Translation

(Note: you can watch this blog on YouTube)

John 3:34 gives a good example of how easy it is to misunderstand a passage if you forget to look at the larger context.  John writes, “For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit (ἐκ μέτρου)” (NIV, and so most translations).

This is a well-known verse, which actually makes it a little more difficult to see the problem. The NIV is close to a word-for-word translation (although the order of the words must be rearranged to make sense), but in this case word-for-word is misleading. Why?

First of all, the context makes it clear that the “the one who God has sent” is Jesus. However, the way that most translations handle this verse is too broad in scope. The statement “God gives the Spirit without limit” is intended only to refer to Jesus. Again, check the context.

Secondly, do you have the Spirit “without measure”? Of course not, at least not in the way that Jesus had the Spirit. All believers are fully endowed with the Spirit, and no believer has more of the Spirit than another. Thankfully the old charismatic theology that said only those who speak in tongues are fully endowed with the Spirit has long since been discredited.

(The following is from the paper I read at the annual ETS meeting last week. The entire paper can be downloaded from BillMounce.com/papers.)

Much of the current misunderstanding about translation theory is due to putting Bible translations in the wrong category, or putting two translations together that should be kept separate. I believe there are five, not two or three, categories of translations, and critiques specifically of the NLT (“natural language”) should not be applied to the NIV (functional equivalence”).

1. “Literal”

The category of “literal” translations should only include interlinears, and in fact I don’t like the term “literal” at all since we use the word in a way that is contrary to its actual meaning. The word “literal,” in any English dictionary, literally means “without embellishment,” and it should never be used in a discussion of translations.

There is no such thing as a literal meaning of a word — what does λόγος “literally” mean? — no such thing as a literal translation of a verse, and therefore there is no such thing as a “literal translation” or even an “essentially literal” translation. Even interlinears are technically not literal but are, to some degree, interpretive. The minute you translate τοῦ θεοῦ as “of God,” you are no longer literal but interpreting a genitive noun construction with a prepositional phrase and dropping ὁ, a word that actually has no precise equivalent in English.

No competent translator should say that their translation is literal. The problem is that the folks in our churches mistakenly equate “literal” with “word-for-word” and think that means “accurate.” It is our responsibility to help people see the error in this thinking. [See Van Leeuwen on the KJV. “I prefer not to call it ‘literal’ because translations always add, change, and subtract from the original. The only literal Bible is written in Hebrew and Greek” (“We Really Do Need Another Bible Translation,” Christianity Today, 45 no 13 (October 22, 2001).]

When Jesus says that one of the disciples will betray him, Judas responds, μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι (Matt 26:25). μήτι shows that he expected to answer “no,” and since μήτι is more emphatic than μή (see BDAG), I would argue that translations must include the expected response.

I am not sure why there are so many differences among the translations on Acts 2:3, but it is fun to think through the options.

The order of the words in the Greek is a little confusing; but if you think grammatically, translation is not that difficult.