Bible Translation and the Expositor
There is a clear difference in translations of the Bible among the various version written for English-speaking people. When one sets out to understand the meaning of God's word in a particularly written text of Scripture, then the astute theologian will work through the observation, interpretation, and application through the lenses of history, literature, and theology. Within this hermeneutical process, it is wise to make conscientious observations regarding the text at hand. One of those easy-to-spot surface-level observations about the text to be studied is the noticeable differences in the receptor language translations rendered. When considering the English language translational differences, the three main differences causing the translations to differ are exegetical decision-making, translation theory, and a textbase.
Exegetical decision-making must take place when the context of a word or phrase is so ambiguous that it is hardly understood which context the correct placing of a translated word or phrase is to be allowed. At this junction, the translator finds himself in the middle of an interpretive decision. In their work on Inductive Bible Study, Köstenberger et al. decisively imply, "A basic fact of translation is that whenever translation occurs, interpretation occurs, at least at some level. This can't be avoided and will happen even without any intentional bias." [1] As coauthor with Köstenberger of this book, Dr. Fuhr has stated, "context is king and the takes precedent over any lexical definitions." [2] Even in a "word for word" approach to translation, there is always the decision of just exactly how many words the receptor language uses to describe the language of origin so that it best reflects an accurate translation. One example of using exegetical decision-making in the translation process is discoverable while reading Köstenberger's chapter in the (Harper et al.) book The Challenge of Bible Translation. Köstenberger gives insight into this challenge in his chapter dealing with the challenge of translating John's Gospel,
Of more than academic interest is the translation of 12:32. Will Jesus draw "all people" or "all things" to himself? Both external and internal considerations weigh decisively in favor of the former. Since I have elsewhere provided a detailed discussion of this issue, I need not do so again here. 15 Suffice it to say that the best contextual understanding of the phrase holds that the exalted Jesus will draw, not literally all people, but all kinds of people to himself, including Gentiles such as the Greeks who had, in the preceding pericope (12:20– 23), just requested to see him. The major English translations struggle, not so much with the textual issue— all construe the underlying text as pantas (masculine plural), not panta (neutral plural)—but with the potentially implied universalism of the passage (see also 1:7, 9). The NIV and NASB have "all men," which is in our age unduly gender-specific (women, too, are included); the NRSV, HCSB, ISV, ESV, and TNIV have "all people"; the NLT has "everyone"; the NKJV has "all peoples." In light of the above exegetical comments, my preference is "all kinds of people," with a footnote indicating that this means both Jews and Gentiles, with reference to 12:20– 23 and 11:52. By this standard, the NKJV seems to come closest. [3]
This Köstenberger reference is only one example of translators struggling to find the contextual application when there is an agreed-upon word-for-word translation. The majority of these considered translations come from the same text line. To fill in the understanding of the original word in Koine Greek, translators need to choose a word or words in the English language that is the same as a "pantas." The King James translators decided to translate the Greek line from the Received Text, “pas.” Both translators are faced with adding the exact words to render an accurate translation. Translated words in the receptor language all come from an exegetical decision. In the case of the King James translators, textual-based choice word to translate, "pas." "Pas" literally means "all," but the King James translators chose to use another word, "men," to give "all" the context that is needed to be precise in the receptor language (English).
Translation theory is how to translate the Bible into the language God originally gave it in so that it accurately translates into the receptor language. The two leading theories are dynamic equivalency and formal equivalency. A dynamic equivalency theory in action would seek to paraphrase the process of translation into the receptor language to best bridge the gap between the Bible in its God-given original language to the receptor language. Formal equivalency theory in action would seek to render a word-for-word literal translation. It is crucial to note Köstenberger states, "Because no translation can be completely literal, all translations will employ a certain degree of dynamic equivalence." [4] One notable example of an English Bible translation that used formal equivalency as its theory for translating the Bible is the King James Version of the Bible. Vice President of the Trinitarian Bible Society, Malcolm Watt's conclusion about the King James Bible is "that the meticulous care that the King James translators took to look at text family and their view of the Bible as "providentially preserved predisposition" led them to render the most faithful and accurate translation, still unrivaled in its majestic style, simplicity, and power. The Authorized version, proven through the centuries and greatly loved by the Lord's people, is a truly noble production. It remains the best English translation of God's infallible and inerrant word." [5] The King James translator's theoretical view and use of formal equivalency do factor into predispositions that translators held while building the bridge between the two languages. While it may not be readable to give an exact "word for word" translation like "Young's literal translation" sought to do in 1898: Köstenberger et al. are probably overstating formal equivalency weaknesses and using it as a strawman when he quotes, "This approach to translation will tend not to bridge differences between languages in areas of idiom, grammar, syntax, and culture." [6] Without having to prove too much, it only follows that since the King James Bible is the most flooded book to come into the world market since its translational work had been completed, using a formal equivalent theoretical approach: the masses believed that it overcame any of these potential pitfalls when they came out in droves to purchase this "weakly worded" translated book. (Köstenberger et al.) also admits that "What is more, dynamic equivalence to some degree involves exegetical decision making; this is true with regard to grammar, syntax, idiom, and vocabulary, and the student should be aware that exegetical decision making and translation theory are virtually inseparable." [7]
