A Passion for Participles

“Let them not drag me into court

if the text does not agree with the original word for word,

for, try as you may, it cannot be done.”

Erasmus, Apologia 170:20-1

  

Translating accurately from one language to another is not easy. Translation is both science and art, and it always occurs within a spectrum. That spectrum ranges from the paraphrase on one end to the semi-literal on the other end. And every translation is dependent upon the skills of the translator. This is what makes Bible translations such a difficult (and prickly) topic. But just so we get a picture of how tough translation can be…

  

Imagine that you happen to be fluent in both English and Icelandic, and, today, you are working as a translator for an English speaking guide and a group of Icelandic tourists. Your group is hiking in the woods. You round a corner and suddenly the guide stops and turns to you. “There are bears around here,” he whispers. “Tell them” – he waves at the group of Icelanders – “to keep their eyes peeled!”

Ok. You turn to the group and start to translate his comment. “There are bears around here, be sure you…” Oh, oh. Now what? You are faced with a dilemma. Should you choose a ‘literal’ word-for-word translation (“Maintain your eyes in a sliced-open, outer-layer pulled back position!”) or an ‘idiomatic’ translation (“Watch what is happening around you!”)?

Well, this may seem like a silly question. You’ll choose the latter, of course. But if you do, you have affirmed that, in some cases, a paraphrase is a more helpful and accurate translation than a literal translation. Hmm.

This illustration highlights only one of the many challenges that translators face. There are many more. In the case of Bible translation, translators are also confronted with a multiplicity of manuscripts some with slight variations in their texts.  How should they determine which is the original text? And, then, when they have determined the most likely text, should they use a paraphrase, an idiomatic translation, or a semi-literal approach?

Bottom line? Accurately translating and effectively communicating the truths contained in the Scriptures is a complex task.

That said, what, then, are we to make of all the different translations? And which one is best?

My suggestion is that there is no one “best” translation. There are many excellent translations and paraphrases, and they all have their use.

But let’s get specific. Let’s list a few of the available versions and briefly discuss their merits.

Semi-Literal Translations. I would include here: The King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the English Standard Version (ESV). Each of these attempts to mirror the text as closely as possible. One benefit of these translations is that they often leave syntactical decisions to the reader. Participles, for instance, are often (though not always) left as participles, permitting the reader to determine for himself or herself the relationship it has with the main verb. One possible drawback of these translations (when compared to others) is that their methodology may increase one’s need for well-developed critical thinking skills, for knowledge of the texts’ far and near contexts, and for a higher-grade-level reading ability.

Dynamic Equivalence Translations. The main example of this sort of translation would be The New International Version (NIV). The translators of this version seek to translate by meaning as well as by terms. One benefit of this is that it may aid readers in comprehension. Many syntactical decisions are made by the translators, and the reading grade-level is lower. One possible drawback of these translations is that the translators’ theological biases are more likely to slip into the translation. (And we all have biases. No one is neutral). I have a friend who believed the NIV was unfairly biased in favor a those with evangelical theologies!

Paraphrases. The two examples of these which come to mind are The Message and The Living Bible (not to be confused with the New Living Translation). These paraphrases seek to ‘say again’ the meaning of the text in the culturally relevant forms of one’s environment. One benefit of this is that such paraphrases are generally very readable. They often read more like a modern storybook than as an ancient text. In addition, this may make complicated ideas more accessible. One possible drawback of paraphrases, however, is that they may wander too far from the intended meaning of the text and abandon the true meaning of the text.

  

Those are just a few examples. There are many other translations out there, such as the Holman Standard Christian Bible (HSCB) and the New Living Translation (NLT).

http://www.christianuniversitiesonline.org/the-bible/

So, having looked at the various types of translations, which ones should you use for your Bible reading? And is it better to use one than another?

My suggestion is that you use them all. Just use them wisely. The most important things to know about a translation is what sort of translation it is, whether those who translated it were qualified to produce a trustworthy translation, and whether the translators had adequate access to the manuscripts and fragments. All these can be learned by reading the introduction included in your Bible.

