Share
Have you got a question about Bible translation?
Have you discovered an interesting story on the Internet about Bible translation?
Share it with us by clicking on "Share" at the top of this page.
Blog Guidelines
Blog posts and comments should focus on Bible translation issues, not theology, or personalities.
1. Support claims with evidence.
2. Do not question anyone's intelligence, spirituality or motives; NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!
3. Do not tell someone what they believe. Instead, ask them.
4. Avoid sarcasm.
5. Comments should be concise and relate directly to post content.Comments which do not follow the guidelines may be edited or deleted.
Commenting on this blog is a privilege. Decisions by the BBB owners are final.
Non-translation comments can be posted to BBB+.
Authors
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- VALERIE KERMIN on Eugene Peterson learns how to translate the Bible
- gittel on A virtuous woman
- Interpretive Spins in the Ψαλμοὶ: the first twists « BLT on Anastasis: to rise again
- Peggy Shearon on borrowing or redeeming words in Bible translations
- Strauss and Mounce on the future of the ESV | Henry M Imler on Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version, by Mark Strauss
- Wednesday Link List « Thinking Out Loud on Eugene Peterson learns how to translate the Bible
- A Christian’s “Allah”? | New Epistles on borrowing or redeeming words in Bible translations
- Bible Thomas on How does iron sharpen iron?
- Bobber on Translator in the translation
- Rich Rhodes on Translator in the translation
Archives
Christmas reading video
Still we see the lie
This time of year I spend a lot of time doing textual criticism of Christmas carols. Tracking down the “authorized version” of the songs we have sung for generations can be quite challenging. And it’s interesting how many similar issues pop up that we face in Bible translation.
Even in those cases where we know the correct words errors can slip in. I was looking through a songbook my wife and I made fifteen years ago and it contains this shocking statement of disbelief:
O little town of Bethlehem,
How still we see the lie!
Now, how did that error sit unnoticed for fifteen years?!
Last night during rehearsal for the Christmas service at our church, the daughter of our flutist was singing that second line, and I asked her, “What does THEE mean?”
She wasn’t sure. Which of course didn’t stop her from singing along with gusto. Finally her mother helped her out, “It means HIM.” To which I nodded, and then she shook her head and said, “It means YOU!”
There are of course many, many examples of strange lines in hymns that make absolutely no sense to modern speakers of English. What do cattle do when they are “lowing?” Is it the same as a “lowly manger?” And what is a “yon” virgin?” Young? Yawn? And why is she round?
The preacher for Christmas day requested that we sing, “Thou Who Wast Rich Beyond All Measure.” It is a beautiful hymn based on a French carol:
Thou who wast rich beyond all splendour,
All for love’s sake becamest poor;
Thrones for a manger didst surrender,
Sapphire-paved courts for stable floor.(Source)
The congregation where we worship is composed mostly of African college students and young families. So my wife was quite reluctant to try to lead them in singing strange things like “Thrones for a manger didst surrender.” Thankfully she discovered a very nice updating of the carol in modern language:
Lord, you were rich beyond all splendor,
Yet, for love’s sake, became so poor.
Leaving your throne in glad surrender
Sapphire-paved courts for stable floor.
Now, all the archaic language has been removed and it’s mostly intelligible. Notice that the plural “thrones” have been changed to “throne.” I think updating the language works on this carol because it’s not very well known. Imagine if someone tried to change the words to O Come, All Ye Faithful! Would you be able to enjoy singing something like, “Come, all you faithful ones?”
A final example of updating archaic songs is Corde natus ex Parentis, which you might know as “Of the Father’s Love Begotten.” The textual evolution of this hymn is fascinating. It started life as a 5th Century Latin poem. By the 10th Century it had become part of the church’s sacred music. It was translated into English sometime in the 1850s by JM Neale who was also responsible for giving us (afflicting us with?) God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen and Good King Wenceslas.
My wife has been patiently teaching me and our children the parts for Of the Father’s Love Begotten. It is really beautiful and if you modernized the words I don’t think I would be able to sing it. In fact at one point I suggesting that we sing one of the Latin verses. The English is so strange sounding that Latin wouldn’t seem out of place!
