How to Read
the Bible for All It’s Worth, Session II
The Basic
Took: A Good Translation
A teaching by Jack Haberer
based upon the book by the
same title, written by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart
September 12, 2004
ANNOUNCEMENT: BOOK PURCHASE
How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth - $16
AND
How to Read the Bible Book by Book - $17
Discount: $15 each
…both for $30
INTRO:
A. REVIEW of last week
1. the need to
interpret:
whenever we read anything: we are interpreting as we go
…common sense
kicks in to tell us to take poetry one way,
scientific journal articles another way
2. Doing biblical
reading requires us to be self-conscious about the interpreting process
a. old
assumptions and old lessons tend to overpower fresh listening
b. fear of
overwhelming doubts causes us to protect the text from analysis
c. the
complicated realities of multiple authors and styles intimidate
d. distance
from then and there to here and now looks insurmountable
e. it is God’s
word and it ought to be obeyed.
3. Goal of
interpretation:
NOT:
originality
RATHER: to get
to the plain meaning of the text
…so we can hear what God wants us to hear in it
4. Working
definition of scripture:
“The Bible is
the Word of God, expressed in human words in history.”
“Each document is conditioned by the language, time and
culture in which it was originally
written.”
that is:
God’s word to us was first God’s word to them.
hence it comes with an “historical particularity”
RESULT:
Bible reading
always lives within the tension between its eternal relevance and its
historical
particularity.
5. Genres: THOSE human words are also arranges in
different forms of communication:
from poetry and proverbs to prophetic oracles, parables, and personal letters
from biography and history to sermons and
apocalypses
The task of interpretation needs to take those forms
differently
6. 2 essential
tasks of interpretation
a.
exegesis: deciphering what it
meant there and then
“What was the intended meaning of the original
writers to their original audiences?”
b.
hermeneutics: bridging from the
there and then to the here and now
“How does the original meaning apply to us?”
ŕ NOTE: a text cannot mean here and now what it
never could have meant there and
then
the proper control of a text’s meaning is the
original intended meaning
B. Today: the need for a good translation
Basic, unavoidable reality: every translation is an interpretation
1. Because the
original Bible texts were written in foreign languages
OT: mostly
Hebrew
…partly Aramaic (half of Daniel and parts of Ezra)
NO: Greek
2. Because nobody
owns the original manuscripts of the scriptures. All we have are copies of
copies, in which some errors have arisen. And it takes serious linguistic scholars to
decipher which manuscripts
are more likely to be the accurate versions for us to trust
3. Because when
translating, there are always dated forms, different idioms, etc. that need to
be bridged to the
present.
4. When translators
do their translation work, when faced with nuances, or with multiple
choices of
meanings, or awkward idioms, they have to
commit to one choice, one final
conclusion,
and, in the process, leave out the whole process of deliberation that led to
that
decision.
C. Nevertheless, it is
good to choose one basic translation which will be your primary tool and
then use others for
comparison study.
but which one to choose?
Don’t choose simply because you like it.
Make an intelligent choice…
I. The Science of Translation
When preparing a translation, the translators face 2 sets of
choices:
textual choices
AND
linguistic choices
The first has to do with the actual wording of the original text
The second has to do with one’s theory of translation
A. The question of text
“The translator’s 1st concern is to be sure that
the Hebrew or Greek text he or she is using is a
close as possible to the original working as it left the
author’s hands (or the hands of the scribe
taking it down by dictation).” (p. 35)
1. problem:
a. We have not
original manuscripts
b. We do have
1000s of copies produced by hand, most of which include just a small
portion of
the whole.
c. There are
points of divergence and disagreement in those mss.
2. task: textual criticism: deciphering better vs. worse manuscripts
a. external
evidence: based upon the quality &
age of a mss.
b. internal
evidence: some mss. demonstrate a
pattern of editing; where others demonstrate
a pattern of careful avoidance of error
c. NOTE: edits may have arisen by
1) a desire to make a point to the contemporary
situation, or 2) to simply something
confusing or apparently contradictory, or
3) by making simple scribal mistakes (like eyes
jumping from one line to another)
d. NOTE: The book offers some great examples (pp.
36-40)
1) keep in mind:
that textual criticism is a science but not an exact science: In fact,
translation committees are not always united
in their decisions.
