Correctly translating the original languages of scripture into English
(or any other language), is a very serious work. The language from
which a translation is made is called the source or parent language.
The language into which a translation is made is called the target
or receptor language in scholarly circles. Translators are not guided
by the Holy Spirit in their endeavor. They translate based on their
their understanding of what they see in the original text and their ability
to determine the meaning of the words, idioms, and grammar of the
source or parent text. Their training and theology have some degree
of influence on their work.
Many translators are also influenced by tradition in their work, as
many readers of translations are affected by tradition in their reading
of the text. Tradition is not necessarily evil unless it forms the basis
for changing what God has revealed, and becomes the purveyor of
religious error. Human tradition is like a wild bull; it is a difficult beast
to break. One reason tradition often plays an integral role in the Bible
translation process is due to the commercial side of the venture. If
changing the wording of the translation is needed for the sake of
accuracy, it is often rejected by publishers because the product is
designed to be sold to the public. The primary goal of the translation
process should be faithfulness to the source language in so far as
such can be accommodated by the target language. Let us briefly
illustrate this point by noting some examples.
The word baptize that we see in most English translations of the
N.T. is a notable example. Baptize is not a translation of the original
word. It is transferred from the Greek text and brought over into the
English language. The Greek word is baptizo and the last letter "o"
(Omega) is dropped and an "e" is placed at the end. Contrary to
some incomplete Greek lexicons baptizo does not mean to "baptize."
Baptize is a gloss, not a definition. Baptizo is used in ancient Greek
as far back as Hippocrates in the 5th-4th century BC, and Plato in
the 5th-4th century BC, etc. in the sense of put or go under water,
submerge, immerse, or sink. There is also the figurative or
metaphorical sense of soak or overwhelm.
Why does baptize live on in English translations? First, King
James of England issued the edict that "ecclesiastical words" were
to be retained when he gave instructions to the men who translated
the KJV. The language of the KJV continues to influence English
speaking people even when accuracy demands change. Second,
baptize is defined in English dictionaries as "to dip (a person) into
or sprinkle with, water as a symbol of admission into Christianity
or a specific Christian church." (Webster's New World
Dictionary, Second College Edition, page 111) This is an
inaccurate ecumenical definition that allows enough room for
those who practice the errors of sprinkling and pouring to
claim that their practice has biblical precedent. The word
baptizo never has those meanings in the N.T.
The phrase "the Holy Ghost" in the KJV is another symbol
of tradition's ability to hang on like an eagle with a fish in its talons.
In Greek, the phrase is tou hagiou pneumatos as in Mat. 28:19
and 2 Cor. 13:14. The correct reading is "the Holy Spirit." Yet,
many people, including preachers, continue to speak of the Holy
Spirit as the Holy Ghost. Why? It is sometimes because of tradition
or the mystical "feeling" in charismatic circles that accompanies the
mention of "the Holy Ghost." The Holy Spirit is not a "ghost," he
is a person in the Godhead.
Church is another word that needs to be discussed. It is another
one of the ecclesiastical words that King James said is to be retained
in the translation he authorized. Most people think of a "church" as
either a physical building where people meet, or they believe it means
a denomination.The fact is, the Greek word from which "church" is
translated is ekklesia, and in the N.T, it means a congregation, group,
or assembly. In the spiritual sense it refers to the Lord's people whether
assembled (1 Cor. 11:18), living in a region (Acts 9:31), or the entire
body of Christ (Mat. 16:18). It never refers to a denomination in the
N.T.
In the O.T. we often see the words "LORD" or "GOD" spelled
with all capital letters. This is the way that translators of the Hebrew
scriptures alert the readers to the fact that the tetragrammaton
(the four consonants YHWH) are used in those places. YHWH
represents the personal name of God. (Ex. 3:14; Isa. 42:8; Jer. 33:2)
YHWH is found in more than 6000 places. The ASV uses the word
"Jehovah." First, the use of "LORD" and "GOD" is confusing to many
people as they are not aware those words are used to represent the
name of God. Second, neither "LORD," "GOD," or "Jehovah"
accurately reflects what the Hebrew text says. I am aware that due
to ancient Jewish superstition, many believe the exact pronunciation
was lost. There are better ways to represent what is in the Hebrew
text instead of using artificial expedients. Some English versions
have made steps forward in breaking with tradition as to how the
tetragrammaton is translated. The Jerusalem Bible and the Holman
Christian Standard Bible choose to represent the tetragrammaton
with Yahweh in many places.
When necessary, why can we not break away from human
tradition and accurately convey God's word in current understandable
English? It can be done.
