Moore College professor George Athas writes:

A friend of mine who pastors a congregation told me of a young man in his church who was heading off to study at a theological college. This young man approached my friend for advice on making a choice: should he study Greek when he got to college, or should he study Hebrew? My friend’s response was legendary: “Well,” he said, “when you finish college and get up into your pulpit, do you want to be wearing only your shirt, or only your pants?” Since not many of us should presume to be teachers, we should do our best to make sure that our teachers are as well equipped as possible. Hebrew is just one of the tools of the trade.

And again:

Our teachers in our churches, our theologians and Christian scholars, our Bible translators and missionaries, will inspire more confidence when they’ve done the hard yards of understanding the biblical texts — the authoritative Word of God — in the original languages. It’s not a guarantee to good teaching or sound theology, but it certainly is a good step in the right direction. It’s the responsible act of going back to the sources.

May God grant us perseverance in biblical language study.

I now want to offer some reflections on the conference from the perspective of one who is relatively new to the field and new to the discussions the field is having. You can grab PDFs of pre-conference paper drafts, bibliographies and abstracts in this public folder. Go quickly, I don’t know how long it’ll last.

Formal vs. functional

The discussion between formal and functional equivalence is one that professional Bible translators are still very interested in having. It’s not clear, however, whether the issue arises with actual, genuine consideration in mind or merely to serve as an opportunity to reinforce/promote one’s own thinking on the matter. There does seem to exist a certain dismissive attitude toward formal equivalence to the extent that one presenter went so far (in my mind at least) to equate formal equivalence with bibliolatry. Such uncharitable equations are neither helpful nor further the discussion.

Coming from a biblical studies and theological background, I have observed a tendency for those focused mainly on biblical studies and theology to lean toward formal equivalence while those with (minority language) translation field experience to strongly favor dynamic equivalence or what’s increasingly termed “meaning-based translation” (more on that). This bifurcation leaves two possibilities in my mind: (1) biblical studies is lagging way behind translation studies in adoption of dynamic equivalency or (2) a synthesis is in order. I find the latter option most likely.

“Meaning-based translation”

Increasingly, “meaning-based translation” is the phrase used to describe the Bible translation philosophy employed by many within Wycliffe and its partner organizations. I admit my ignorance of the genesis of the term, but I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t a strategic adoption which in a way sidesteps the formal vs. functional discussion. Does “meaning-based translation” proffer a tertium quid in name only? Is it implying that formal equivalency isn’t meaningful?

One presenter wisely noted that we must be careful in touting notions of accuracy, faithfulness, and meaningfulness as there are different degrees and different arenas of each. For example, in translating an idiom word-for-word a translator has captured the individual lexical meaning but missed the phrase-level meaning (the idiom). Is such a translation “accurate”? In a way…but we must be more specific: more accurate in what way?

The same presenter referenced the prefaces to both the ESV and the NLT wherein each make claims of accuracy. “Who’s right?” she quipped. “I think they both are, but in different ways.”

Age difference

The overwhelming majority of conference attendees were age 50+ white males, matching the description of a missionary linguist as “an ugly farmer.” I fully expected more GIAL students to be in attendance as the conference was hosted by the school, offered at a deep discount and right on campus. It would be wonderful to see more student interaction in the future.

Inbreeding

My feeling is that the Bible Translation Conference was not well-advertised (which isn’t to say it wasn’t well-attended. I think I heard that there were almost 200 attendees). There should have been ads in scholarly journals, ads on biblical studies blogs, and invitations sent to colleges and seminaries. My feeling is that there wasn’t any of this. If a conference is going to be truly challenging and beneficial, there must be a diverse mixture of interested attendees. Simply meeting with one’s work colleagues to confirm already established opinions isn’t a academic pursuit, it’s inbreeding. In the future, the conference would be greatly enriched by the presence of professionals and students from the fields of biblical studies, theology and non-SIL linguistics.

Lack of training in biblical studies and theology

The conference confirmed in part my desire to see a greater degree of training in biblical studies and theology for Bible translators. One attendee who works in OT translation projects was, as far as I could tell, unaware of textual criticism. Additionally, of the papers I listened to, only one explored the theological dimension of Bible translation and even that was somewhat in passing. There is much gold to be mined here and Bible translation will be greatly enriched when translators grow proportionally as theologians and linguists.

