BillMounce.com

Poetry can be exceptionally difficult to translate. It often conveys meaning more with pictures than with individual words, the words working together to create images more powerful than words.

Metaphors are only slightly easier, but here there is even less context and so the meaning of the metaphor is easily loss.

Case in point: Proverbs 30:26. Mark Strauss lists this in his “Oops” category. The ESV translates the passage from vv 24-28:

Four things on earth are small, but they are exceedingly wise:

1. the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their food in the summer;
2. the rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs;
3. the locusts have no king, yet all of them march in rank;
4. the lizard you can take in your hands, yet it is in kings’ palaces.

I received an interesting question the other day from a Filipino brother. He had learned Greek and was starting to notice certain tendencies in his native translations. Here are the relevant potions of his email.

“As I try to further learn the Greek language, it inspired me to probe on the Tagalog (my countries native tongue) translation of the Bible. I discovered that we had two versions: Ang Biblia (1905) brought by the Evangelical Union Missionaries and the newer ones , Ang Magandang Balita (1970) translated by our very own Philippine Bible Society.  Now both translations, as stated in their prefaces, claimed to have based their translation work from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts but as I work my way through the translation, I began to notice that our Tagalog translation of the Bible may have based it's work not on the Hebrew and Greek themselves but actually on the English Bibles (KJV and NIV)…. English grammar is VERY VERY different from the Tagalog language. Just for verbs alone, we don't have tenses but only aspects (just like the Greek). We also don't follow strict word order because we have verb "focus," a declension of the verbs that helps determine the main subject of the sentence, object, etc. This is the reason why I noticed the similarity of the English Bible with our own Tagalog translation. It seems to follow the same rules of the English grammar while it should have been following the Greek or Hebrew. Do most translations of the Bibles in other languages really came straight from the Hebrew/Greek text or are they mediated from the English Bible?”

There is more to this question than at first meet the eye. First of all, isn’t the idea of a “focus” declension a great idea? Wouldn’t it be great to be able to indicate, especially in a longer sentence, what the main point is? If Greek had this, it would make exegesis much easier?

This is one of those perennial questions, and it came up again the other day so I thought I would summarize the issues. For more detail, see my commentary (pages 170-173).

Paul urges Timothy to insist that an elder is above approach. What this means is laid out in the following verses, and one of the requirements is that he is “a man of one woman,” or, “a husband of one wife,” mias gunaikos andra. What does this mean?

1. Some hold that it means an elder must be married. But the force of the construction places its emphasis on “one” (because of its location at the beginning of the phrase), makes Timothy and Paul ineligible for eldership, and runs counter to Paul's preference for celibacy.

2. Some hold that it is a prohibition against polygamy, i.e., married to one at a time. This argument is stronger than one might suspect from its near universal rejection. However, while polygamy was common in Judaism it was not common in Christianity, so it seems unlikely that Paul would have thought to prohibit something that rarely occurred. Also, because the phrase is so unique, one would suspect it has the same meaning but in reverse when applied to widows (who needed to be a woman of one man, 1 Tim 5:9), and there is no evidence of polyandry.

3. Others think that it means the elder must be faithful to his wife. In the modern vernacular, a “one-woman kind of guy.” In fact, I. H. Marshall in his ICC commentary merely lists this as the meaning and moves on, not debating the point.

4. The dominant interpretation places primary emphasis on the “one” and says that being above reproach means he has only been married once. This position divides into two camps, and your position here depends more on your theology of divorce and remarriage than it does on the text in 1 Tim 3.

Having touched on the topic of concordance last week, it is interesting to be asked about the ESV’s lack of concordance in 2 Cor 3:5-6.

Not that we are sufficient (ικανοι) in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency (ικανοτης) is from God, who has made us competent (ικανωσεν) to be ministers of a new covenant,

The TNIV maintains the concordance of the three cognates using “competent, competence.”

This is a great example of why concordance is so important in the same context. We may not be able to translate the same Greek word with the same English word wherever it occurs in the Bible, but certainly in the same immediate context concordance is a good idea, again, as long as the same English word carries the meaning and nuances necessary in that context.

I was asked the other day about the translation of γραμμα in Romans 2:27. “In verse 27, the ESV went with ‘written code’ but it verse 29 they went with ‘letter.’ ‘Written code’ is what the NIV has and is more functional, where ‘letter’ is more formal. Can I ask why the difference there? Thanks so much!”

Good question (and nicely asked). Here is the text of the ESV.

Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code (γαμματος) and circumcision but break the law.… But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter (γραμματι). His praise is not from man but from God.”

I don’t remember this actual discussion, but I suspect the answer is in the footnote to “written code” in v 27. It says, “Or the letter.” In other words, the ESV did not miss the concordance; we saw that the same Greek word was used in both verses. And one of our policies was to try and use the same English word for the same Greek word in the same context. Some people ridicule this policy, accusing the ESV of not understanding the nature of language, and that one word can change its meaning from context to context. When I started on the ESV, I held this position (but without the ridicule and questioning of a person’s competence). Semantic range and all that stuff.