Corde natus ex parentis
Ante mundi exordium
A et O cognominatus,
ipse fons et clausula
A final example of textual difficulty (Didn’t I already say “finally?”) is in a more modern carol, Amen (Mary had a baby):
Mary had a baby
Wrapped in a manger
My wife wanted to change it to something like “lying in a manger” but I put my foot down. Tradition! The 1965 Impressions version has “wrapped in a manger.” So of course that’s the way it needs to be. I’ve had a tough time tracing the original lyrics on this song. Sidney Poiter also sings “wrapped in a manger” in the 1963 movie Lilies of the Field. Here’s the scene:
I think looking at Christmas carols is a helpful exercise in thinking about Bible translation. It shows that there isn’t an either/or answer to the question, “Which is better clarity or tradition?” Traditional wordings are very important. But after a while we don’t “see the lie” which is hidden in obscure language. It makes sense to us old fogies but is giving wrong meaning to the younger generation or those who speak other varieties of English.
King James Bible in National Geographic
We here at Better Bibles often say disparaging things about the KJV. There are several reasons.
Elizabethan English is hard for modern English speakers to understand, because English has changed so much. (The sticklers will point out that the KJV was written in Jacobean times, but I will respond that the translators were being self-consciously archaic, so the language is more Elizabethan than Jacobean. But the point remains either way.)
Their use of the Majority Text because they didn’t understand textual transmission is problematic.
While the translators may have, from time to time, used wonderful English in the passages they fully understood, they were very literal in the passages they didn’t fully understand, particularly where metaphors and indirect reference are involved. (You can’t now, nor could you then, use the English word walk to mean ‘live, conduct one’s life’.)
Nonetheless the KJV casts its shadow across every word of Scripture in English. We memorized from it. It echoes in our heads, even when we are reading contemporary translations. And its effect on the cultures of the English speaking world are so profound that one can hardly image English without it.
So it’s worth checking out the article in the December National Geographic on the King James Bible on the 400th anniversary of its publication.
An inquiry into better seeking — Matthew 6:33
What does ζητέω (ZHTEW) mean?
Matthew 6:33 says, “ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν”
An elementary Greek, wooden translation is, “And/But seek first the kingdom of God and the righteousness of him and these all will be added to you.”
I’ve often wondered what seeking a kingdom meant. Where is it? Is it lost? Has it been misplaced? Is there a map that can direct me to where it is?
Specifically, how does one do this seek activity? The literary context doesn’t really answer that question. The context is about the anxiety of meeting rather important day to day needs: food, water, and clothing. We are to not get worked up into a sweat about such necessary things, but, instead replace that anxiety with seeking. The text seems to assume that the person hearing this for the first time will know what seeking a kingdom means. Seeking is not elucidated.
Moulton and Milligan (MM), “The vocabulary of the Greek New Testament”, show that ζητέω has a lot to do with inquiring into something which is not immediately obvious. The word was sometimes written into a margin (with δίπλωμα) next to specific names on a list. Perhaps this meant that someone was to do a little research into these person’s official papers (travelling papers, perhaps). MM appear to me to indicate that the idea of inquiry was a significant core piece to the meaning of ζητέω.
TDNT also bears this out. Additionally they bring another conceptual piece into play. Namely, that the information being sought is not immediately obvious. Well, of course it’s not immediately obvious–why else seek for the information? But, it’s not that the data is purposefully hidden; it’s just not something readily available unless one makes the effort by doing a further inquiry. Jesus is not painting the picture that the kingdom is a mystery (μυστήριον)–at least not here. “Mysteries” had to be taught; they couldn’t be learned by simple inquiry. He is not talking about a strenuous effort to find special knowledge. It’s more like, ask the right questions. Go talk to the right people. And you’ll get clued in. It’s closer to “figure out God’s kingdom.“
Does the idea of inquiry come to mind when the English reader reads Matthew 6:33? Should it? I think so.
Seeking a kingdom immediately brings to mind that there is a place one needs to go. That one needs to leave here and go there. I’m questioning whether that’s the real intent here. It’s pretty easy to interpret the English as “try to get out of this world” either in a real sense or metaphorically. If that were true, then why would one pray, “I want your kingdom to be on earth as it is in heaven?” And, given the context, why would I “give a cup of cold water to the least of these?” Why wouldn’t I tell this thirsty person to not get all anxious about it but go find the kingdom and the drink will “be added to them.”
I wonder if it would be better to think in terms of inquiry. That is, that one is to try to gain information about, and try to understand, the kingdom of God (the same can be said about God’s righteousness).
I wonder if it would be better to translate Matthew 6:33 along the lines of:
Make understanding God’s kingdom and his righteousness a first priority, and these other things will accrue to you.
What are your thoughts? Can we do better than seek?
A Book on Literary Translation
For those of you who may have missed it, there is a new book on translation out.
IS THAT A FISH IN YOUR EAR?
