Christian Origins Blog: February 2005

2005-02-11

This is a summary of the fourth chapter of Greek for the Rest of Us by Bill Mounce, as part of the group study at Ebla.

Mounce begins by making the point that it is not a simple or clear-cut thing to communicate. Since we can misunderstand each other while speaking the same language and being in the same place and time, it is even more difficult to avoid misunderstanding about things said two thousand years ago by people speaking a different language in a different culture.

In this important chapter, Mounce discusses ten decisions that translators have to make, which form their "translation philosophy." Differences between translations can often be due to what the translator is trying to accomplish instead of a significant disagreement over what the original author intended to convey. Studying this chapter closely will repay anyone who uses a translation of the Bible.

The first thing that a translator asks is the question of who the audience is for the translation. Mounce starts with the example of "expiation" in the RSV of 1 John 2:2. The ESV has "propitiation." What is meant by either of these words, and what is the difference? Only an adult would understand them, but, even then, many would not look up the word to get the nuances. The NIV uses "atoning sacrifice" instead of the more technical terminology, while the NLT says just "sacrifice." Another example is how many sentences one should make out of one long sentence such as Ephesians 1:3-14. Another question is whether the audience is familiar with Christianity and whether the language has theological words that are readily understood. Or, with the familiar expression "swaddling cloths," one might substitute "strips of cloth" and say that "she wrapped him snugly" to convey that this refers to the blanket (or strips of blanket) wrapped around a newborn, but then some would feel that something is deficient in the translation for not using a well-known expression.

The second thing that a translator must ask is, "Am I going to translate words or meaning?" Mounce prefaces his discussion with a description of the "literal" translation desired by many: "If the Greek has eight words, then the English should have eight words. If the first word is a participle in Greek, then the first word should be a participle in English. If the Greek doesn't have a word, then we're not going to add one unless we absolutely have to and we will italicize it. ... The implication is that there's minimal interpretation in this type of translation process." And the conclusion is that a translation that doesn't have this kind of word-for-word correspondence is less "literal," and thus less reliable as a guide to the meaning of the text. But, Mounce says, the dictionary definition of "literal" is "what the author meant," and an English text produced by a word-for-word process isn't inherently more likely to convey that to someone who knows only English.

The two phrases used often here are "formal equivalence" and "dynamic equivalence." The NASB is an example of a translation that uses formal equivalence. The general approach is described in Mounce's quote above; the attempt is made to preserve the grammatical features and order of the Greek. Importantly, Mounce says, "There also is often the desire to use the same English word for the same Greek word, no matter where the Greek occurs." This tendency can be found, for example, in the Young's Literal Translation (YLT). Unless one realizes what the YLT is doing, one is quite susceptible to mistake "literal" for "representing the author's meaning" and, so, believe that the word substituted for a Greek word in a particular instance is most likely to be the best English equivalent of the Greek word in that context. Yet, since there is an effort to keep the translating word the same across all occurences of the Greek, the "literal" translation is actually much less likely to present the primary meaning of the Greek word as it is being used in any particular location. Mounce gives examples of some areas in which formal equivalence runs up against difficulties. Dynamic equivalence, instead, aims to translate phrase for phrase, or "idea for idea." But Mounce actually prefers formal equivalence for serious study, and one major reason is that "dynamic equivalence" translations don't preserve the important distinction between independent and dependent clauses (and this makes it harder to find the main idea of a sentence). Dynamic equivalence allows a greater freedom to attempt to make reading the English an experience like reading the Greek as a native speaker, but most translations don't live up to that potential and may abuse their poetic license. In either case, formal or dynamic, one must understand the limitations of the translation one is using and that every translation is interpretive.

The third question is that of ambiguity. Many times one finds that it is not clear whether the Greek intends a broad idea or, rather, a more specific connotation of the word. The question is whether the translator should attempt to reproduce the ambiguity or to attempt to find the correct connotation and express that with an English word with that meaning. This is a very common problem that one crosses while translating. Indeed, Mounce finds that, instead of true disagreement, the varied translations differ because one preserved the ambiguity and others chose a connotation of the Greek word. Further, Mounce says, the translations that chose a more specific connotation usually agreed with each other on what it is.

The fourth translating decision that a translator faces is whether to "move implicit to explicit." Mounce gives as an example the fact that Greek doesn't always require a direct object. So translators have to add the word "him" in 1 Peter 1:8, "Though you have not seen him, you love him."

As an extension to the previous practice, some translators will "fill out the story." For example, in Acts 28:11, the reference to "the Twin Brothers" is fleshed out with "Castor and Pollux" in the NIV.

The sixth issue is "possible misunderstanding." This is sort of the opposite of the third problem, "ambiguity," where some translators wanted to preserve the wide range of meaning of the original. Here, the concern is that the Greek is specific and clear, while the English translation may be open to different interpretations. Mounce quotes the RSV of Matthew 5:28, "But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." But the Greek is clear that the sin is when a man looks at a woman "for the purpose of lusting," not just when there is a temporary lustful thought. For this reason, the ESV, for example, reads "who looks at a woman with lustful intent." More English words are there to make the sentence as clear as the Greek is.

The seventh concern is "sensitivity and euphemisms." For example, instead of using a word for excrement in Philippians 3:8, some translations use "refuse," "rubbish," or "garbage."

The eighth item is "theological biases." For example, in Acts 3:48, the RSV reads, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." In the Living Bible, it says, "as many as wanted eternal life believed." But, as Mounce says, the word "wanted" did not come from the Greek; it came from the translator's theological belief.

Ninth, there is "Inclusive Language," whether and when to translate masculine Greek words for people to more general English words that include women as well as men. Tenth, there are practical concerns, such as how much time can be spent debating a translation and whether familiar verses can be altered.

Don't neglect to check out the group study.