Embedded Files
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
AR 22:27 - Unity in Bible translation and The Babel Factor
In this issue:
BIBLE TRANSLATION - a profound solution to a "specifically English language-only problem"
NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM - always return to the "most plausible explanation for apparent discrepancies"
Apologia Report 22:27 (1,347)
July 13, 2017
BIBLE TRANSLATION
One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? by Dave Brunn [1] -- Scott Klingsmith (Assistant Professor of Intercultural Studies and Missiologist in Residence, Denver Seminary) opens his review by recalling confrontations with often-intractable representatives of the "King James only" position while serving with a ministry located, ironically, in Italy. Referring to this, Klingsmith continues: "Dave Brunn, veteran Bible translator with New Tribes Mission in Papua New Guinea, tries to bring perspective and peace to this heated debate. His stated purpose is to promote unity between those with differing standards of Bible translation. ...
"Brunn does a great job of showing that those holding competing positions on the possibility and desirability of a literal translation are not as far apart as they seem to think.
"Brunn expresses appreciation for many different translations, and claims to use them all on a regular basis. He argues that an 'essentially literal' philosophy of Bible translation is neither the most faithful to the original scriptures nor the one that most upholds a high view of the plenary inspiration of Scripture.
"He does this by demonstrating, through extensive comparisons of multiple English versions, that Bible translation is an inexact science, and that translators of different versions are inconsistent in their application of their stated translation philosophies."
One of Brunn's observations is that "'My work as a translator brought me to the realization that literal Bible versions in English often take turns being the most (or least) literal among their peers. ... As I continued comparing English Bible versions, I was shocked to find that not only are literal versions not always literal, but sometimes the notably nonliteral versions are more literal than the so-called literal ones.' ...
"After making his case in the opening chapter that the Bible should be a force for unity rather than division, [Brunn] jumps into various issues related to translation itself. In successive chapters he deals with questions on the relationship between form and meaning, the tension between translation ideals and the reality of translation, examines the idea of word-for-word translation as related to translating concepts, and develops criteria for evaluating the accuracy of a translation."
Klingsmith finds that "one of the most interesting and helpful chapters is chapter 7, The Babel Factor. Here he offers lessons from Bible translation in other languages than English. He shows that the English-language debate makes no sense when dealing with non-Indo-European languages" used by 94% of the world.
"In the final chapter, Brunn returns to his appeal for unity in this issue. He has demonstrated that translations have more in common than they have differences. Here Brunn summarizes the argument of the book and shows that unity is indeed possible. He lists 26 practices that all translations share. His main point throughout is that, regardless of the translation theory espoused by the translator, translations are always inconsistent in the degree to which they adhere to the theory. ... Rather than arguing about which version is more accurate, we should take advantage of the differing perspectives offered by different kinds of translations in order to gain the most multi-faceted understanding possible."
In an appeal to higher priorities, Klingsmith concludes: "From a global perspective, this debate seems trivial and somewhat senseless. It's a specifically English problem, and it reflects an ethnocentric perspective that I find disturbing. We argue about the respective merits or defects of a multitude of English translations ..., while more than 1,800 languages (representing 57% of known languages) exist into which not a single book of the Bible has been translated." Denver Journal, 20:1 - 2017 <www.goo.gl/JZuazJ>
---
NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM
"How to Approach Apparent Contradictions in the Gospels: A Response to Michael Licona" by Craig L. Blomberg (Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary) -- kudos to Blomberg for giving his expert attention to benefit a broad lay audience. He begins: "Supposed contradictions among Gospel parallels are well known. ... There is broad scholarly consensus that the New Testament Gospels are biographies of Jesus and that they adopt many of the conventions of the ancient writing of history and biography. Michael Licona's new book, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? [2], builds on this consensus with an impressive, detailed study of one important ancient Greek biographer, Plutarch. By comparing the way Plutarch narrates the same events in the lives of the same people in more than one of his biographies, Licona isolates eight recurring compositional devices, which he then applies to Gospel parallels. ... Licona defaults to Plutarch's devices too quickly, when other ways of explaining apparent discrepancies among the Gospels should be preferred. Particularly important is the observation that we never need resort to arguing that one or more of the Gospel writers simply invented details or episodes with no basis in the historical events of the lives of Jesus and His contemporaries."
Blomberg explains that "Some writers use a one-size-fits-all approach to explain Gospel discrepancies. Perhaps the best known is what may be called additive harmonization." However, "additive harmonization can lead to improbable results. ...
"Other commentators may default to an approach that if there are slight differences between apparently parallel accounts, the imagine Jesus having done or said something very similar at least twice. Again, there are occasions where this seems to be the most historically responsible approach. ... But it becomes almost ludicrous to try to deal with every problem this way. ...
"Sometimes the issues involve the nature of ancient reporting. In a world without any symbols for quotation marks or any felt need for them, it was considered perfectly appropriate and completely truthful to summarize in one's own words what somebody else said, as long as one was faithful to the meaning of the other person's speech. Many of the variations among Gospel parallels fall into this category. At times, parallels differ because of the transmission of the tradition. As people passed along key information orally, they often abbreviated, streamlined, or stylized it to make it easier to remember. Still another major reason for differences involves each Gospel writer's distinctive theological emphases. [This is particularly important to keep in mind when considering quotations of the OT within the NT. - RP] ...
"It is easy to agree with many of Licona's proposals, and they are not all new. ...
"In other instances, Licona suggests approaches that are less common and more creative, but which still make very good sense." However, Blomberg finds a "weakness" in Licona's study. "Sometimes it is not at all clear that appealing to one of Plutarch's compositional devices is the best way to explain the differences among Gospel parallels."
Blomberg concludes: "There are all kinds of reasons for the differences among the canonical texts, and we dare not default to any single approach as our solution for all of them. In many cases, alleged parallels with Plutarch's compositional devices prove persuasive, but in a number of cases, they do not. Most importantly, there is no evidence that the Gospel writers ever actually invented out of whole cloth details that they inserted into their narratives. As I have tried to demonstrate in my writing elsewhere [3], there are always more plausible explanations for the apparent discrepancies than this one." Christian Research Journal, 40:2 - 2017, pp45-51.
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? by Dave Brunn (IVP, 2013, paperback, 207 pages) <www.goo.gl/kfW56E>
2 - Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography, by Michael R. Licona (Oxford Univ Prs, 2016, hardcover, 336 pages) <www.goo.gl/rLzv7v>
3 - The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs, by Craig L. Blomberg (B&H, 2016, paperback, 816 pages) <www.goo.gl/MFDNqa>
------
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse