Hermeneutics - Lesson 7

Before we jump into the weeds of how to interpret the Bible, I do want to talk about the Bible that you have in front of you, whatever translation that is. We mentioned earlier in the steps of going from the mind of God to the mind of Todd – inspiration, transmission, and then translation. And we have, especially in English, so many different translations that are at our disposal, so many to choose from. What do we actually have? 

And sometimes I think it’s helpful when we’re thinking about hermeneutics to talk about the hermeneutical issues that are involved in translation, and translation is necessarily going to involve some interpretation. And the reason for this is that language is a part of culture, and no two cultures are exactly the same. Cultures will differ. Language is a product of culture, and culture is simultaneously or symbiotically, a product of language. They work mutually on each other. 

And, for those of you who’ve taken foreign language before, you know, there’s no such thing as an exact equivalent between the thoughts and words in one language and the thoughts and words in another. You might know that all words have a semantic range, and the semantic range of one word in one language is not going to match up well with the semantic range of a word in a different language. 

A good example of this would be in Matthew 1:18-19. This is about the birth of Jesus Christ. And we’re told this, 

“The birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quickly.” 

Well, this creates a conundrum for Bible translators, because in our culture it’s very different than what took place in the Ancient Near East culture that Mary and Joseph were a part of. Pledged to be married, husband, wife, divorce. There’s really no equivalent in our culture to this first century Hebrew phenomenon. We wouldn’t talk about needing a divorce in order to break an engagement. What often happens is like the woman hopefully will give the ring back to the guy and then there will be some embarrassing cards and letters having to be sent out and maybe send back some gifts. But it’s not a legal thing. You don’t go to a courthouse to break an engagement. Mary and Joseph weren’t married yet, but to end the engagement required a legal proceeding, and Mary would have been guilty of adultery otherwise. So that’s a bit of a conundrum. 

The English translation that I read to you just said they resolved to divorce her quietly before they came together. Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, and that’s how they chose to translate those words. But that takes some interpretation. Did they make the right choice? 

Another example, John 1:29, 

“The next day he” (John the Baptist), “saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins [recte sin] of the world!’” 

Well, what if you’re translating the Bible in a part of the world that doesn’t have sheep? What if you’re like in the Arctic or what if you’re in Papua New Guinea? What do you do? What if pigs are the main staple of diet where you’re at and also the main staple of clothing, clothing comes from pigs more than anything else. Would you translate it, “Behold the pig of God that takes away the sins of the world?” “Behold the piglet of God who takes away the sins of the world?” Before you say yes, remember there’s an entire theology of clean and unclean animals in the Bible. 

Another example, Isaiah 1:18, 

“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.” 

Again, what if you’re in a part of the world that there’s no concept of snow? It’s just inconceivable if you’re in a tropical place, Papua New Guinea. And furthermore, they might not even know what wool is. What are you going to do? What if you’re in Japan in the past and the color of purity is red, not white? What are you supposed to do then? Do you translate it the opposite? Then everything gets fouled up. It’s difficult as you go from culture to culture. 

Well, Bible translators have a lot on their plate. And there’s a continuum, if you will, of options that they have. And that’s usually spoken of in terms of formal equivalent on one end and dynamic equivalent on the other end of the continuum. 

A formal equivalent translation is going to try to adhere as closely as possible to the original wording of the text. And you might think, well, that’s going to be impossible. And quite frankly, it is. There is no straightforward word-for-word translation because Greek and Hebrew syntax or grammar is very different than English, for example. Nevertheless, in a formal equivalent translation, they’re going to try to do word-for-word translation, maintaining word order where they can. The NASB, New American Standard Bible, would be probably the best example of a formal equivalent translation. 

Now, if we had a continuum here, it’s not purely formal equivalent. A purely formal equivalent translation would be gibberish because of the grammar and syntax differences as you go from Greek or Hebrew to English. 

Nevertheless, in the NASB, you’re going to see more word-for-word where they can, and one result of that is, one, the translation is going to be shorter, typically. You’re also going to see a lot of commas and long sentences in the NASB. It’s almost like reading the Puritans who never saw a comma or semicolon that they didn’t like. 

On the other end of the continuum are dynamic equivalent translations, and the goal of a dynamic equivalent translation is to reproduce thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word. And like the NIV or the CSB, these are a good example of a pretty dynamic equivalent translation. 

Sometimes in some instances the idioms or figures of speech are interpreted and replaced. An example of that in the NIV where language of sexual intimacy is used and a Hebrew idiom would be, “And Adam knew his wife,” for example. Well, they’ll just translate that for you or they’ll interpret it for you, “And Adam had sex with his wife,” they might say. There they are taking a Hebrew idiom and they’re interpreting it for you in case “knowing someone” is not the culturally relevant way of talking about sexual intimacy. 

Off the continuum, in my estimation, something to the other side of dynamic equivalence would be a paraphrase and here explanatory words and phrases that aren’t found in the original, but the paraphraser feels are necessary to give the sense of the passage, those are included in that. And I would argue, like Eugene Peterson’s, The Message, is a paraphrase. It’s not really a translation. I know in the preface to The Message it says that it’s a translation. I would argue it’s probably more of a paraphrase. 