2) one final comment: the KJV is wonderful in its use of language, and at the time it
marked a huge breakthrough in
translation; but it is entirely based
upon late texts. Its
accuracy is flawed in many ways.
THE New KJV did away with some of the KJV’s
antiquated expressions—and lost a lot
of the wonderful use of English—but refused to
look at the earlier manuscripts that had
surfaced since the first KJV was done. HENCE:
The NKJV is still just as flawed in its
Greek and Hebrew, and weakened in its English.
ŕ hence: not a good translation at all!
B. The questions of
language
i.e., the science of Translation – the transferring of
ideas from one language to another
1. several terms to
know:
a. original
language – the language one is translating from
b. receptor
language – the language one is translating into
c. historical
distance – distance between then & there AND here & now
d. formal
equivalence – keeping as close as possible to the form of the Greek or Hebrew;
hence trying to be as literal as possible
e. functional
equivalence – keeping meanings as equivalent as possible, but changing words
and idioms to better match present day meanings
– as in today’s sermon: from bowels to heart
f. free
translation – keeping ideas consistent but not worrying about using exact words
g. theory of
translation – the determination by translators to follow either formal
equivalence
or functional equivalence or free translation
ŕ the decision of a
translation team between these options will determine much of the
product they produce
2. Examples of
those choices:
ranging from formal to free:
Older versions:
KJV …NASB …RSV …NIV …NAB …GNB …JB …NEW …LB
Newer versions:
NKJV …NASU* …NRSV ...TNIV …NJB …REB …NLT …The
Message
NASU: Updated NASB
3. My vote: Functional Equivalence
NOT just because the authors say so
AND NOT just because they were profs of mine
BUT: because it
makes better understanding of the original intent
…it is the most logical approach to take
4. BUT: if using a functional equivalence primary
text
…then use a more literal text for comparison study
IN my case:
a. first
text: TNIV
b. second
text: NRSV
II. Some Problem Areas
A. Dealing with
historical distance
1. Weights,
measures and money
Literal versions lose a lot in translation
What’s an ephah, a cubit, and a homer?
What’s a denarius, or a shekel or a talent?
2. Euphemisms
a. Almost all
languages have euphemisms for matters of sex & toilet
b. Translators can either:
1) translate literally thereby leaving the English
reader oblivious or bewildered or
guessing
2) translate the formal equivalent, and shock or
offend the reader, case in point: when
the
Book of Ruth says that Ruth slept at the feet of her kinsman Boaz, any
guess what
that really means?
ANSWER:
that is a euphemism for “she seduced him”
3) offer a functionally equivalent euphemism usually, but not always
3. Vocabulary
Finding the closest equivalent meaning
e.g., sarx vs. soma:
both can be translated flesh,
…the second means physical boey
…the first means the appetite for sin, or sinful
nature
OR human nature (when speaking of Jesus’
sarx)
4. Word plays
Some times writers used similarly sounding words
…or use the same word in its multiple meanings and play
on them
e.g., “Ruach” = wind, breath, spirit
Ezek. 37 = valley of dry bones: wind …breath …spirit
Translators need to wrestle with such plays
5. Grammar and
syntax
If the original word pairing in French is “Maison
blanche”,
…shall we translate it “house white”?
…and thereby be literal to the original?
OR shall we turn it around “white house”, thereby
being true to the grammar and syntax of the receptor
language?
6. Matters of
gender
The language is evolving
Shall we use generic masculines?
…or shall we use male when male, female when
female, and gender neutral when gender neutral is
the original intent?
These become
fighting words …in the world of translation
CONCLUSION: On choosing a Translation
A. Sound overwhelming?
Good news: We will
not be doing Bible translation
BUT we will be reading translated versions of the Bible
AND we want to become a bit more sensitive to the
issues that…
the translators have faced
…and frankly to what our Bible study teachers
& pastors are facing as they try to help the text
come alive to our minds and hearts
B. So what translations are best?
1. TNIV is the
hands-down winner
…not available in OT yet, but NT is available
online:
www.tniv.info
purchase:
www.ibsdirect.com ($11.99 in leather)
…for a low, introductory cost, too
ŕ GNB and NAB are very good
too.
2. A more literal
translation for consultation is valuable
best to use NRSV
3. A freer
equivalent is also good:
best are NJB and REB.
C. NEXT Week: We’ll begin working the text:
The clearest and most helpful place to start:
The Epistles!