Translation and the Meaning of Everything
By David Bellos
It was reviewed in the NY Times Sunday Book Review last week. Find the review here.
In brief, Bellos, himself a well-regarded translator of literature, attempts to re-frame the translation argument, and ends up with something in the spirit of dynamic equivalence, but one which is at the same time both more constrained and more free. His approach includes translating style, even if it entails referential inaccuracies, since the style is part of the message. (Yes, Virginia, sometimes the medium is the message.) Or it allows for displacing information, if that’s what it takes.
Bible translators, especially those of us who are interested in the questions of style and literary translation, should take careful note.
(For those of you not up on the popular culture of the ’70’s and ’80’s, the allusion is to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.)
Isaiah 7:14
Few verses have been disputed more that this verse when it comes to Bible translation and theology. I’ll try to keep myself to linguistics.
One of the ways to study the range of meaning of any word or phrase is to look at how it is used in context. When the dictionaries say one thing and the usage of the word suggests something else, I am not certain what to trust the most.
The Hebrew word ‘almah occurs the following places in the Hebrew OT. I’ll quote the RSV translation and indicate how the LXX translated the word:
Gen 24:43-44: behold, I am standing by the spring of water; let the young woman who comes out to draw, to whom I shall say, “Pray give me a little water from your jar to drink,” and who will say to me, “Drink, and I will draw for your camels also,” let her be the woman whom the Lord has appointed for my master’s son.’
LXX: ἡ παρθένος – the young woman/virgin
Exo 2:8
So the girl went and called the child’s mother. LXX: ἡ νεᾶνις – the young woman/girl
Psa 86:26
the singers in front, the minstrels last, between them maidens playing timbrels
LXX: νεανίδων – of young women/girls
Pro 30:19
the way of a man with a maiden
LXX: ὁδοὺς ἀνδρὸς ἐν νεότητι – the way of a man in youth
Sng 1:3
the maidens love you LXX: νεάνιδες – young women/girls
Sng 6:8
There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number.
LXX: νεάνιδες – young women/girls
Isa 7:14
a young woman LXX: ἡ παρθένος – The young woman/virgin
In all cases the word refers to a young, unmarried woman, probably a teenager. From the cultural background they would all be virgins, but that aspect may not be in focus in each instance. In four cases, the LXX used the general Greek word for a young woman, but in two places the translators chose the more specific virgin. In these two cases, a marriage is imminent, so it was important for the LXX translators to emphasize that in their understanding of the Hebrew text this young woman was clearly a virgin.
Another Hebrew word, betulah, is related. It occurs 50 times in the OT, and the LXX always translates it by the specific word for virgin (parthenos), except in 3 cases where it is used as a metaphor for a city or a group of people. There the word is translated by “daughter.”
So, comparing the two words, we can conclude from the usage that their meanings overlap.
Betulah is more specific for virgin and implies the sense of an unmarried woman (usually, but not necessarily young).
‘almah is a young woman, who is also a virgin, but this aspect may or may not be in focus, depending on context. Someone might say that if Isa 7:14 was intended to convey the sense of virgin, it should have used betulah. That kind of argument is not based on linguistic reasoning, since ‘almah can also refer to a virgin, especially if she is soon to be married.
Now, I have heard that a related word in a related language may refer to a young, married woman, but I don’t remember the details. Is that really enough to overthrow the meaning established by usage in the Hebrew Bible as well as the LXX?
Of course, translation does not mean simply substituting one word in one language with a corresponding word in another language. One needs to look at how the words weave together an overall meaning in view of its cultural context.
A very literal rendering of the Hebrew text is something like:
Therefore the Lord himself, he will give you(plural) a sign: Look/Listen! The young woman/virgin pregnant and bearing a son and she will call his name “God with us!”
The predicates here are first an adjective (pregnant), then a participle (bearing/giving birth to) and then a verb that most people understand as future (she will name him). The Hebrew verb system is complex and somewhat disputed. Does the future sense of the last verb carry over to the adjective and participle? LXX obviously decided that it did, since they translate: “Therefore Lord himself he will give you(plural) a sign: Look/Listen! The virgin will have in stomach (she will become pregnant), and she will bear a son and you (Ahaz) will call his name Emmanuel.”
One question is why there is a definite article before “virgin”. I assume it means that the reference is to a young woman, not yet married, who is known to both the speaker and hearer, possibly present. Maybe a virgin to be married to the king?
