Monday with Mounce

People often say there are two forms of translation, "formal" and "functional." One is more "word-for-word" and the other is more "thought-for-thought." This is not accurate. There are actually five, and a truly "literal" Bible is not really a biblical translation at all.

I am starting a short series of blogs on what I have learned about translation since joining the Committee on Bible Translation, which controls the text of the NIV. In this first posting I am discussing my dislike of the word "literal."

I am taking a break from blogging until August. We are off to Ireland for the annual NIV meeting, sightseeing around Ireland and Northern Ireland with my family, and then headed to Berlin for my daughter's wedding. Follow the fun on Instagram.com/billmounce. I will start up again some time in August.

When an adjective functions substantivally, generally we have to add in words from the context to make sense of the statement. Normally, it is not hard to do so, but it would appear that Acts 2:23 is somewhat troublesome. When Peters says that Jesus died by the hands of ἀνόμων, is he thinking of lawless people or non-Jewish people? And once more, can we stop saying Luke literally says "men without the Law, i.e. pagans" when Luke did not write English? Literally, Luke said ἀνόμων.

Why do some people resist the new, and why do others think the new is better than the old? Jesus' teaching is the new wine, and the purveyors of the old will almost always fight it, asserting their old forms of thinking are good enough or actually better. Why is it so hard to evaluate the new and decide whether or not it should replace our old? Let's think through Luke 5:39.

When we translate the Greek conjunction γάρ as "for," we sometimes obscure the connection between verses. When Jesus says that the Pharisees wouldn't even get into the kingdom of God, how does that relate to his prior assertion that every iota and stroke of the pen found in the law will be fulfilled in him?

When can a present refer to the future, and what is the "more difficult reading" in textual criticism.

Sometimes, in an attempt to make a translation understandable, functional equivalent translations can lose clues as to meaning, the very thing they are trying not to do. In the case of Acts 1:24, the NIV loses the double use of τόπος.

A friend of mine pointed out the irregularity of the grammar in this verse. When the biblical writers break what we consider to be “proper” grammar, we call it a “solecism.” Sounds better than saying they are “wrong,” but caution is in order before we determine that a native speaker makes an error in his own language.