Köstenberger interviewed Trevin Wax, and Wax published an article by the Gospel Coalition regarding his 2012 book, Which Bible Translation Should I Use? [8]Köstenberger gave an example of a translation theory and its implications,
Take the reference to the qualification for a church leader to be a one-woman-type of man in 1 Timothy 3:2, for example. Some translations choose a word-for-word rendering ("husband of one wife," NASB), while others opt for a more idiomatic translation (e.g., "faithful to his wife," NIV). When you understand how a given translation philosophy influenced a particular rendering, it helps you evaluate a particular translation decision better. Eventually, you may even get to a point when, knowing the translation philosophy underlying the major English version, you can almost predict how a given version will translate a particular verse. [9]
Three key questions to ask if the variously translated renderings differ as one goes through a version comparison Bible study,
Therefore, when observing any significant translation difference, ask yourself the question: Is the difference the result of (1) differing interpretations (the same text being translated differently), (2) differences in translation theory (still the same text being translated), (3) an underlying text-critical issue (different texts being translated and thus the translation is different), or some combination of these? [10]
When texts differ or leave something out altogether, then one must consider the possibility that they came from two entirely different text families. In his book The Lord Gave the Word: A Study of Historical Biblical Text, Malcolm Watts outlines the linage of two text families that most English Bible translators seek to translate from these days: The Byzantine Text (also associated with the Received Text or TR) and the Alexandrian Text (also associated with the Westcott and Hort text).[11] Textual critics have debated for centuries about which textual line of origin is correct and what manuscripts are authentic. They have tried to synthesize exactly a more particular manuscript from the evidence as time rolls on. Differing theories about the amount of weight to give newly found evidence, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and older versus newer manuscripts delineation of importance to give in the textual discernment is the subject of hotly debated wars on words. Text-based decision-making is deciding which original text baseline one will translate from into the receptor language. This is not the place to make those sometimes lengthy distinguishments here. Still, it is beneficial to exact an example to draw into the open the conclusive differences to a book that is supposed to be theologically the "final authority for all matters of faith and practice." One such example is I John 5:7. This teaching is where the Bible explicitly lays out the doctrine of the trinity succinctly and explicitly. Yet in the TR where the King James Version of the Bible is translated, it is found as (1 John 5:7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.[12] And in the other Alexandrian line manuscripts, it is not found. As is established in the footnote, Köstenberger et al. assert,
The Textus Receptus, in turn, is based on the so-called "Majority Text," which is found in the largest number (though not the oldest) manuscripts. The Majority Text, for its part, exhibits the Byzantine text type which is often written in minuscule (lower-case) letters. Most modern English versions (though not the NKJV) are based on an eclectic text which more closely follows the Alexandrian text type.[13]
The modern translations of the English Bible have varied outcomes based on Textual Lines of origin.
Three primary considerations in the translation process while interacting with current works are Exegetical Decision Making, Translation Theory, and Text-Based Decision. When there is a fork in the road to be followed because of the various renderings of the readings, then one can be sure that those forked paths originated with one of these main considerations.
Bibliography
Inductive Methodology and Applied Hermeneutics. Kaltura. Directed by Dr. Richard Allen Fuhr. Lynchburg VA: Liberty University.
Fuhr, Richard Alan and Andreas J. Köstenberger. Inductive Bible Study: Observation, Interpretation, and Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2016.
King James. King James Bible Oxford University Press, 1769.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. and David A. Croteau. Which Bible Translation should I use? A Comparison of 4 Major Recent Versions. Nashville, Ten: B&H Academic, 2012.
Watts, Malcolm. The Lord Gave the Word: A Study in the History of the Biblical Text. London, England: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1998.
Wax, Trevor. "Which Bible Translation should I Choose? an Interview with Andreas Köstenberger" https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/which-bible-translation-should-i-choose-an-interview-with-andreas-kstenberger/ (accessed February 13, 2023).
Zondervan. The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God's Word to the World. Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2003, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=5397701.
[1] Richard Alan Fuhr and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Inductive Bible Study : Observation, Interpretation, and Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2016).Chapter 3 [2] Inductive Methodology and Applied Hermeneutics, Kaltura, directed by Dr Richard Allen Fuhr (Lynchburg VA: Liberty University, [3] Zondervan, The Challenge of Bible Translation : Communicating God's Word to the World (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2003), http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=5397701., 350 [4] Ibid., Chapter 3 [5] Malcolm Watts, The Lord Gave the Word: A Study in the History of the Biblical Text (London, England: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1998), 1-28. [6] Ibid., Chapter 3 [7] Ibid., Chapter 3 [8] Trevor Wax, "Which Bible Translation should I Choose? an Interview with Andreas Köstenberger " https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/which-bible-translation-should-i-choose-an-interview-with-andreas-kstenberger/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2023). [9] Andreas J. Köstenberger and David A. Croteau, Which Bible Translation should I use? : A Comparison of 4 Major Recent Versions (Nashville, Tenn: B&H Academic, 2012). [10] Ibid., Chapter 3 [11] Watts, The Lord Gave the Word: A Study in the History of the Biblical Text, 1-28 [12] King James, King James Bible Oxford University Press, 1769). [13] Ibid., Chapter 3
Commentaires