RD
Copyright 2011
(or any other language), is a very serious work. The language from
which a translation is made is called the source or parent language.
The language into which a translation is made is called the target
or receptor language in scholarly circles. Translators are not guided
by the Holy Spirit in their endeavor. They translate based on their
their understanding of what they see in the original text and their ability
to determine the meaning of the words, idioms, and grammar of the
source or parent text. Their training and theology have some degree
of influence on their work.
Many translators are also influenced by tradition in their work, as
many readers of translations are affected by tradition in their reading
of the text. Tradition is not necessarily evil unless it forms the basis
for changing what God has revealed, and becomes the purveyor of
religious error. Human tradition is like a wild bull; it is a difficult beast
to break. One reason tradition often plays an integral role in the Bible
translation process is due to the commercial side of the venture. If
changing the wording of the translation is needed for the sake of
accuracy, it is often rejected by publishers because the product is
designed to be sold to the public. The primary goal of the translation
process should be faithfulness to the source language in so far as
such can be accommodated by the target language. Let us briefly
illustrate this point by noting some examples.
The word baptize that we see in most English translations of the
N.T. is a notable example. Baptize is not a translation of the original
word. It is transferred from the Greek text and brought over into the
English language. The Greek word is baptizo and the last letter "o"
(Omega) is dropped and an "e" is placed at the end. Contrary to
some incomplete Greek lexicons baptizo does not mean to "baptize."
Baptize is a gloss, not a definition. Baptizo is used in ancient Greek
as far back as Hippocrates in the 5th-4th century BC, and Plato in
the 5th-4th century BC, etc. in the sense of put or go under water,
submerge, immerse, or sink. There is also the figurative or
metaphorical sense of soak or overwhelm.
Why does baptize live on in English translations? First, King
James of England issued the edict that "ecclesiastical words" were
to be retained when he gave instructions to the men who translated
the KJV. The language of the KJV continues to influence English
speaking people even when accuracy demands change. Second,
baptize is defined in English dictionaries as "to dip (a person) into
or sprinkle with, water as a symbol of admission into Christianity
or a specific Christian church." (Webster's New World
Dictionary, Second College Edition, page 111) This is an
inaccurate ecumenical definition that allows enough room for
those who practice the errors of sprinkling and pouring to
claim that their practice has biblical precedent. The word
baptizo never has those meanings in the N.T.
The phrase "the Holy Ghost" in the KJV is another symbol
of tradition's ability to hang on like an eagle with a fish in its talons.
In Greek, the phrase is tou hagiou pneumatos as in Mat. 28:19
and 2 Cor. 13:14. The correct reading is "the Holy Spirit." Yet,
many people, including preachers, continue to speak of the Holy
Spirit as the Holy Ghost. Why? It is sometimes because of tradition
or the mystical "feeling" in charismatic circles that accompanies the
mention of "the Holy Ghost." The Holy Spirit is not a "ghost," he
is a person in the Godhead.
Church is another word that needs to be discussed. It is another
one of the ecclesiastical words that King James said is to be retained
in the translation he authorized. Most people think of a "church" as
either a physical building where people meet, or they believe it means
a denomination.The fact is, the Greek word from which "church" is
translated is ekklesia, and in the N.T, it means a congregation, group,
or assembly. In the spiritual sense it refers to the Lord's people whether
assembled (1 Cor. 11:18), living in a region (Acts 9:31), or the entire
body of Christ (Mat. 16:18). It never refers to a denomination in the
N.T.
In the O.T. we often see the words "LORD" or "GOD" spelled
with all capital letters. This is the way that translators of the Hebrew
scriptures alert the readers to the fact that the tetragrammaton
(the four consonants YHWH) are used in those places. YHWH
represents the personal name of God. (Ex. 3:14; Isa. 42:8; Jer. 33:2)
YHWH is found in more than 6000 places. The ASV uses the word
"Jehovah." First, the use of "LORD" and "GOD" is confusing to many
people as they are not aware those words are used to represent the
name of God. Second, neither "LORD," "GOD," or "Jehovah"
accurately reflects what the Hebrew text says. I am aware that due
to ancient Jewish superstition, many believe the exact pronunciation
was lost. There are better ways to represent what is in the Hebrew
text instead of using artificial expedients. Some English versions
have made steps forward in breaking with tradition as to how the
tetragrammaton is translated. The Jerusalem Bible and the Holman
Christian Standard Bible choose to represent the tetragrammaton
with Yahweh in many places.
When necessary, why can we not break away from human
tradition and accurately convey God's word in current understandable
English? It can be done.
RD
Copyright 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment