This is part 7 of a nine-part series on divine authority in Bible translation. The full series can be accessed here:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9
In Part 6, we introduced the idea of “interpretive resemblance,” that is, the importance of a translation having the same interpretive potential as the original language texts as much as possible. We noted that true “meaning-based” translation does not mean that translators have explained everything that the original texts did not, or clarified everything that the original texts left ambiguous, but rather that a reader of the translation could come to the same understanding as one reading the original languages.
In this section, we will deal with a common argument among proponents of more dynamic translation approaches regarding “how Scripture uses Scripture”—that is, how the writers of Scripture engage with previous revelation from God.1I would like to be able to cite a published source for this argument. However, in all four cases where this argument has been made to me, the person arguing this line of reasoning was doing so either in an unpublished oral presentation, or in personal communication to me, rather than as part of a published work. Nevertheless, I have encountered the same essential reasoning in multiple independent instances, suggesting to me that this is indeed common thinking. This argument focuses especially on the use of the Hebrew Old Testament in the Greek New Testament (though some versions of the argument also consider how later writers in Hebrew utilize previous Hebrew Scripture). We will see that this argument fails to recognize the difference between biblical authors “using” earlier Scripture versus “translating” Scripture, and also fails to recognize the gap between the divinely inspired New Testament authors and modern-day translators. Such thinking is therefore unhelpful for the development of “sola scriptura translations” that seek by God’s grace to function as the infallible “Word of God” in a language group, rather than the fallible words of man.
The Argument for Dynamic Approaches Based on “How Scripture Uses Scripture”
The argument often goes like this:
1) The New Testament writers are divinely inspired.
2) When the New Testament writers translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they make as many changes as necessary to fit their context.
3) Therefore, we should make as many changes as we deem necessary to fit our contexts when translating Scripture.
For example, when Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14, he says that the Messiah will be called “Immanuel, which is translated, ‘God is with us’” (Matthew 1:23). Matthew takes implicit information—the meaning of “Immanuel”—and makes it explicit. Therefore, translators today can and should make other implicit information in the Bible explicit as necessary to preserve the meaning that would have been understood by the original audiences.
As another example, Matthew 12:18-21 quotes Isaiah 42:1-4, but has several differences in wording, and one line from the Hebrew text is left out. Matthew therefore is quite loose and paraphrastic in his treatment of the Isaiah text when it suited his purposes. Therefore we can approach translation paraphrastically as well.
As a third example, in Lamentations 3:22, Jeremiah writes that YHWH’s “mercies never end.” This—or so a Bible translator has argued—is the negative corollary to the statement frequently found elsewhere, such as Psalm 136, that YHWH’s “love endures forever.” Just as Jeremiah reworded the familiar biblical phrase for his context, so too are we as translators justified in rewording things for our readers’ context.
The Difference Between “Using” Scripture and “Translating” Scripture
What to make of this argument? On the one hand, there is a weak sense in which it is clearly true. It is not inherently evil—and often very good—to engage more dynamically with the text of Scripture, to draw conclusions from the text not directly stated in the text, to explain the background meaning to uninformed readers, or to try to imagine how it might be fruitfully applied to our contexts. This is what the New Testament authors were doing in their day, and we are blessed by how they engaged dynamically with the text of Scripture. Any Christian teaching that does not have maintaining divine authority in its text as its primary goal can engage in such a way, and to the extent that the message is faithful, many will be blessed.
But the idea that the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament tells us how we can and should do translation is quite problematic. For one, many of the cases cited are not examples of translation at all, but of teaching, making commentary, alluding, or indirectly quoting. Matthew didn’t explain the meaning of “Immanuel” when translating Isaiah 7:14; rather, he gave an additional explanation after presenting his quote of Isaiah. Similarly, in 12:18-21, Matthew wasn’t simply offering a translation of Isaiah 42:1-4, but rather, was using Isaiah’s words to reveal truth to us about Jesus. His decision not to quote certain parts of the passage is not permission for us to remove certain verses from a Bible translation that we decide aren’t important! Translating is quite different from quoting, in which an author may choose to quote only certain parts of a text for certain purposes, or paraphrase certain aspects that aren’t central to the point the author is making.
As another example, Matthew cites the prophecy in Micah 5:2 about Bethlehem, saying:
And you, Bethlehem, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah (2:6)
Yet Micah had said, “And you, Bethlehem, small among the clans of Judah.” Thus, whereas Micah’s words emphasize the smallness of Bethlehem, Matthew makes the opposite point—that Bethlehem is great because of the Messiah. Matthew here is not “misquoting” Micah, nor is he “translating” loosely; instead, he is making a new and contrasting, yet no less divinely inspired, point about the role of Bethlehem in God’s plan. Matthew was using the passage from Micah to draw out truths about Jesus, not simply “translating” in any normal sense. Matthew relies on Micah’s prophetic authority, but he also brings with him his own prophetic and apostolic authority to reveal truth about Christ.
It is also important to keep in mind that some differences between the Hebrew text and the New Testament are actually examples of textual variants rather than “translation choices.” For example, the Masoretic Hebrew text of Exodus 1:5 says that there were 70 people in Jacob’s family when they came to Egypt, but Acts 7:14 says there were 75. The higher number matches both the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Septuagint. So this is not a case of a difference in “translation style,” but in the underlying text. It’s unlikely that every difference between the New Testament and the Masoretic Hebrew text is due to textual variants, but at least some clearly are, and we don’t know for sure which ones fall into this category. It is therefore very difficult to tell in any particular case whether a New Testament writer is intending to translate directly, quote indirectly, or merely allude to an Old Testament passage in a paraphrastic way.
The Deeper Problem
Beyond questions of textual variation and the nature of the New Testament authors’ use of the Old Testament, though, lies a fundamental distinction that those who make this argument seem to miss: The writers of the Bible were not simply basing their words on their “own interpretation,” but rather, they “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20b-21). When Matthew or Luke or Paul engaged dynamically with the Hebrew Scriptures—or when Jeremiah or Isaiah engaged with the Torah or the Psalms—they were speaking or writing God-breathed words. Their interpretation and application of the earlier Scriptures carries divine authority. They were speaking and writing prophetically.
But translators today are not prophets writing new canon for the faithful. We are not new Joseph Smiths, “translating” the Bible based on supposed direct divine revelation.2Joseph Smith was the founder of Mormonism who claimed to produce a new translation of the Bible based on divine inspiration. If we want to engage dynamically with the Scriptures in a sermon or book, quoting indirectly or paraphrasing, selecting only certain passages and not others, or adding background information into the text, we are free to do so, though of course we should be careful that what we teach others is biblically sound. But we cannot look to the biblical authors’ God-breathed engagement with earlier Scripture, and use their approaches as a justification for doing the same ourselves and calling it “God’s Word.”
They were prophets, authorized to reveal new words of Scripture. We are not. We act like ones at our own peril.
This is part 7 of a series on divine authority in Bible translation. Part 8 will consider the importance not just of preserving the potential meaning in the text, but also the particular ways that this meaning is communicated. The full series can be found here.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9
0 Comments