Nov 25, 2009
Every Bible translation is a paraphrase.
Every sentence in your Bible with punctuation has been edited for the sake of clarity.
And all clarification, by definition, narrows meaning.
* * *
Related:
Subscribe to 22 Words
Recent Comments
- Will on How to become a wine expert and other advice for inexperienced wine lovers
- Stephen May on It’s not a slide, it’s a proto-steampunk ghetto park bench for one.
- Stephen May on Who or whom? A clear, simple answer from a professional grammarian
- Stephen May on Elitists in Minnesota town Lino Lakes approve English-only resolution
- Will Adair on How to become a wine expert and other advice for inexperienced wine lovers
Sponsors
Categories
- Arts in General (24)
- Bible (66)
- Blogging (153)
- Brevity (25)
- Constructive Criticism (268)
- Faith (210)
- Food & Drink (54)
- Language (214)
- Literature (104)
- Love (86)
- Miscellanea (286)
- Movies (14)
- Music (155)
- parenting (153)
- Personal (182)
- Questions (255)
- Quotes (41)
- Recommendations (129)
- Sports (8)
- Uncategorized (8)
- Visual Art (27)
- Writing (56)
Archives
- July 2010 (107)
- June 2010 (79)
- May 2010 (89)
- April 2010 (62)
- March 2010 (21)
- February 2010 (25)
- January 2010 (32)
- December 2009 (47)
- November 2009 (63)
- October 2009 (45)
- September 2009 (40)
- August 2009 (40)
- July 2009 (40)
- June 2009 (37)
- May 2009 (47)
- April 2009 (51)
- March 2009 (40)
- February 2009 (31)
- January 2009 (44)
- December 2008 (47)
- November 2008 (54)
- October 2008 (50)
- September 2008 (41)
- August 2008 (45)
- July 2008 (51)
- June 2008 (51)
- May 2008 (66)
- April 2008 (74)
- March 2008 (71)
- February 2008 (19)
Reader Recommendations
Some of the books and music that you, the readers, have recommended here over time:
Twitter Recommendations
Theme based on Derek Punsalan's Grid Focus.
I never realized how true this was until our church began going through the book “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth” by Fee & Stewart.
Translation is partially an art. Artists clarify (or obfuscate) – it’s the nature of art to impose the artist’s point of view. So, even among excellent translations, complete objectivity doesn’t exist. But that was your point, I suppose.
I know what you mean, but that title is mis-leading and going to simply confuse a lot of people.
Confuse in a bad way?
Possibly. Hopefully people will be intrigued to understand what you mean. I’m afraid many will take it to mean all translations operate on exactly the same principles, which they don’t.
I recently finished a paper for a Greek class on Eph. 6:18-20. The editors of the Greek texts put a period in the middle of a sentence (I think because they think the second half should stand alone). Personally, I would have used a comma or no punctuation at that point to show it is connected to the previous thought. But yeah, any time there is an editor, even with a Greek text, there is going to be clarification, thus, paraphrasing.
at our old church, we had an elder who was quite the biblical scholar. when asked “which translation do you read?” he replied, “a translation??? i don’t read an english translation! that would be like kissing my wife through a screen door!” apparently only reading the original greek would do for him. :)
Isn’t meaning also narrowed by the lens of our culture and place in time? That none of us are pre-modern Jews or Romans living in 300AD means that we’re never really going to get the full meaning even if we read the original text. For example, when David talks about being afraid of jackals in the Psalms, most of us read that as metaphor, right? But David’s out in the desert when he’s composing some of those songs. I’d imagine his fear was sometimes of actual jackals, and that that kind of fear is something most of us who live comfortable, sheltered modern lives will never really understand.
Ha, I tried to start a discussion about The Message recently at my site and ended up with a 25,000 word debate between two guys smarter than I am about John Piper (one guy thinks Piper is pretty evil).
Good reading, if you have the time:
http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/2009/11/11/the-message-valid-translation-or-useless-paraphrase/
The gospels are also a paraphrase of Jesus (Aramaic -> Greek -> then paraphrased [since the gospels themselves differ in Jesus' wording]).
So that means an English translation is a paraphrase three times removed, right? And even if you go directly to Greek, you’re still dealing with a paraphrased translation of Aramaic.
Dan, you said that if you go directly to the Greek you are still dealing with a paraphrased translation of Aramaic. While that is true for the gospel writers who were recording the words of Jesus (presumably spoken in Aramaic), it is still the case that the Greek autographs are the inspired documents…the very breath of God.
Since you or I have never seen the “Greek autographs,” I’m not sure how you can claim to know such a thing.
Would seeing them convince you? If so, why would you not be convinced by the manuscript tradition that we do have.
Do you think that what we have in our manuscripts today is substantially different than the autographs?
Do you think the autographs do not claim to be the very breath of God? I’m interested in why you would question my claim. Your stated reason seems to be that we haven’t seen the autographs, but if you saw the autographs and they weren’t different than the manuscript tradition we have, would you still question the claim that they are the very breath of God?
If we saw them and they were the same as the manuscripts we have now, then I’d admit that. Have no reason not to. And at least that would be a step forward, right? ;)
The breath of God stuff would have to be built on that reliability. And then we’d need to sort out the historical problems.
As for what we have today being different, it’s really hard to know since we don’t know that the originals were like. We do know, though, that ours have errors.
For instance, do you think the story of Jesus and the adulterer is “the very breath of God”? Why or why not?
Dan, you say, “we don’t know what the originals were like.” Really? The New Testament is attested to by more and earlier manuscripts than any work of antiquity. There are more than 5700 catalogued Greek manuscripts of the New Testament dating from about 125 up to around the time of the invention of the printing press in the mid 1400s. In addition to the Greek manuscripts, we also have about 10,000 manuscripts of Latin translations of the New Testament. We have somewhere between 5000 and 10,000 manuscripts of translations in other ancient languages. In addition, we could reconstruct the the entire New Testament from just the quotations from patristic writers (over 1 million quotations).
So, to say that “we don’t know what the originals were like,” is overstating the case. Of course we know what the originals were like.
Regarding the pericope adulterae, most scholars in the field of textual criticism will conclude that the PA is not original with John’s gospel. Likewise, the longer ending of the gospel of Mark is widely held by scholars to not be original with that gospel. But these two textual variations are the only two of any length (12 verses). The next closest variant in length is 2 verses.
So, you ask if I believe that the story of the adultress woman is the very breath of God. I do not (though the event may have actually taken place), because the manuscript evidence seems to demonstrate that it is not original material with the gospel writer. The same manuscript evidence demonstrates the authenticity of our New Testament. Granted there are places where we have to weigh the evidence to see which of the readings we have were the original wording.
Even if you were a total skeptic and threw out every meaningful and viable textual variant (I’m not advising that you do, but just to demonstrate a point) you would still be left with orthodox Christianity. No cardinal doctrine of the faith is at stake with any of the textual variants.
But we have no idea about what changes were made in the first century. Now you could be right and maybe it’s what we think. Or if we found a manuscript from 90AD we might find that there are a number of other scribal insertions. Who knows? We don’t.
The originals and their copies were being copied multiple times and circulating throughout the region very early on. This rapid circulation and multiple lines of transmission ensure that there are not vast, viable, and meaningful changes to the whole of the manuscript evidence. I’m not saying that scribes did not make changes to the text, but we can see when they did.
Our earliest manuscript is dated at about 125 (plus or minus 25 years). So that manuscript shows up as early as a decade and no later than 60 years from the close of the New Testament.
The letters of Paul, the earliest of the New Testament books, were completed and being circulated among the churhes immediately. Paul died in 64 A.D. so we know that copies of those epistles were being made and circulated at least by then.
The fact that there was such early and widespread copying of the New Testament we can be confident that a scribe or group of scribes do not have the power to permanently corrupt the text because there are other manuscripts already with widespread circulation.
It just is not the case that since our earliest manuscript is dated at 125AD that we have no idea what the manuscripts (and therefore the originals) said before then. I hope you can see that.
I recently discovered your blog, and in a fast paced world with so many thoughts about everything in the world, especially theology and religion, it’s refreshing to read someone who gets to the point and makes a good point.
I focus on communications a lot, which is an art of getting a message across to an audience. The main and constant battle is how the Fall has left it’s mark on language and communication. There was even a specific judgment on communication at the Tower of Babel.
Thanks for the great insights!
So it doesn’t matter which translation people use for devotions, Bible study, preaching?
I could go to a Greek text and recopy it in English and it would be just as reliable a translation as the NASB?
If not, then what makes a translation reliable?
And what do we do with versions of the Bible that in some places leave out important words like Holy Spirit of blood of Christ/Jesus?
Don’t those words matter?
Maybe that is not the point that you were trying to make (that it doesn’t matter), but most of the time when I have heard people say all translations are paraphrases, they are trying to make people who value word for word translations look silly for caring about that.
Editing takes place no matter what, and we should be aware of it – but not all translations do it to the same degree. Talking of all of them as “paraphrases” may be technically correct, but still does seem misleading.
ESV is much closer to the original wording than the Message (though each has a purpose).
I would say it’s not as misleading as saying that some translations aren’t paraphrases.
But if my friend writes me a letter in another language and I copy it into English and show it to my family, that is different than if they ask me what Judy said and, instead of showing them the copy I made using the English equivalents of the words she used (granted some words might have two meanings and I had to pick one), I just told them from memory what I remember using all kinds of extra words that she didn’t use, and leaving out some that she did, that is different.
In The Message, Eugene Peterson writes, Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.’