Here is a neat little puzzle. The five thousand have been fed (Mt14:13-21; Mark 6:3-44), Jesus remains behind to dismiss the crowd and sends the disciples across the lake to Gennesaret. Jesus has gone up the mountain side to find a quiet place for prayer but the boat full of disciples experience one of those sudden storms on the sea of Galilee. Their craft is battered by strong winds and waves. Suddenly there is Jesus coming toward them on the water. They fear it is a ghost but Peter asks permission to walk out on the water to Jesus. Starts out well but, noting how strong the wind is, looses confidence and sinks requiring Jesus to lift him from the water into the boat.

Now comes the problem: Matthew says that at this point those in the boat worshipped him, saying “Truly you are the son of God” (v.33). However Mark paints a different picture. He writes, “And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened” (v. 52). So (1) did they worship him and pronounce him to be the Son of God, or (2) were they simply astounded but didn’t understand because their hearts were hard?

Hard to put these together until you notice that Mark’s comment relates back to the feeding of the five-thousand rather than to the miraculous stilling of the waters. What he is telling us is that the disciples did not understand the significance of the multiplication of bread. Their minds were still hardened by lack of faith. At the moment they may well have done exactly what Matthew said they did. In other words, Mark’s verses are less a part of the stilling of the sea than a reflection on the significance of what had happened just before that. The contextual clue is the phrase, “they did not understand about the loaves” (Mk 6:52)

This is a bit off-topic, but thought I would share about my paper at ETS on the ESV/TNIV. Basically I think it went well, and hopefully set the tone for further debate.

My paper was entitled, “Can the ESV and TNIV Co-Exist in the Same Universe?” (It was a response paper to Mark Strauss.) I jokingly answered, “In light of current developments, evidently not” and opened the floor for questions.

My real answer was, “Yes, in fact, they must co-exist” (thinking of the NIV2011). I do not believe that one size fits all. Children no longer learn to read by reading the Bible, and we live in a post-Christian culture that is attempting to expunge any hint of biblical language/metaphor.

When I was a full-time pastor, I preached from the ESV, but for VBS we used the TNIV. We had hundreds of unchurched kids from the neighborhood, and I had no idea of their church background and how their mom felt about “man” and “he.” After all, the goal of translation is communication, so I used the translation that helped me communicate the best in both contexts.

So if they must exist together, the question becomes how. My suggestion was that we all learn to “Play Fair,” and I suggested seven principles of how to play fair.

We had an interesting experience on the ESV translation committee when we were doing 1 Cor 13. We were working really hard on the passage, perhaps especially hard since it was such a famous passage. Famous passages are difficult since changes have a greater impact on people: “how dare you change my favorite passage!” as if we own the text.

We went through the chapter, watched our word choice, made changes only where we thought it was necessary, and especially watched the cadence of the passage. After all, the passage is read at thousands of weddings. It has to sound just right. Okay so far.

But when it was all over, someone (I forget who) asked a simple question. “I wonder if 1 Cor 13 is really poetry.” It was late in the day, we had worked hard, the passage was generally viewed as poetic, and for whatever reasons we didn’t answer the question and moved on to chapter 14.

But really. Is 1 Cor 13 poetry?

Part of the human side of the inspiration process is the author’s use of metaphors, figures of speech, and all the other tools for making the language robust and descriptive. The authors of Scripture could have written in plain, third grade level, boring Greek. But they didn’t.

Unfortunately, often translations tend to flatten the language. Take for example Romans 6:4. In the ESV we wrote, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (also in the KJV and NASB). “Walk” is a well-known metaphor to describe how we live. It paints a picture that communicates both the words used and the meaning intended.

It is somewhat surprising, then, to find the metaphor interpreted in other translations as “live a new life” (TNIV, cf. NLT). Even the NET Bible follows the pattern, although the metaphor is explained in the footnote.

I would like to take quick break from the normal function of this blog to share something on a personal nature with you. Integrity demands it, since it comes as a form of disclosure. But I am also concerned to stem any misunderstanding.

Many of you know that I was the New Testament chair of the ESV translation. This project has consumed thousands of hours, most of them enjoyable. I am happy with the ESV. As a formal equivalent translation done in the translation stream of the KJV / ASV / RSV, it has proven itself. And while the committee will be constantly looking at issues and questions submitted by people like you, my work on the ESV was largely done.

But a few weeks ago I received a most amazing email from my friend Mark Strauss (who I have been picking on lately in this blog). What was amazing was that just the night before I was sharing with Robin (my wife) how much I missed translation work. I learned so much on the ESV, things I have never taught in any Greek class at any level. I told her, “Wouldn’t it be amazing to be in the NIV committee? I would love it if I were asked to be on it.”

Mark’s letter was precisely that. Followed up by a formal letter from Doug Moo, the Chairman, I have been asked to be part of the CBT. And a few days ago I said yes.