In praise of the more "literal" translation style

I get it, I get it--the term "literal" has been overused, misunderstood, and often abused. No translation is perfectly "literal," not even the King James (as demonstrated by how the translators translated mē genoito in Paul's letters). I am not a novice here on Bible translation. I grew up speaking Japanese as a second language, I have formally studied eight languages to some degree, and I have a peer-reviewed article published in The Bible Translator. Plus I have been a consultant on a Bible translation project into Japanese. So before your roll your eyes and say, "Here we go again, another NIV-bashing hyper-fundamentalist wanna-be expert who thinks a daghesh lene is a type of Middle Eastern pastry . . ." well, please hear me out.

When we say "literal" in regards to translation in general (not just Bible translation), there is a spectrum of correspondence in structural form and lexical choice that we are referring to. For example, take the Japanese proverb Saru mo ki kara ochiru. A coherently literal (or "formally equivalent") translation would be something like, "Even a monkey falls from a tree." A more incoherent literal translation would be something like, "A monkey, even that, from a tree will fall," which mimics the Japanese sentence structure but loses so much in terms of smoothness that it stops being useful. And even that last example is not as literal as one could get, since in Japanese the preposition (kara, "from") actually follows the noun (ki, "tree").

Conversely, way on the other side of the spectrum, a functionally equivalent translation (previously known as a "dynamic equivalent" translation) could in theory be content with "Even an expert fails at something." This gets across the meaning of the Japanese proverb quite nicely, though obviously it looses the vivid imagery.

Now for a biblical example. When the Gospel of John has apekrithē Iēsous kai eipen autō (John 3:3), a formally equivalent (i.e., "more literal") translation would have "Jesus answered and said unto him" (KJV) or "Jesus answered and said to him" (LSB). A functional equivalent translation will have "Jesus replied" (NIV). Even a generally more literal translation like the ESV has "Jesus answered him." Obviously nothing gets lost theologically; i.e., we are not the poorer in regards to doctrine itself. But we do loose something, as I shall argue.

To be clear, functionally equivalent translations such as the NIV are not evil. I reject wholeheartedly KJV-only attempts to deny that other translations are the Word of God, and the KJV translators are on my side; read "From the Translators to the Reader," the section entitled "An answer to the imputations of our adversaries" (you can read it for yourself with the above link). In fact, I will dogmatically assert, on the basis of the words of the brilliant KJV translators themselves, that hyper-KJV-onlyism is incompatible with the views of the KJV translators, since they declare, "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [i.e., "inferior in rank or status"] of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King's speech which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where" (emphasis added).

Now, having said all that, a translation that strives for formal equivalency, at a reasonable level, is a superior translation, in my opinion. Besides arguments for avoiding ambiguity and letting the reader determine the probable meaning of a difficult phrase for themselves (which applies to parts of a translation but not all of it), I would like to bring out two points.

First, a formally equivalent translation is somewhat more likely to be working with the assumption that every single word in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic was supernaturally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now, to be fair, a lot of those who prefer the NIV or other functional equivalent translations agree with this point and can still defend a functionally equivalent translation as expressing the intent of the Holy Spirit. However, those on the functionally equivalent side are also less likely to agree with this point, as evidenced by the recent dialogue in Themelios between Bill Mounce and Dane Ortlund. Mounce, who clearly believes in the supernatural inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, nonetheless states that "The authors write, and God ensures that what they write is not only true but that it is what he wanted to communicate. But that does not require me to believe that God controlled every word choice that was made. If that were the case, then we must all abandon any sense of mystery and accept the dictation theory of inspiration for all biblical texts. . . . To say that God chose every word, in essence imitating the author's style, removes all mystery; . . ." ("Do Formal Equivalent Translations Reflect a Higher View of Plenary, Verbal Inspiration?" Themelios 44, no. 3 [2019] pages 480–1) This is not the place to respond to Mounce, whom I respect (and Ortlaud has already provided a solid response: "On Words, Meaning, Inspiration, and Translation: A Brief Response to Bill Mounce," Themelios 45, no. 1 [2020]; I require all my Greek students to read Olrtlund's article). I will say that I think Mounce creates something of an "either-or" fallacy with the idea that either one eliminates "every word" from our view of inspiration or one becomes a dictationist, since surely God in His providence can guide the author, according to his own style, to nonetheless produce exactly the specific word that God wanted (and surely this would maintain the very "mystery" that Mounce suggests we must not lose!). But that's another discussion for another time.

Also, we acknowledge Mounce's point that no translation can or does translate every single word that exists in the Greek, etc. (not even the King James). Again, we are talking about degrees of formal equivalency, not absolutes. When it comes to Bible translation, it is generally not "light vs. darkness," as if the "literal" is always pure good, while the "less literal" is pure evil. Sometimes a less literal translation can actually have some solid theological preaching points that is lacking in a more literal translation. I am thinking here of the NLT in Malachi 2:16. I'm not a fan of the NLT overall, but I admire them for their bold stand in this verse against divorce!

Second, in light of the first point, "choice implies meaning," a well-known axiom repeated by specialists in discourse analysis. If an author has a choice between two words that usually mean the same thing, and he choices one over the other, there may be a reason for that choice that goes beyond just the meanings of the two words in isolation. There may be something being attempted by the author that is not about the ideas behind the statement so much as the effect the statement is meant to create, an effect that goes beyond what can be determined merely by looking at the meanings of the words. Discourse analysts call this "pragmatic effect," and Steven E. Runge gives the following example: "Imagine that my wife asked me how our kids behaved while she was out. If I began my answer with 'Your children . . .,' it would have a specific pragmatic effect, based on the context. . . . . Calling them my kids or the kids is the expected norm. When I depart from this norm, a specific pragmatic effect of 'distancing' is achieved, even though what I said was completely truthful" (Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 7–8).

Applied to Scripture, I would suggest that the specific choice of words can have an affect beyond simply the meanings of the words in isolation. In other words, the sum is not equal to the total of all the parts. The potential exists, then, that a less formally equivalent translation can inadvertently miss the triggering of a pragmatic effect, even if it faithfully conveys the meaning behind the words themselves.

Ortland, in his dialogue with Mounce, gives an excellent example of how this could be the case. In Acts 11:22, more literal translations render ēkousthē de ho logos eis ta ōta tēs ekklēsias tēs ousēs en Ierousalēm as something like "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem" (KJV) or "The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem" (ESV) whereas a more functionally equivalent translation would translate this as something like "News of this reached the church in Jerusalem" (NIV, which is actually a bit more literal then the NLT, "When the church at Jerusalem heard what had happened . . ."). Now, the NIV (and the NLT, for that matter) gets the point across, so nothing is lost from the story. Accurate information is still transmitted. Yet as Ortlund points out, there is a potential for an intra-textual and inter-textual pragmatic effect here that may be missed. What if Luke intended us to remember the other places that the specific word "ear" is used in Acts (7:51, 57; 28:26-27, citing Isaiah 6:9–10), since "The other four are not merely bland references to physical ears but spiritually and theologically loaded uses" (Ortland, page 102). In other words, is it possible the Holy Spirit intended a pragmatic effect (the reader connecting the dots to those other passages in Acts, plus Isaiah), an effect that could only be achieved by translating a specific word consistently in a certain way? (The point, as Ortland states, is not whether or not this is the correct understanding of why Luke used ōta, "ear," in 11:22; the point is that it's a possibility that must be considered; also, as the KJV translators themselves noted, words should not be translated consistently the same way all throughout the Bible; that's not the point. The point is that sometimes they should because their may be an intended intra- or inter-textual link).

Now, back to the more difficult example of John 3:3. Granted, "Jesus answered and said" is redundant and a bit awkward in English. Yet John, when writing this Gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had a choice. He could have just said "Jesus answered" and left it at that (as in John 3:5). Yet since "choice implies meaning," there is some reason John uses this pattern frequently. We may not know what it is, and it almost certainly does not have the potential to convey the level of significance that Luke's use of "ears" in Acts does. John may have written that way for purely aesthetic reasons (he liked the sound of the pattern, perhaps?). Nonetheless, it is still part of the inspired authorial style, it possesses some degree of significance (if, indeed, every single word is inspired), and so should be retained if it can be done without seriously compromising the coherence of the sentence when translated into the target language.

A counter-argument would be that readability and/or smoothness in the target language should trump the form and structure of the originals, and to a certain degree that is true. Not even the King James perfectly imitates the word order of the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. So what I (and others) argue for regarding a more literal style is not some sort of bizarre hyper-wooden translation that makes no coherent sense in English. What we are arguing, however, is that reflecting authorial style and deliberate lexical choice, when legitimate choices existed, justifies at least a little bit of awkwardness in the English (or other languages). That's a discussion that could span hundreds of pages, however.

In conclusion, words often convey more than what is reflected in their semantic range. Specific words in specific contexts can produce effects, trigger allusions, and even create emotions that go beyond the meaning of the word itself. This means that specific words, not just the ideas they and their synonyms reflect, matter. As an aside, this does not rule out the possibility that sometimes a literal translation could potentially eliminate an intended pragmatic effect, via the messiness that involves transferring words and phrases from one language to another; nonetheless, I believe the basic point stands.

A word of praise for Robert Alter's The Art of Bible Translation (and a note on Hebrew literary style in Bible translation)

Here at Baptist Theological Seminary, I have the privilege, along with my father (30+ year missionary to Japan) and Kathy Ann Birnschein (graduate of SIL, with her thesis on the Hmong language) of spearheading our Master of Arts in Bible Translation. With that in mind, I would like to offer a word of praise for Robert Alter's recent book, The Art of Bible Translation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), which now is one of the required textbooks for our class "Translation Issues in Greek and Hebrew."

Dr. Alter has just finished his massive, 3-volume The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, and he "gets" discourse and literary style, especially in Hebrew (to be fair, one of the downsides is that the book has virtually nothing on Greek). Consequently, Alter's discussion of translating the Old Testament in The Art of Bible Translation definitely favors a more literal style (I realize the word "literal" can be overdone; but this does not invalidate the basic idea it represents--a topic for a later post). In fact, sometimes I felt Alter was  perhaps just a bit too harsh on modern translations in general, and his own translations can occasionally trend towards the wooden side (think NASB on steroids), but this is due to his zealousness for reflecting the literary style of the Old Testament. His book provides and excellent discussion of alliteration, chiasm, and puns, all relevant elements of Old Testament Hebrew that are generally neglected in modern treatments of the topic. In a nutshell, Alter's biggest beef with modern translation theory is that "Literary style is never studied, and the translators consequently proceed as if the Bible had no style at all, as if a translator were entitled to represent it in a hodgepodge of modern English styles" (12).

I remind the reader: literary artistry is inspired by the Holy Spirit just as much as individual words. Any translation that does not adequately reflect such artistry has not adequately reflected the actual text the Holy Spirit inspired. It may, of course, be impossible (try creating a translation that starts each verse of vv. 1-8 of Psalm 119 with "a", each verse of vv. 9-16 with "b", and so on, without tampering with the meaning of individual words). Consequently, this underscores why there can be no such thing as a "perfect translation": no translation, no matter how dependent it is on godly men and women, can perfectly translate the literary artistry of Hebrew into a different language. And so long as there is even a solitary literary effect (e.g., deliberate alliteration in a verse) from the Hebrew that is not reflected  in the English (or any other language), then by definition that translation cannot be perfect, for to claim that translation is perfect would be to deny that the Holy Spirit's literary artistry at a particular point possesses any significance.

By way of illustration: Psalm 119, which I mentioned above, in the Hebrew, begins every single line (verse, in English) with the same letter for clusters of 8 lines. So for Psalm 119:1-8, each line/verse begins with the Hebrew "aleph," verses 9-16 each begin with "beth," etc. As anybody who has ever tried alliterative poetry knows, this is much easier with some letters than with others. When we get to verse 49, and each line starts with "z" (the Hebrew letter zion), we have reached an incredible level of creativity, creativity that is inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet does not exist in any English translation (including the King James). Each verse in Psalm 119:49-56 in English does not start with "z," and for good reason! Doing so would have disrupted at least some of the sense of the verse itself. Yet I reiterate my point: no English translation can be perfect if it has not perfectly reflected the Spirit-inspired literary artistry of the Hebrew. To claim a perfect translation that does not alliterate in the same way is to claim that certain elements of what the Holy Spirit inspired actually do not matter, which would consequently mean that a perfect Bible can be obtained by human effort only while neglecting at least some of the Spirit's work. It's worth asking: what's the point of the Holy Spirit's inspiration in the first place if a perfect English Bible could be obtained that does not reflect all that the Holy Spirit has perfectly inspired in the Hebrew?

So back to Alter's book. My word of praise is that, ironically, this scholar from Berkeley, California cares more about the literary artistry of the Hebrew than many King James Only-ists, even though one of the strengths of the King James and other "essentially literal" translations is that they have paid attention to the literary artistry when possible (indeed, I will go a step farther: the King James, at least for its particular era, possesses the best balance of reflecting the Hebrew literary artistry when at all possible without obscuring the meaning of the verse in English; again, though,  it cannot be claimed to be perfect without downplaying the work of the Holy Spirit). Alter masterfully shows the importance of bringing out the discourse and artistry of the Hebrew into English translation; while I feel he goes too far sometimes, and is a bit too critical of others, nonetheless the book is a masterpiece, and excels in showing that meaning does not just reside in individual words.

Translating from Hebrew into Japanese: Challenges and Issues

Last spring my father and I had the privilege of teaching "Translation Issues in Greek and Hebrew." In preparation for that class, I translated Genesis 15, two Psalms, and the whole book of Obadiah from Hebrew into Japanese. There's a whale of a difference between translating from Hebrew into one's native tongue (English, in my case) and translating from Hebrew into a language that is not one's native tongue!

I have posted those files on Academia.edu (click here and scroll down to "teaching documents"), not because this is meant to become an "authoritative" translation or replace or correct the Shinkai-yaku (which is currently the best complete Bible out there in Japanese, in my humble-but-correct opinion), but rather to give you, dear reader, a glimpse into the challenges and issues that face a translator going from Hebrew into a language other than his or her native tongue. The notes include discussions on the Hebrew as well as Japanese. 

My father (far more the expert on Japanese than I am) graciously reviewed my translation and offered critique as needed (his comments are in a different font).

As a side-note, although the Shinkai-yaku is currently the best complete translation in Japanese (imo), my father has completed the rough draft of a New Testament, the "Lifeline Bible", which will be able to be freely distributed without cost. (Note that it will be the first New Testament in Japanese not based on the critical text in almost 100 years, specifically, since the 1935 Nagai-yaku, which was written in classical Japanese and thus not the easiest version to read!). There is a plan to distribute the John-and-Romans of the Lifeline Bible during the upcoming Summer Olympics in Tokyo.

Any questions on the Lifeline Bible can be e-mailed to phimes@gmail.com, and I will forward them on to my father.