And in the NASB, the editors say, And He said to him, ” ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’
So one translation says soul and one says prayer. Maybe in the original language, they are closer in meaning, or did Peterson add something different than what is there. It is beautiful, but it seems different than what is there.
So it may not be correct to call them all translations, but I don’t think it’s correct to call them all paraphrases either.
Glad you can see this Abraham. Perhaps you’ll have to now convince your dad that Hirsch is wrong (Validity of Interpretation) and Gadamer right (Truth and Method). To over-read the Bible is to commit the intentional fallacy. To read it as an approximation by another agent of approximation, subject to revision based on a handful of concerns, then you read it with greater respect to what it may be saying. We are too quick to punt to inspiration and God’s agency that we can truly miss things as we try to legitimize the 1-dimensional (literal) vs 3-dimensional (paraphrased) perforative interpretations. We really are trying to experience that horizon of understanding that a text manifests, and where we may be wrong or inattentive (we are always in some capacity wrong, and it’s arrogant to say anyone has fully understood all there is in the text or that all of the mystery has been extracted and translated, or maintained to be beheld by a contemporary reader who is entirely and absolutely abstracted from the Biblical context) we should welcome revision and this openness should be on the cusps of or minds as we approach the Holy text.
I may be speaking for others also when I say… “What?”
GFIV- I’ve never read Gadamer. But here’s an observation from your post. Forgive me if I misunderstood you completely.
Your avoidance of being ‘arrogant’ creates a danger: it becomes a possible avoidance of the comprehension of eternal truth.
As in,”We can’t understand what this author was saying because of culture and time, therefore no one really understands and knows this truth.”
This truth, however, was written in order to be understood, the inherent meaning of ‘revelation’; to reveal. And not only understood in mind, but felt deeply in heart and soul.
When I read the Bible, there are times when my heart burns within me, just like those men on the Emmaus Road (Lk 24). Oh the wonder of a God who can transcend 20 centuries and thousands of miles in a matter of moments! My heart burns like theirs burned, and even for the same reason- Jesus is alive! Jesus is Lord! To let doubts methodically cloud the fire of God’s truth is a tragedy.
And on ‘openness’, the reason we open our hands is that we might close them on truth, and grasp it. Openness is a means not an end.
I think the difference is that some translations try to explain what the author said (ESV, NASB, etc), and some try to explain what the author meant (NLT, Message, etc). Some kinda fall in the middle like NIV.
By the author I mean the physical author, not God. Though, not taking into account that God is the Author and that He meant every word as it was written is where a lot of translations stumble, I think.
You have articulated one of the reasons why I have trouble with the idea of “Sola Scriptura.”
This is what I meant earlier when I said the wording could confuse people. If everything is just someone’s re-wording and interpretation of what Paul wrote, how can I trust that?
On the other hand, if I know the translators were as careful as possible in representing the English words that correspond closest to the original, I can trust that, and “Sola Scriptura” is not undermined.
Matthew: Be not afraid. :) AP’s wording didn’t confuse me. I do trust the Bible as God’s Word. For me, trust in God’s Word is not equivalent to trust in “Sola Scriptura.”
Sorry Elizabeth – I didn’t mean to say you were confused. I was (poorly) continuing a previous line of thought. I just think that the logical conclusion to saying everything we have in the Bible is “paraphrase” (without some clarification of what that means) is to not trust it completely. Sorry for the implications of replying to your specific post.
No prob, bro. :)
Every Bible translation is a paraphrase. Only the KJV is inspired! ;)
You are right about punctuation adding clarification. But isn’t that all the more reason to spurn the use of functional equivalence translations? I mean: Wouldn’t it be best to have a translation that preserves the word order to such a degree that you can drop out the punctuation that the editors provide and test-fit alternative punctuation?
Interesting point. Thinking…
I think’s it’s helpful to think of translations on a spectrum from perfectly non-interpretive (i.e., no translation at all – or the autographs) to highly interpretive (something like the message). Those towards the non-interpretive side of the spectrum can offer a far lower chance of translator caused error or misunderstanding. Unfortunately, the risk of reader originated error or misunderstanding is correspondingly high. Those on the more interpretive side dramatically lessen the frequency of misunderstanding from the reader (i.e., whether the translation is correct or not, it is less ambiguous and more easily understood). Unfortunately, the frequency of translator based error is correspondingly high.
This isn’t a perfect analysis. Many overly literal translations just don’t pay attention to basic grammatical forms and so can’t be considered correct by any measure (the Septuagint is a good example of a brutally and senselessly literal translation that is simply wrong in many instances).
I want to qualify and elaborate, but this response is already long enough that nobody will read it on a blog that values brevity.
[...] Perfect So There’s No Point In Trying” Syndrome I frequently read comments like “Every Bible translation is a paraphrase” (Abraham Piper) and cringe. The philosophy seems to be “nothing is perfect, so everything is [...]
Today I got yelled at on the phone three times (by one guy) because the church where I work uses ESV instead of KJV! Oh boy.