Now in all of this, even with paraphrases, I’m not a translation basher. I’m not. I delight in all the different Bible translations that we have. There’s some that I prefer over others, but I think all of them have strengths. 

So, a couple of things that I want you to remember about this. First off, accuracy is not related to where you’re at on the continuum. That is, I know that with formal equivalent translations, they will often advertise as the most accurate Bible translation precisely because it is a formal equivalent translation. I just want you to know that’s false. I don’t think that’s the case at all. Every Bible translator is endeavoring to produce the most accurate translation that they can. No one is saying, “Well, ours is super readable, but not that accurate, but it’s super readable, so buy it anyway.” No one wants that and no one is advertising as being, “We’re the fourth most accurate Bible translation out there, so it’s worth the small amount of money we want you to pay.” No one is doing that. Every Bible translator picks where they’re at on the continuum because they think that’s the best place to be accuracy wise. It’s a difference in philosophy. It’s not a difference in desire for accuracy. 

And second, you need to know that wherever a Bible translator chooses to be on that continuum of formal equivalent on one end, dynamic equivalent on the other end, they’re not always going to be consistent in where they’re at. I have a whole book that was written showing how in some places the NIV is more formal than the NASB and vice versa. So, they’re never going to be exactly true to their philosophy compared to other translations. But that’s okay. Bible translation is very, very difficult. So, delight in the riches that we have. 

Also, I guess one more thing, this would be the third thing, go to the front of your Bible and read what the Bible translators say their philosophy of translation is. Again, I’m not a translation basher, but I do want you to know what you have in front of you and use that knowledge to your advantage. 

Now, what would be qualities of a good translation, in my estimation? Well, first off, I think it should be based on the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Now I say best, and that’s going to raise a big question that is debated. Why is that? Because the King James Version is based on a manuscript family, or tradition, called the Textus Receptus or the Received Text. 

In 1516, the great Catholic humanist scholar Erasmus used four Greek manuscripts from the 12th century. He didn’t have the last six verses of the Book of Revelation. He had to take those six verses from the Vulgate, the Latin translation, and he put together a critical edition, if you will. Now, since that was very, very important for the Reformation, Martin Luther, for example, will say if Erasmus hadn’t done what he did, there would have been no Protestant Reformation. So having a good Greek text was of vital importance. Since then, since Erasmus, we have found at least 5,000 additional Greek manuscripts, some from at least a thousand years earlier than that. 

So, the question is, there’s largely two families of Greek manuscripts. One is the Textus Receptus, the other is referred to as just the Critical Text, which is a group of scholars have performed this critical analysis to decide amongst all the different manuscripts they have what is the best, most reliable Greek that we have. 

If you were to open up a Greek text in most published form, you would find a page where a lot of it would be Greek text, and down below is what we call the Apparatus, and that lists all the different variants. And it’s the job of these critical scholars to decide what belongs up above in the Greek text and what goes down below in “this is a variant.” 

The KJV is based on this Textus Receptus. NASB, ESV, NIV, CSB, fill in the blank here with whatever your favorite translation, probably coming from what I described as this Critical Text. There are not enormous differences between the two, but there are some and there’s at least one very significant difference in 1 John 5:6-8. I’m going to read the ESV version and then I’ll read the KJV to you. 

The ESV reads this way 1 John 5:6-8, 

“This is he who came by water and blood – Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is [recte the] truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.” 

If you were to open up a KJV, you would read this…same passage, 

“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For—” And then here’s the difference, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” 

You might notice there’s a really strong Trinitarian verse that’s in the KJV that’s not in the ESV, and I wish that that verse were in the Bible because if it were there, it would be the clearest Trinitarian verse in the entire Bible. The problem is, I don’t think it actually belongs. There are only four extant Greek manuscripts that have the inclusion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in verse seven. Three of those were written in the margins even; one of them comes from the 16th century. 

It’s also interesting to me that no one who argued for the Trinity in the second, third and fourth centuries ever cited 1 John 5:7, a book of the Bible that had strong acceptance at this time. No one went to 1 John 5:7 to support the doctrine of the Trinity. Why not? It seems pretty obvious. That would have been a good one to pull out in the Council of Nicaea when people were arguing with the Arians about the equality of the Father and the Son. But they didn’t. Why? Probably because it wasn’t actually there. That would be my guess. 

Also, John really doesn’t reference the Holy Spirit, although he has dozens of references to the Spirit. It seems to me a glaring failure. This is me bashing one translation, and I just told you earlier, I don’t really bash translations, but I do think a glaring failure of the NKJV is that the editors kept the Trinitarian reference in 1 John 5:7 when I think they knew it doesn’t actually belong there. It’s not really even in most of the Received Text manuscripts that we have. 

So, the question is, when it comes down to what’s the most accurate, right, the most accurate Greek manuscripts? Do you want the one where we have the most copies or do you want the one with the oldest copies? If you want most copies, then you would go with the Received Text. If you think oldest is more reliable, then you would go with that Critical Edition. And that would be the translations of basically everything that’s not King James. 