Teaching "Translation Issues in Hebrew": Postscript

In our brand-new MA in Bible Translation here at Baptist Theological Seminary, we currently have three students, two gentlemen and one lady. Last Friday was the culmination of the class "Translation Issues in Greek and Hebrew" (co-taught by my father and I), and the three students presented papers on: 
1. Translating Exodus into Mandarin Chinese, 
2. Translating the Psalms into Amharic, and 
3. Translating OT Prophetic Oracle into Fulfulde. 
An excellent job by all of them, with PowerPoint presentations that blew me away! [I would like to mention their names, but there's a chance one or all of them might end up ministering in restricted-access nations, so I will not].

Earlier I had blogged about the "Search for a textbook" for the Hebrew portion of this class. I ended up going with Dr. Ernst Wendland's book Analyzing the Psalms: With Exercises for Bible Students and Translators, 2nd ed., partly because it is one of the few books out there that actually deals with translating Hebrew into a non-English language. I did, however, require a lot of outside reading, including a fascinating essay by Dr. Lamin Sanneh on the social-religious role of Bible translations in Africa.

Reproduced below is a significant portion of our syllabus, with all the required reading (for both my father's and my portions of the class) and the description of the essay the students had to write about translating Hebrew into the various languages (each student was required to choose a non-English language).

Course Description:

 LI 631 Translation Issues in Greek and Hebrew (2 hours)

A study of specific issues particular to the translation of Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, especially addressing syntactic and semantic difficulties. 

Prerequisites: AL 202 and/or satisfactory performance on the Advanced Greek Entrance Exam, AL 522 and/or satisfactory performance on the Elements of Hebrew Entrance Exam; seminary Greek courses are strongly recommended.

Objectives for the Course:

(1) To learn the difficulties inherent in translating the Hebrew and koine Greek languages.

(2) To develop a solid understanding of lexical semantics, not just in relation to Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, but also in relation to foreign languages.

(3) To understand the complexities of transferring syntax and discourse structure from the original biblical languages into a target language.

(4) To develop a personal methodology that will assist in translating from the Bible in its original languages into a foreign language.

(5) To grapple with the role of genre and discourse in Bible translation.

(6) To understand the practicaldifferences between a generally “optimal equivalence” and “essentially literal” approach and a generally “functional equivalence” approach, developing a preference for the former while understanding that sometimes the line gets blurred.

Textbooks and Reading: 

The student should own the following three books:

1.Constantine R. Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015, 207 pp.

2.Wendland, Ernst R.  Analyzing the Psalms, with Exercises for Bible Students and Translators, 2^nded. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2002, 256 pp.

3.Any grammar of a foreign language of the student’s choice (a language that is not native to the      student).

In addition, the student will read the following articles and essays and come ready to discuss them in class when they’re due (digital or physical copies will be provided to the student).

1. Martin Luther, “An Open Letter on Translating,” pages 1-13 (up until the line break).

2. David G. Horrell, “Familiar Friend or Alien Stranger? On Translating the Bible,” Expository Timesvol. 116.12 (2005): 402-408.

3. Paul A. Himes, “Rethinking the Translation of Διδακτικός in 1 Timothy 3.2 and 2 Timothy 2.24,” The Bible Translatorvol. 68.2 (2017): 189-208.

4. Maurice Robinson, “The Bondage of the Word: Copyright and the Bible” (available from the professors). ETS 48^thAnnual Meeting, 1996.

5. J. Scott Horrell, “Translating ‘Son Of God’ For Muslim Contexts, Part 1: Tensions And The Witness of Scripture,” BibSacvol. 172.687 (October-December 2015).

6. J. Scott Horrell, “Translating ‘Son Of God’ For Muslim Contexts, Part 2: Historical and Theological Concerns,” BibSacvol. 172.687 (July-September 2015).

7. John Travis, “Producing and Using Meaningful Translations of the Taurat, Zabur, and Injil,” International Journal of Frontier Missionsvol. 23.2 (Summer 2006).

8. Kenneth J. Thomas, “Allah in Translations of the Bible,” International Journal of Frontier Missionsvol. 23:2 (Winter 2006).

9. Lamin Sanneh, “Domesticating the Transcendent, the African Transformation of Christianity: Comparative Reflections on Ethnicity and Religious Mobilization in Africa,” pages 70-85 in Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century, eds. Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten, The Library of Old Testament Studies (London: T. & T. Clark, 2002).

10. John Rogerson, “Can a Translation of the Bible Be Authoritative?” and Judith Frishman, “Why a Translation of the Bible Can’t Be Authoritative: A Response to John Rogerson,” pages 17-30 and 31-35 in Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century.

11. Everett Fox, “The Translation of Elijah: Issues and Challenges,” and A. J. C. 

Verheij, “A Response to Everett Fox,” pages 156-169 and 170-174, in Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century.

12. Philip A. Noss, “Translation to the Third and Fourth Generations: The Gbaya Bible and Gbaya Language Enrichment,” The Bible Translator69.2 (2018): 166-75.

13. Robert L. Hubbard, “The Hebrew Root PG‘as a Legal Term,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society27.2 (June 1984): 129-33.

14. Lénart J. de Regt, “Sacrificial and Festival Terms in the Old Testament: How Can We Translate Them?” The Bible Translator 68.2 (August 2017): 131-141. [Sadly, I was not able to acquire a PDF of this particular article in time to have the students actually read it].

15. Alexandr Flek, “Between Lying and Blaspheming: Czech Bible21 as a Contemporary Attempt at Communicative Equivalence,” pages 124-130 in Yearbook on the Science of Bible Translation: 13^thBible Translation Forum 2017, ed. Eberhard Werner (Nürnberg, Germany: VTR, 2018).

OT Translation Project

Each student will be assigned a chapter from the Old Testament. The student will study that chapter in Hebrew and write an essay on translation issues in that chapter, utilizing the grammar of the non-English language that they chose earlier. The goal of this essay is to provide an introductory discussion on how the Old Testament passage might be rendered into their non-English target language. To be clear, the student does notneed to actually provide a translation (though occasionally the student might need to supply a gloss for a word in his or her target language), but simply a discussion of the issues (lexical, syntactical, and stylistic/discourse) that such a translation would face.

1.Each student will be assigned a chapter from the Hebrew Old Testament.

2.Each student will choose a non-English target language and gain a basic familiarity with that language via the grammar that they chose and purchased before class began.

3.The essay will begin with an opening paragraph discussing the genre of their passage.

4.The next paragraph will provide a basic overview of their target language and the basic characteristics of that language.

5.The remainder of the essay will discuss, verse-by-verse, the issues that the translator will confront when attempting to render the Hebrew into the target language.

6.No minimum or maximum page limits exist for the paper. The professor (P. Himes) reserves the right to have the student rewrite the paper if it bears the marks of “hurried work.”

7.Sources: all types of sources are “fair game” (i.e., the student is not limited to 

academic sources). The student is encouraged to utilize any helpful internet sources that directly deal with his or her target language. While there is no minimum or maximum requirement for sources, the use of the following sources is strongly encouraged:

a. Hebrew grammars and Hebrew syntaxes.

b. Technical commentaries on the Old Testament (esp. Word Biblical).

c. Bible translations in English, butlimited to the following: KJV, ESV, NIV.

d. Any Bible translation in your target language, but only after you have spent some time studying the chapter in Hebrew on your own. 

e. Any resource, written or digital, published or online, that deals with your target 

language.

f. Any lexicons and concordances for either Hebrew or the target language, including online lexicons and concordances.

g. The student may even consult“google translate” or similar software, though the 

student should not rely on it. I.e., the basis of your analysis should not be  translation software; however, translation software such as “google translate” 

(which has improved considerably in the past decade!) may be consulted after 

the majority of your work on a particular verse has been done.

8.Citation: throughout the paper, the student should simply refer to their sources 

parenthetically, in as simple a form as possible. E.g., for a commentary: (Smith, 42); for a lexicon or dictionary: (Ringgren, TDOT, 50); for a grammar or syntax: 

(Suleski/Hiroko, 50). Even websites should be cited simply with the title of the 

website, e.g., (Jisho). At the end of the paper, the student will provide a comprehensive Works Cited page(s) that will include all publication information, including URLs for websites.

9.Formatting should, in general, follow standard BTS format (with the exception of parenthetical citation instead of footnotes). The title of the paper should be something along the lines of “Translation Issues when Rendering [Hebrew passage] into [Target Language].”

10.You are not trying to proveanything with this paper. You are simply introducing the reader to the various issues of translating your passage into your target language.

11.Paper presentation:sometime during the 9-week block, all students will present their findings orally. Both the undergraduate and graduate student body will be invited to attend (as well as BCM faculty and staff). Each student should plan on about 10 minutes of presentation, followed by 5 minutes open to Q&A. The date will be set by mutual agreement with the professor and students. The students are encouraged to utilize PowerPoint or other visual aids or audio aids.

                  

*Sample discussion of a verse*

by P. Himes, on translating Psalm 2:1 into Japanese:

1.This verse in Hebrew has a simple chiasm: “Verb-Subject-waw-Subject-Verb” (though not a perfect chiasm, since the second half contains a d.o.). Sadly, it is virtually impossible, here and elsewhere, to render this structure into Japanese without creating an awkward translation. Certainly it would not sound very “poetic”!

2.The Hebrew רגשׁ is a hapax legomena, thus necessitating reliance on lexicons. 

Holladay has “be restless,” but most versions seem to translate it with more negative connotations, e.g., “rage” (KJV, ESV) and “conspire” (NIV). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(via Accordance) has “conspire, plot,” more-or-less agreeing with the NIV. In light of the parallelism here with the second half of the verse, I’m inclined to favor the idea of “conspire.” Two good Japanese possibilities exist, I believe. I would suggest takurami, since that word seems to have more negative, sinister connotations in Japanese than hakaru.

3.One is forced here to discuss the nature of style and tone. Since Japanese, merely by its verb endings, can radically alter the tone and style (superior to subordinate, subordinate to superior, equals, enemy to enemy, etc.), deciding what sort of style to use is of more importance in Japanese than, for example, in English. I would recommend a “lower,” more colloquial style here, since the Psalmist is more-or-less sneering at those who oppose God. The tone of the whole Psalm is one of mockery of those who have the audacity to think they can oppose God, and this should, to a certain degree, dictate the style in Japanese.

Our Bible Translation Degree here at BTS: What we are, and the classes we offer

Update! I forgot to mention, an internship is part of this degree.