The prophecy relates to future happenings, and if the woman was already pregnant, it does not need prophetic inspiration to predict that she will give birth. This reduces it to predicting that it will be a boy. Since the word apparently does refer to a virgin, a present tense does not fit. You cannot say: “The virgin is pregnant,” even though CEV did so! King Ahaz did not witness a virgin birth. That came later with Mary as a secondary fulfilment of this small part of the prophecy. One may argue that the lack of a verb implies a present tense in English, but I find this hard to accept for two reasons. It goes against the normal meaning of ‘almah, and it implies that we know Hebrew better than the LXX translators. I know that I do not.
Those were my thoughts from a linguistic and contextual viewpoint.
Symposium on Bible Translations (NIV, ESV, HCSB)
from Professor David Croteau:
I’ve been posting some things on Bible translations on my blog:
1) Doug Moo (NIV), Wayne Grudem (ESV), and Ray Clendenen (HCSB) video’s from Liberty University’s Biblical Studies Symposium on Bible Translations.
2) A 34-part blog series comparing six major Bible translations using a methodology of my mentor, Andreas Kostenberger, in The Challenge of Bible Translation.
- Part 1
- Part 2
- When part 34 is done (November 5th) I plan on posting the whole thing as a document.Also, a book from B&H will come from this, with chapters from the three above plus Philip Comfort. Kostenberger and I are editing it.
Blessings!
David Croteau
Associate Professor of Biblical Studies
School of Religion, Liberty University
How are we doing at BBB?
Every once in a while, I sit back and wonder how we’re doing at Better Bibles Blog (BBB). I’d like us to better meet the needs and interests of our visitors, if we can (and within the mission statement and guidelines of BBB). Now is your opportunity to give us some feedback that can help us. You can click on any of the answers in the survey below that apply to you. Thanks.
Here’s the answers
Yesterday (Disagreeable nouns) I posted some examples of “disagreeable nouns” in English translations. And I included a few examples of my own just to see if you were awake.
Here are the four passages I listed with the problems highlighted and explained.
1. The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1, ESV)
There’s an ambiguity here because of the use of the word “son.” Does Jesus have two fathers? Or maybe Jesus is the son of David who is the son of Abraham. Better to say something like, “Jesus Christ, the descendant of both David and Abraham.”
2. Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. (Mark 2:13, NIV)
This isn’t ungrammatical but there is a switch in pronominal reference. A crowd (singular, it) came to him and he taught them (plural, referring to people). This is very common in the Gospels. You’re always hearing something like, “Then the disciples came to Jesus and said, ‘Master…’” I always imagine the 12 disciples speaking in unison.
3. One day Zechariah’s group of priests were on duty, and he was serving God as a priest. (Luke 1:8, CEV)
Now this is an error. Agreement with a noun phrase is with the head noun. So it should be “group of priests was.” This is a very common “error” and people make it all the time while speaking. Still, it’s pretty amazing to find an error in the CEV unless this is some kind of British English that I’m not familiar with.
4. 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3, KJV)
Peter caught the error on this one. Pronouns tend to refer back to the most recent, logical referent. So if I say, “Yesterday, I saw Wayne having coffee with Peter. He was looking great.” In this example, “he” refers to “Wayne” since he’s the most active referent. But if I said, “Yesterday, Wayne introduced me to Peter. He’s a stock broker on Wall Street.” You would know that “he” refers to Peter.
But in this passage from John, Word is an “it” (generally speaking) while God is a “he” so we expect the pronouns in verse three to be referring to God. But “Word” is the participant in focus so I think that even though the Greek is ambiguous that the pronoun was understood to be referring to Word and not God.
In Nyungwe, Word (fala) and God (Mulugu) come from different word classes so the pronominal reference forces you to choose which you are referring to. I remember the translators going back and forth on this one for a while.
Finally, my errors. Several people caught this error:
Here’s some examples (Should be “Here are some examples).
But nobody caught the other error which was the last word in the post:
Can you tell me what each of the errors are?
And to leave you with one last error. The title of this post contains an error.
Thanks for participating. Have a great week!
Disagreeable nouns
- The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1, ESV)
- Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. (Mark 2:13, NIV)
- One day Zechariah’s group of priests were on duty, and he was serving God as a priest. (Luke 1:8, CEV)
- 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3, KJV)
I read the BBC News online and there’s an element of British grammar that sounds really weird to me. Here’s some examples:
France were stunned,
Somehow Wales were still pressing, (Source: Wales 8-9 France)
It’s not ungrammatical for British English but as an American, I expect to see “France was stunned.”
I’ve listed four Bible passages and each of them has something “wrong” with it. And I’ve also included at least one grammatical error in this post. Can you tell me what each of the errors are?