A good translation should be based on the latest knowledge of language and culture it seems to me. The Dead Sea Scrolls here were an enormous find. We gained invaluable insight into the cultural and religious life of the period during which many of the biblical manuscripts were written. That’s very, very helpful when it comes to translation theory. They’re also invaluable for establishing the semantic domain of biblical words. And we always want to be updating our translation based on good scholarship of what culture and language was like at the time that the Scriptures were written. 

Obviously, it goes without saying, hopefully, that a good translation should be accurate, but I’ll say it anyway. There are some versions of, say, John 21:2, where the Greek text literally says, ”And the ones of Zebedee,” no doubt referring to the sons of Zebedee, who are James and John. But there’s some translators who just translate it instead of “And the Sons of Zebedee,” they just say, “My brother James and I.” Well, but it doesn’t say “My brother James and I,” it says, “And the ones of Zebedee.” That’s a bit too interpretive it seems to me. 

Should be understandable. The Scripture doesn’t work like magic. We have to understand it. Our traditions, our translations, I’m sorry, must reflect the way language is used right now. And language does change over time. 

Look, if you will, at the NASB rendering of 2 Corinthians 10:13, 

“But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you.” 

I think that’s almost meaningless. It’s just really difficult to understand. Does it reflect Greek word order? Yeah, largely. It’s pretty minimal as well. And so, it has value. But if you’re just, if you’re reading devotionally, that’s a tough one. 

Now, understandable may not mean accurate and accurate may not always mean understandable. So how do you strike the balance there? 

Our translation should be contemporary. So, there should be no end to the making or updating of translations. Rapid changes in English require constant revision to our translations and words change. Make sure what they mean is what they mean today. That is, make sure the words you use in Bible translation are what the words actually mean today. 

You can think of obvious words that have changed meaning over time. I think in my own lifetime, the word ‘gay’ has—it has dramatically changed. It’s been said, I think this is true, if Shakespeare came back today, it’s estimated that he would recognize less than five out of every nine words spoken in English. That’s amazing, because who has had more influence over English than Shakespeare and probably the KJV of the Bible. Those are the standards of English for hundreds of years. 

Should be universal and there’s probably a place for narrow dialect translations. But generally speaking, I don’t think that Bible translation should be limited to a narrow dialect at all. 

This is just me, but I think Bible translation should be dignified. We shouldn’t blush as we read them. Now, the Bible is an earthy book and it doesn’t pull punches, but the Bible does or was written in a way that we can obey what we’re told to do, which is read the Bible to our kids. So shouldn’t use crude language for shock effect. I’ll just leave it at that. 

Should avoid theological bias. This is an accuracy thing as well. Roman Catholic theology would suggest and teach the perpetual virginity of Mary. But Matthew 1:25 is problematic there where it reads that Joseph “knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” The clear implication being that after she gave birth to a son that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage. Well, that’s inconvenient for the Roman Catholics. So, in the Jerusalem Bible, which is a Catholic translation, they just translate it. “Even though Joseph knew not Mary.” Period. And they leave out the “Until she had given birth to a son.” That feels like you’re cooking the books just a bit. Let’s avoid theological bias. Let’s have our theology be influenced by our Bible translations, not the other way around. 

So those are just some thoughts on Bible translation. If I were to tell you the story of Bible translations in my own life, it would run from KJV to…I remember getting my first NIV as a seventh grader and reading that, just being awed at how wonderful that translation was. I used the NIV up until I got to college. 

Joined the Navigators was told that, you know, we’re serious studiers of the Bible and the NASB is more accurate and better for Bible study. I believed it because that’s what I was told. So, I used the NASB for years after that. 

I went to Western Seminary where I took a class from a fellow named Earl Radmacher, who had been the chief editor on something called the Nelson Study Bible, which used the NKJ translation of the Bible. I didn’t know any better, it was a required text, and I just assumed that was the standard at Western Seminary. So, I bought it and used it. I never—it wasn’t until I had already bought copies of it that I realized that I can use whatever Bible translation I want and I’ll be taught Greek and Hebrew anyway there. But I used the NKJ for years. 

And then I went to seminary and did my doctoral work, and a lot of my professors were involved in the ESV translation. And so, then I started using that, and I really like the ESV. 

But now at our church right now, our pew Bible is the CSB. We made that decision because we couldn’t buy the NIV 1984 version anymore to replace the NIVs that we had. We decided to go with the CSB instead because we thought it was most like the NIV, and we preferred that over the NIV 2011. And it’s our core conviction that we preach out of whatever the pew Bible is. 

And so now I have a CSB, and that’s what I’ve been using a lot in this class, although there’s a lot of ESV sprinkled in there as well. 

If you were to ask me to quote like John 3:16 to you, I couldn’t do it in any one translation. It would be a hodgepodge of King James, NIV, NASB, and ESV. All that to say I’m not a translation basher. I probably came to Christ reading the NIV. I use the ESV for most of my scholarship, and now I use the CSB almost exclusively because of who I publish with (Broadman and Holman) and what our church uses. 

But delight in the many English translations. You have just to be aware of what you have in front of you.