As noted before on this blog, our seminary, Baptist Theological Seminary in Menomonee Falls, WI is now offering a "Master of Arts in Bible Translation." This is actually an upgrade of a "normal" master of arts in Bible (with all the theology courses, NTI, OTI, etc.) plus five key translation classes added on. Those classes are:
1. LI 601 "Bible Translation Theory & Practice" (3 credits), taught by my father, former missionary John Himes, lead translator of the forthcoming"Lifeline" Japanese New Testament.
2. "Morphology and Syntax" (2 credits), taught by Miss Kathy Birnschein, our linguistics specialist (finishing up a degree at the prestigious SIL; her thesis is specializing in the Hmong language)
3. LI 631 "Translation Issues in Greek and Hebrew" (2 credits), taught by my father and myself.
4. LI 621 "Translation Linguistics & Discourse Analysis" (2 credits), taught by Miss Birnschein
5. "Phonetics, Phonology, and Orthography" (2 credits) also taught by Miss Birnschein.
6. "Translation Internship," which is basically a 10-week trip oversees working with a translation committee, learning how to contribute, learn, and work as a team.

In addition, we have an elective that we hope all our students will take, "Translation Technology" (1 credit), taught by an adjunct who is (sort of) 1-part coder, 1-part translator, and 1-part Bible teacher!

As part of the normal MA in Bible, students are required to take advanced Greek (3rd year Greek), which includes Intro to NT Exegesis and either exegesis of Romans or exegesis of Pastoral Epistles (rotating every 2-years), as well as two semesters of Hebrew, all taught by myself (a note to NT specialists like myself: be prepared to teach Hebrew! You never know where the Lord might lead).

Basically, then, this is 11 extra credits (not counting the elective) beyond our normal MA in Bible. It is a 3-year Master's Degree. It is not meant for the professional Bible translator, but rather for those missionaries (both men and women) who may be doing translation work as part of their ministry (which, quite frankly, should potentially include almost anybody working outside of the US, and some working inside; you never know).

BTS is a very niche school. We are independent Baptist, with a heavy revival emphasis, and we definitely trend towards the "formal equivalence" side of translation. We are not "KJV-only" (i.e., "the King James is the only valid translation in English"), but we consistently use the KJV in public ministry. We believe the ultimate authority lies in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, but for the New Testament we trend towards a broad Byzantine textual position (I'm including the TR position as a branch of the Byzantine position; there is some diversity among our faculty and staff) over the critical/eclectic text.

For those interested in such a school and a 3-year degree in Bible and Bible-translation (where the translation aspect is added on to a solid, rigorous MA in Bible, with more Greek and Hebrew), drop me an e-mail or hop on over to our website!

Translation Issues in Hebrew: The Search for a Textbook (I'm open to suggestions!)

In our new translation-oriented Master of Arts here at BTS, my father and I have the privilege of teaching a new class this January: "Translation Issues in Greek and Hebrew." Both my father and I have been involved in Bible translation into Japanese, at one point my father was teaching Greek in Japanese to Japanese ministerial students, and I have recently been published in The Bible Translator (vol. 68.2). However, this is the first time we'll be co-teaching a class on translation (though my father has taught a basic "Introduction to Translation Theory" class).

This is not another advanced Greek or Hebrew exegesis class. Rather, the point of this class is to discuss how to translate the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into modern non-English languages, paying special attention to areas of debate within modern scholarship. 

For example, this class will discuss such topics as: "How would your perspective on verbal aspect theory impact how you translate 1 Peter into Japanese?" Or, "How would the discourse features of Psalm 67 best translate into Farsi?"

Herein lies the problem. So far as I have seen, no affordable textbook really accomplishes what my father and I wish to accomplish with this class. There are, of course, plenty of guides about translating Greek and Hebrew into English, but not much for the future missionary who wishes to translate into something other than English. A notable exception would be Toshikazu Foley's Biblical Translation in Chinese and Greek which is definitely worth the price for the professor (I own it), but hardly affordable for the student! Also, it's much narrower in scope than we're looking for (since Foley focuses primarily on verbal aspect theory).

For his part (the Greek), my Dad borrowed my copy of Constantine Campbell's Advances in the Study of Greek, an excellent book that is definitely relevant to the topic but does not, of course, deal with the difficulties of translating Greek into a non-English language. Still, it's a start.

For my part, I am nearly at a loss. It's assumed my students will have had beginning Hebrew; they will be required to have both Pratico and Van Pelt's Basics of Biblical Hebrew and the very handy Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Arnold and Choi; also, our library has Gesenius and Waltke/O'Connor.  However, English books specializing in translating Hebrew into non-English languages are hard to come by. Also, I am unaware of any Hebrew equivalent to Campbells' excellent book (i.e., something like Advances in the Study of Hebrew; actually, I just did a search on Amazon and there is an Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics, published in 2017 by Eisenbrauns; does anybody know anything about this book?).

I am open to suggestions! 
To be clear, I am not looking for a book on translation theory (we have plenty of those), nor a book on translating Hebrew into English, but rather a book dealing with the issues that come from attempting to translate Hebrew into various non-English languages.

So far the best I have found is a book from the Dutch perspective (albeit in English) entitled Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century, ed. by Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten. It's affordable, and many of the essays in it are very relevant to what I envision the class being about. The fact that it's from a non-American perspective is also very helpful.

I will probably require that book, and supplement it with some select articles from The Bible Translator and, perhaps, SIL's Journal of Translation. In addition, I am probably going to allow them to choose a language of their choice, acquire a basic grammar on that language, and utilize that in writing an essay on something like "Translating Ruth into [language of choice]: Issues and Potential Pitfalls."

I am definitely looking forward to the class. I have become the default Hebrew teacher at my (small) seminary, even though my area of expertise is Greek (my doktorvater was David Alan Black). In order to push myself, I am going to begin translating some of the Psalms (and probably some parts of Genesis) into Japanese from Hebrew, something I've never done before. 'Twill be a busy Christmas break!

Beware of Archaism! Some positive thoughts on Mark Ward's new book Authorized: The Use and Abuse of the King James Bible (and further discussion)

Mark Ward is a scholar at Logos Bible Software and has a PhD from Bob Jones University. I have been acquainted with Mark for some time now and believe that he holds to a very balanced perspective on textual and translation issues, even when I don't necessarily agree with all he says. He has recently published Authorized: The Use and Abuse of the King James Bible (available on both Logos and Amazon Kindle). I believe this is a great book that deserves your consideration if you have any sort of ministry that involves preaching, teaching, and interpreting Scripture (this includes you, Mr., Mrs., or Miss Sunday School leader!), or if you are interested in Bible translation issues.

Now, before we look at what Mark has to say in his book, let me state that I, personally, am approaching this whole issue from the following perspectives: (1.) Byzantine priority perspective (à la Maurice Robinson, one of my mentors at Southeastern), that nonetheless has a high regard for the TR (which, as I explain to my students, is a branch of the Byzantine tree, though not identical with it), and (2.) A perspective that believes that the KJV is, all things considered, probably the best English translation in history to this point, but not inerrant or incapable of being criticized. The analogy I use with my students is that of quarterbacks--no quarterback in the NFL is perfect (that would take a supernatural work, and supernatural work has only occurred with the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic originals), but the KJV is, essentially, Aaron Rodgers (or, if you prefer, Tom Brady).

Now, back to Mark's book Authorized.
The strength of Mark Ward's book is that it focuses precisely on that area where even the most ardent traditionalists should be cautious, that of readability and archaism. Here Mark's book is golden: it examines, openly and honestly, the need to understand how language has changed in 400 years (or even 250 years, if we consider that the edition of the KJV we use is from 1769).

To be clear, this is not a minor matter. If, by misunderstanding what a word in the KJV means (or, rather, meant 250-400 years ago), I teach one thing when the apostle meant another, I am thereby guilty of saying "Thus saith the Lord" when, in fact, "the Lord hath not spoken" (Ezekiel 22:28), even if my intentions are pure. Ignorance can only go so far as an excuse. At the very least there should be an assumption that all preachers and Bible study leaders have made an attempt to figure out the meanings of words before teaching theology on the basis of what one thinks a word means. I am not talking about necessarily knowing Greek and Hebrew (though that helps). There are plenty of tools for the layperson to use that will help them understand a word in the KJV w/o knowing Greek and Hebrew (a topic for another time).

Two examples on archaism will suffice (Ward gives many, many more):
1. From my own experience: while leading a Sunday morning Bible study on James 3:1, in the part where we "put the verse into our own words," the word "masters" was understood as referring to slave/servant owners. Yet the Greek is didaskoloi, or "teachers" (there is no textual variant here). 400 years ago "master" could mean "teacher" (that is why, after all, many of us get "Masters degrees"!) Yet the language has changed. To teach this passage as referring to the concept of "one who owns slaves" would be to completely misunderstand and misrepresent the Apostle James.
2. And now a more significant example from Mark's book (page 44): "Before a wildly clapping and shouting audience, he [popular prosperity preacher  Rod Parsley] read the following statement out of the KJV, and it was projected on the television screen in front of him: 'And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine' (John 2:3 KJV). 'I'm tired,' Parsley preached, 'of the kind of sermons that promise that God will supply only your needs. That only goes halfway. This verse shows that God delights to give us not just what we need, but what we want!'"
The problem, of course is that the Greek reads kai husterēsantos oinou, "and whey they lacked wine . . .." Four hundred years ago "want" in the King James meant "lacked" (cf. Psalm 23:1!); thus "when they lacked wine" was (for 1611) a good translation. It is not, however, an adequate translation in 2018, because the language has changed!!

Let me reiterate: to teach John 2:3 as if it is referring to desire ("want"), on the basis of our reading of the King James (a reading that actually misunderstands the language of the King James) is to misinterpret and abuse Scripture, and thus become guilty of what Ezekiel 22:28 is condemning.

Mark Ward's book is valuable because it demonstrates just how easy it is to do this on the basis of archaic language (often without our even realizing it!)

Now, what is the solution? For some churches (such as my own), the solution is not that we stop using the King James. However, even in our case, even as we preach and teach from the King James, we must be aware of, and explain, archaic language. Our final authority lies with the original intention of the Apostolic and Prophetic authors, not the language of the King James. Once again, even though we respect the King James as the "Aaron Rodgers" of Bible translations, our final authority lies with the original Greek words of the Apostles, not the English words of Anglicans (be they ever so intelligent or articulate!)

