical mathematics, 2=3, but this actually has more to do with cultural presuppositions and translation. More generally, the rule is that x=x-1 if you go from Hebrew to English, and x=x+1 if you go from English to Hebrew.

What I am saying is that the Bible uses inclusive counting as was common in the ancient world and as it is still used in many parts of the non-Western world today. We in the Western world use exclusive counting.

Let me start with an example from Act 7:8:

RSV: And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day.

NET: and so he became the father of Isaac and circumcised him when he was eight days old,

GNB: So Abraham circumcised Isaac a week after he was born

Of these translations, only GNB is correct in English. RSV is ambiguous, unclear and unnatural. If the boy is born on a Monday, he must be circumcised on a Monday, 7 days later. If he is a born on a Sabbath, he must be circumcised on a Sabbath.  In the Bible the date of birth is counted as day 1, the following day as day 2, etc.

I discovered this by accident one day in a town in Africa, when I asked someone for directions to a specific bank. He told me: Turn left on the third street and you will see it. So, I proceeded to the third street and turned left. I went all the way down the street, but there was no bank. So I turned left at the other end and went up the second street, and sure enough, there was the bank. Then it dawned on me. We had been standing on a street corner, and to the local person the street we were standing at was the first street, but stupid as I was, I only started counting from the next street. To me, the street I was at was considered to be street zero.

This topic has been covered in the UBS publication The Bible Translator (TBT 30 [3]: 340-343) and also in Notes on Translation (no. 108, 1985). The idea can be shown/proven from many passages in the Bible, but probably the most decisive is Lev 23:15-16:

NIV: From the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaf of the wave offering, count off seven full weeks. Count off fifty days up to the day after the seventh Sabbath.

The starting day is Sunday and the closing day is Sunday, 7 weeks later. This is a period of 49 days, but since you count the starting day as day 1, you reach to 50 when you arrive at the closing day.

This inclusive counting is always used and that is why on the third day corresponds to two days later in normal English (and Danish).

There is a more tricky expression, namely for three days and three nights. The problem is that when you count inclusively, say, three days from Friday to Sunday, there can only be two nights in between. So, we are dealing with a Hebrew idiom here that most people get very confused about, because a literal translation in English is utterly misleading. In Hebrew tradition, it is very important to say more or less the same thing twice. It sounds better to say three days and three nights than three days and two nights. Likewise, Moses was on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights, just as it rained during the flood for 40 days and 40 nights, and Elijah travelled 40 days and 40 nights and Jesus was tempted in the wildernes for 40 days and 40 nights. To a modern, scientifically focused mind, it is difficult to understand that both of these expression refer to 40 days, day and night, or 40 days with the intervening nights or, to be exact: 40 days and 39 nights. No English Bible translation has as yet recognized and dealt with the problem, as far as I know. The whole expression is an idiom and must be understood as an idiom where the sum of the meaning of the words does not add up to the meaning of the idiom as a whole.

I think that is enough mathematics for now.