For myself, I use the semi-literal translations when seeking the most accurate wording of the text, comparing them to see where they agree and differ on wording. This helps me recognize where texts vary. (I also use the texts in the original languages, but you can have great confidence in your English resources. The translations you have are extremely accurate, and you can determine the textual nuances with great precision by comparing the various translations.)

I use the dynamic equivalence translations to gain an overall flow of the text. I find this particularly helpful in the Old Testament, particularly in the poetic books. The NIV seems to capture the spirit of Hebrew poetry exceptionally well. I also find the NIV helpful as a resource to see how the translators evaluated and understood syntactical relationships, such as how a particular participle should be understood.

And I use paraphrases the same way I do commentaries. They help me to see how other Christians understand the text. Sometimes they help me to see things in ways I hadn’t seen them before.

Generally, I think of reading the Bible in differing translations as being a bit like fine-tuning a radio signal. In the old days, our car radio had a push button that brought to the general location of a radio station. Then, we would use the knob to fine-tune our reception of the signal. A little to the left, a little to the right, until we could hear clearly. As I read differing translations, the Holy Spirit enables the Word of God to become clearer and clearer to me, informing my understanding, convicting my heart, and calling for wholehearted submission.

Finally, let me say why I entitled these thoughts “A Passion for Participles.” I like participles, and I like them to be left as participles when they are translated. Doing so permits me to determine for myself the relationship that participle has with the rest of the sentence.

Let me briefly explain. Here’s a sample sentence: “Running, he arrived at school.” There are many possible ways to understand the nuances of this sentence. It may mean, “Although he ran, he arrived at school.” (That’s a concessive usage.) Or it may mean, “He ran to school.” (That would be an instrumental use, thus stressing the means by which he arrived at the school.) Or it may mean, “While he ran, he arrived at the school.” (That would be a temporal usage, stressing the fact that his arrival at school occurred during the act of running.) And there are many other possibilities. You can see that the original sentence can be interpreted and then translated in many different ways.

My problem with this sort of thing is that a translator who changes a participle into a verb or adjective has taken a step away from translation toward interpretation.

But I can hear what you’re saying. Doesn’t the example given at the beginning of this discussion demonstrate that all translation involves interpretation? Well, yes, it does. Good point.

The question isn’t whether translation efforts require interpretation. All translations do. The question is one of extent. I, personally, prefer those translations that leave as much interpretation as possible with the reader. And that means keeping the participles in the text. And, generally, for me, that means sticking with the semi-literal versions.

So, there it is. Just a few thoughts on Bible translations. Which translations do you use when you read the Bible?

 “So they read distinctly from the book,

 in the Law of God; and they gave the sense,

and helped them to understand the reading.”

Nehemiah 8:8

The Heuristics of Hermeneutics

“This is the essence of intuitive heuristics:

when faced with a difficult question,

we often answer an easier one instead,

usually without noticing the substitution.”

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

Nicole and I look forward each year to Geneva Library’s book sale. If you time your visit well, you can score bags of books for just a few dollars. So, this year, when the moment came, we made our yearly pilgrimage to the library’s basement. Arriving there, we found that the deals abounded in the young adult section -- 25¢ a book, paperback or hardcover! We moved in, collecting our ‘finds’ and stacking them in the corner before returning to the table to search for more. We split up, moving quickly to beat the other browsers to the best deals. (Picture Black Friday shopping at Walmart, but with books rather than electronics.) Our stack grew taller.

A few minutes later, I picked up a book from the table and studied its contents. As I did, I walked around the table past Nicole. She was leaning over the books. I was focused on the book, but in my peripheral vision I saw her picking through the books. As I passed her, I reached out and gave her bottom a ‘love pat.’

I heard a surprised “Eep!” She sprang upright. I turned.

There, standing just a few feet away from me, was a fiftyish-year-old woman with a very red face. And she was decidedly not my wife! I had just patted a stranger’s bottom.

Oh my. I don’t embarrass easily, but I was really embarrassed. “I am so sorry,” I stammered, “I thought you were my wife.” I moved away, raising my hands into the air and affecting as much contrition as possible. “I am… so… so sorry.”

The lady was very kind and did not slug me, and I appreciated that. She laughed it off, and I went to the far side of the room and tried to find a corner in which to hide. Really, not a good experience.