Practically speaking, what this means is that every preacher of the Word, and every Bible study leader must be aware of anachronisms and properly interpret the words according to the original intent of the inspired author. Failure to do so is to abuse God's word (hence the title of Mark's excellent book). Today there are a plethora of tools (many available online at blueletterbible.org) that can enable anybody to do that, even without a Bible-college degree (maybe I'll post on that sometime in the future!). In other words, ignorance is no excuse.
[To to those who wish to comment: All comments are moderated before posted, so please make a courteous contribution to the discussion, or ask a legitimate question, or it may not be posted]

Introducing the new Master of Arts in Bible Translation at Baptist Theological Seminary

I am pleased to report that Baptist Theological Seminary (Menomonee Falls, WI), where I teach, is now officially offering a 40-credit "Master of Arts in Bible Translation."

On the one hand, this could be viewed as a variant on our Master of Arts in Bible, since we retain the theology classes, NT Intro and OT Intro, etc. So this is not a MA focusing exclusively on translation.
We have essentially added on four classes, however:
1. Bible Translation Theory and Practice
2. Morphology and Syntax
3. Translation Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
4. Translation Issues in Greek and Hebrew
Each student also has to have 1 year of Hebrew (Grammar and Syntax/Exegesis) and one semester of Introduction to New Testament Exegesis (basically 3rd year Greek; 2 years of Greek is required to to start seminary here).
Also, we require "Language Acquisition I and II" (or similar 3-credit courses in linguistics) as pre-requisites to take the MA.

I feel our teaching crew for this MA is just the right blend of academics and hands-on work.
1. My father was a missionary for 30+ years in Japan, at one point was teaching Koine Greek to Japanese students in Japanese (how many scholars can brag they taught Greek in a language other than their native tongue?), and, most importantly, has spearheaded a new translation of the Greek NT into Japanese (rough draft has been out for a while; final draft of John and Romans is being distributed right now). My father has a  master's from Maranatha Baptist University and is currently working on his D.Min. He is teaching "Bible Translation Theory and Practice" and splitting the class  "Translation Issues in Greek and Hebrew" with me (I do the Hebrew, he does the Greek).
2. In addition to assisting my father on his new translation, I have a PhD in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (under NT/Greek scholar David Alan Black) and have had articles published in a variety of journals, including The Bible Translator.
3. Kathy Birnschein is finishing up a Master's in linguistics from the prestigious Summer Institute of Linguistics (her specialty is Hmong), teaches Spanish in our academy (as well as language acquisition in our college), and will teach: 1. Morphology and Syntax, and 2. Translation Linguistics and Discourse Analysis.

Now, BCM (and and our seminary, BTS) is somewhat of a niche school, with a very specific philosophy of ministry and a preference towards a formal-equivalence translation philosophy (i.e., KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB), with a strong preference for a TR or Byzantine text-base (personally, I am a follower of Maurice Robinson's Byzantine approach). Anybody interested should check us out here.

The Difference between "Inspiration" and "Preservation"

I had the awesome privilege over this past weekend of ministering at Logansport, Indiana, to Hillcrest Baptist Church (with Pastor Brandon Hudson, an old Maranatha classmate of mine!). I basically gave a seminar on "How we got our Bible." The people were great, very gracious, and I had a blast!

I tried to emphasize the need to avoid both the extreme of "preservation is not taught in Scripture" and that of "preservation only applies to the King James Bible." [For a decent overview of which Scriptures passages do, and probably do not, teach preservation, see William Combs' article here]. In the process, I emphasized some key differences between the two:

Inspiration: 
1. Is supernatural (personally, directly guided by the Holy Spirit),
2. Cannot involve mistakes, 
3. Involved special people, 
4. Does not continue once the Canon is completed,
5. Involved three languages.

Preservation:
1. Uses secondary means (may be Spirit-led, but not Spirit-inspired; people led by the Spirit still obviously make mistakes),
2. Involves human mistakes (see, for example, 2Kings 22:8; either human error or malicious intent had let to the Word of God being temporarily set aside; however, it was not permanently lost and cannot be permanently lost),
3. Involves all Christians everywhere (of various competency!)
4. Continues until Jesus' 2nd Coming (and maybe beyond?)
5. Involves all languages

The take-away from this is that you, personally, dear Christian, are involved in preservation (i.e., it's not something unique to the KJV translators, or those of any other translation, for that matter). Every time you quote Scripture to a brother or sister in Christ, every time you teach your children God's Word, every time you witness to a co-worker, every time you memorize the Bible--in all those instances, you, personally, are involved in preservation (regardless of how "good" or "competent" you are, and regardless of whether or not you make mistakes).
So, Christian, get busy preserving God's Word!

I leave you with this quote which demonstrates that the King James translators themselves had solid grasp of the fact that their new translation was not the only preserved Word of God:
"Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession contained the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated in French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure, so fitly for phrase, or so expressly for sense, everywhere." 
(From “The Translators to the Reader,” the preface to the King James Bible)