As I continue down the list in Mark Strauss’ paper, I am finding it easier and easier to find more with which I disagree, and I am being reminded how fundamentally different formal and functional translations are. The ESV is a good example of one, and the TNIV of the other, but never the two shall meet I suspect.
1 Tim 3:8 says that a deacon must be self-controlled in speech (“not double-tongued” ESV), in drink (“not addicted to much wine”), and in one’s desire for wealth (“not greedy for dishonest gain”). Mark comments that the the ESV “sounds like a mock ‘Indian-speak’ (with forked-tongue) or some strange alien creature” and adds that the word means “‘insincere,’ ‘lacking integrity,’ ‘hypocritical,’ or even ‘two-faced.’”
Before jumping in, let me say something about humor in academic circles. Mark is a funny guy (remember, we are friends). And yet it seems that in academic circles we think that if it is said with humor, we can say anything we like. Mark’s presentation elicited more laughter than I have ever heard at an ETS paper. But did the humor in truth hide the lack of academic discussion and debate we had all hoped to hear in the room? By using humor as a tool of debate, haven’t we in essence gone outside of academic debate. Ridiculing a position can sway the masses, but it should have no effect on us.
For the life of me, I cannot remember the discussion of this word in the ESV committee, and I noticed that my own translation in my commentary is “gossips.” But I am pretty sure of why we went with “double-tongued.” We simply do not know what the word truly means.
διλογος is a rare word occurring only one other time in Greek literature, and that in the second century A.D. where it means “repeating.” Its two closest cognates are equally rare, διλογια meaning “repetition” and διλογεω meaning “to repeat.” The closest form in the LXX is διγλωσσος, used in Prov 11:3 of a person who reveals secrets as opposed to one who keeps secrets (and elsewhere).
So where do we go to find a word’s meaning in this situation? You have to go to etymology. Since we have no prior use of this word, and since Paul shows an openness to making up words, especially in the Pastorals, it makes sense he coined the word here. διλογος is from δις meaning “twice” and λογος meaning “something said.” Suggestions for its meaning range from “repetitious, gossips, saying one thing and meaning another, saying one thing to one person but another to another person.” The basic meaning is clear. When a deacon speaks, his words must be true, rigorously honest.
But can we know, with precision, beyond this what it means? Of course not. We just don’t’ now. And hence we have the two solutions proposed by formal and functional translations. The formal tries to replicate the form of the Greek word, retaining any ambiguity or imagery that might be there in the Greek (ESV), and the functional must interpret the word, removing the discussion of its possible meaning from Bible study (the TNIV goes with “sincere”).
But lets get back to Mark’s point. Is this an example of bad translation? Of course not. It is the recognition that we simply do not know for sure what the word means, and in line with our philosophy we wanted to leave that debate for the commentaries, pastors, and blogs. We did that throughout the ESV.
And I have a hard time believing that anyone engaged in even semi-serious Bible study would look at the word and think of a Lone Ranger episode or the latest sci-fi thriller. They would see the imagery and have to decide for themselves. Mark even agrees with this. Really! He suggests “two-faced” as a possible translation. Really? Is this Harry Potter where the bad guy has two heads? Or perhaps another weird Picasso painting? Oh, you mean we use metaphors in speech? Sure, even a functional equivalent guy like Mark.
I still think, in light of the problems in Ephesus, that “gossip” is the best meaning. And since gossip in the native language of the modern church, the qualification is as important today as it was 2,000 years ago.
Comments
If we don't know what a
If we don't know what a particular word means, why the "best guess" translation? Why not transliterate the Greek word and indicate in the margin that presently there is not enough data for us to suggest a translation of DILOGOS; at this stage, it would be speculation. To put 'something' in there, without more data than you've shown us, seems to me to show a lack of respect for the Scriptures. Perhaps you could put "gossip" in the margin along with the supporting evidence, but it has no business in the text itself.
Please don't take this as an attack on you personally. Your work is great and we have all learned a lot of Greek with your methodology. I just wanted to explain how important each word is and the need to handle it with reverence.
Brian K.
I think the answer would be
I think the answer would be that we have a general idea, and a transliteration would mean nothing. So we can at least get in the ball park. Fortunately, there are not a lot of words that fall into this category.
I appreciate your
I appreciate your presentation of this word. I have felt that this word would best be interpreted as "one who maintains confidence," as one who can be trusted to keep confidential that which has been confided to him. This would lean more toward "trustworthy" rather than "gossip." Indeed, such a concept would be extected to be rare in the New Testament.
Your etymology of this word seems to support that interpretation. We'll see how the translation ends up someday!
Pastor Joel
Personally, I have so little
Personally, I have so little confidence in some of the functional equivalent versions that I wouldn't even use them to teach a young Sunday school class. On the other hand, some of the functional-formal balanced versions are decent for reference and might be appropriate reading for new Christians or those who are learning English; however, for serious Bible study or public teaching, I wouldn't be comfortable with anything other than a formal translation.
For instance, while certain Biblical metaphors may be difficult to understand, I've found that they tend to make me look more carefully into the original Greek text, the context, and other related historical issues. This process has been invaluable for increasing my understanding. I find that functional translations often try (rather poorly) to hand this information out to readers on a silver-platter. I'm all for understanding, but I feel it does a disservice to the readers. It robs the reader of the cues in the text that should prompt further study. Actually, I've wondered how much functional translations are about real understanding versus an attempt to compensate for the lack of teaching, discipleship and initiative for personal study that is exists in many of our churches today. I mean really, is a term like "double-tongued" so difficult that a competent Bible teacher couldn't explain it or a modestly intelligent Christian with a solid commentary couldn't figure it out. Is this really a problem?
God bless,
-bh
But this is part of the
But this is part of the functional equivalent theory -- that the meaning should be readily apparent. I agree that this s not always true. Sometimes gold is worth digging for.
For the life of me, I cannot
For the life of me, I cannot remember the discussion of this word in the ESV committee, and I noticed that my own translation in my commentary is "gossips." But I am pretty sure of why we went with "double-tongued." We simply do not know what the word truly means.
I can't remember where it was, but I pointed out elsewhere in response to this translation that the same reasoning that leads to "double-tongued" also leads to "bilingual." Isn't that a problem for the translation methodology?
-Joel
Add new comment