I’ve had a little time to think over this experience, and I have come to the conclusion that I fell prey to the ‘familiarity heuristic.’ (I know, I know. Some of you are thinking I fell prey to the ‘stupidity heuristic.’ Hmm, maybe so. But I do think the ‘familiarity heuristic’ played a role.) Let me see if I can explain that.

The word ‘heuristic’ comes from a Greek word meaning “to find.” We use a derivative of the same root word when we recount Archimedes’ exclamation of discovery, “Eureka!” When used in discussions of thinking processes, the term refers to problem solving or learning methodologies that utilize pragmatic or practical means to attain immediate goals. Such methodologies are not perfect, but they are helpful approximations, permitting people to make decisions quickly and without undue effort. So, ‘heuristics’ are thinking approximations. And they go under a variety of names: ‘rules of thumb,’ ‘educated guesses,’ ‘intuition,’ and ‘common sense.’

The advantage of heuristics is that they permit us to process run-of-the-mill information in quick and non-intrusive ways. Think of your daily drive to work. You’ve done it many times, so your brain is able to put itself into a sort of ‘auto-pilot.’ You are driving the car, but at the same time you are able to listen to the radio or think about other things. You do not need to focus exclusively on the driving.

Many types of heuristics have been identified by researchers. One of these is the ‘familiarity heuristic.’ This heuristic allows someone to approach an issue or problem based on the fact that the situation is one with which the individual is familiar, and so one should act the same way he has acted in the same situation before.

Okay, let’s put aside the question of whether I should be giving my wife ‘love pats.’ She would probably say no. But let’s simply acknowledge that it is a questionable habit into which I have fallen. When we’re out shopping or walking or doing something like that, I often randomly walk up behind her and give her one. (Yes, at the least partly for the joy of hearing her say, “Knock it off.”)

Looking at this from a heuristic perspective, the situation at the book sale was one with which I was familiar. I am shopping near my wife; I am walking by my wife; I want to annoy my wife…  All familiar territory. Then, without confirming the perceptions of my peripheral vision, and without disengaging the auto-pilot, I act in the same manner as I have before. I reach out and smack her butt.

And here is where I fell prey to the familiarity heuristic. I permitted my perceived familiarity with the situation to cloud my judgment, and I blew it. Big time. I patted the stranger’s bottom.

Now, most of you are smarter than me and are not going to pat the stranger’s bottom. Good. But that does not mean that you are immune from the dangers of the familiarity heuristic. We all are.  And, today, I want to suggest one area in which we must be particularly careful to avoid being led astray by this heuristic – the interpretation of Scripture.

It seems to me that this danger increases with one’s reading of the Bible. The more one reads the Scriptures and knows them (or believes himself to know them), the more he is at risk of assuming certain things. Let me give one example from my past.

The first verse I ever memorized was John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” I believe that this is the first verse many Christians memorize, and with good reason. It does sum up the Gospel, doesn’t it?

But the word in this verse I want to look at is the word “whosoever.” This word, from the King James Version, communicated to me (rightly or wrongly) a certain openness concerning the invitation. Anyone could believe. And I accepted that and absorbed it into my younger theology, believing I had a ‘proof text’ for that belief.

Many years later, I had the opportunity to translate that passage for myself. And I was shocked. The ‘so’ of ‘whosoever’ was not there. It never had been. The text reads, literally, “…that every one who is believing on Him might not perish but might have life eternal…”  a reality that is reflected in the modern translations, including the New King James, which translates the text “that whoever believes in Him.”

I had previously seen this text as a possible proof text in support of a general election or even non-election viewpoint. But seeing it in the Greek, I was forced to conclude that it could not accurately be used to support either a non-election or an election viewpoint.

This is a relatively small example, I suppose, but I think it serves to highlight the dangers of allowing our familiarity with the text to determine and reinforce our theology. We must be aware of our default to avoid the heavy work of thinking, and we must be willing to refocus our attentions and reexamine the texts. We must endeavor to disengage our autopilots as we read the Scriptures, and we must seek to read them as they truly are.

What do you think? Are we at danger, occasionally, of patting the wrong theological bottom? What must we do to avoid those errors?

 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,

a worker who does not need to be ashamed,

rightly dividing the word of truth.”

2 Timothy 2:15