Challenge to stay current

A major challenge facing the above reflection about a need for greater training in biblical studies and theology is how exactly can translators working in remote locations stay abreast of current trends in those fields? This challenge matters because good translations depend on translators being well-informed. For example, one presenter explored the meaning of kataluma in Luke 2:7, Jesus’ birth narrative. Kataluma has traditionally been understood as “inn” while current scholarship (within at least the last 10 years) has found evidence suggesting that kataluma is better understood as “guest room.” (Read more about that here.) To my surprise the presenter was met with a great degree of incredulity in the question and answer time. Being familiar with the discussion before the presentation, the new scholarship was a closed-case for me. Others, however, weren’t ready to trade tradition for “scholarly conjecture.” The presenter was met with appreciation by one lady one said she had just recently been working through the translation of kataluma in her project and they were having trouble coming up with a good word for “inn.”

Fortunately, digital technology is making it easier to stay informed through blogs, ebooks, and mp3 and video lectures, if translators want to and make the time.

Funding will always be an issue

Bible translation is an expensive endeavor. May God provide!

When he claims “all agree,” Strauss is “referring to Carson, Poythress, Grudem, and myself, though in most cases I believe it would include others who have written on this topic (including Grant Osborne, John Kohlenberger, Andreas Köstenberger, Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg, Jon Weatherly, and others).”² “P&G” is shorthand for Poythress and Grudem.

1. All agree that gender-accurate (gender-inclusive, gender-neutral) translation is a good thing, when the use of such language accurately represents the meaning of the original text. In many cases the use of an inclusive term improves the accuracy of the translation. An example of this is the translation “person” in contexts where Greek anthropos is used generically to refer to either a man or a woman. Romans 3:28 (TNIV, italics added) accurately reads, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law.”
2. All agree that care should be taken not to use inclusive language when the original author intended a gender-specific sense. The (biological) gender distinctions of the original text should be respected.
3. All agree that translations should seek not to obscure cultural features, including patriarchal ones, that were part of the original meaning of the text.
4. All agree that gender-specific terms should be used with reference to historical persons when males or females are specified in illustrative material, and in parables where characters are male or female.
5. As a possible qualifier to the previous point, all agree that words should be translated according to their sense in context, not according to extraneous features associated with their referents. For example, an author may use anthropos in the sense of “human being,” even though the person referred to happens to be a male. James 5:17 is accurately translated “Elijah was a human being [anthropos] just like we are,” because anthropos in this context means “human being,” not “male human being” (the “we” is surely inclusive). Though Elijah was a male, this characteristic is extraneous to the sense of anthropm os in context (cf. Acts 10:26; John 10:33; 1 Tim 2:5).
6. All agree that there is nothing inherently immoral or evil in masculine generic terms. The goal of translation should not be to abolish male references but to determine which English words and phrases most accurately and clearly reproduce the meaning of the original text.
7. All agree that grammatical gender is different than natural or biological gender (sex). It is therefore incorrect to demand the reproduction of grammatical gender across languages with different gender systems.
8. All agree that Greek anthropos is accurately translated “person” or “human being” when the author intended to refer to either a man or a woman.
9. All agree that Greek anthropoi is accurately translated with inclusive terms like “people” or “human beings” when the author intended to include both men and women.
10. All agree that Hebrew ,îsh sometimes has an inclusive sense, and in these cases it is accurately translated with expressions such as “each one” or “each person.”
11. All agree that adelphoi is accurately translated “brothers and sisters” when the referents include both males and females
12. All agree that Hebrew banmîm is accurately translated “children” when the referents include both males and females. While most would say the same about Greek huioi, P&G affirm this only reluctantly and with qualifications.
13. All agree that Greek pateres may be translated “parents” instead of “fathers” when the referents include both males and females.
14. Do Greek pateres and Hebrew ,abmôt ever mean “ancestors”? Most commentators would say yes. P&G seem to agree with this in principle, but they reject this translation in practice and do not discuss passages where both males and females are in view (e.g., 1 Sam 12:6; Heb 3:9).
15. All agree that the translation “man” for the human race is one of the most difficult issues in gender-related translation and that there are no easy answers. Neither English “man” nor terms like “humanity” or “humankind” can capture all of the wordplays present in the Hebrew admamm. Whichever translation is used, footnotes are appropriate to explain the wordplays of the original text.
16. Similarly, all agree that the translation “son of man” for Hebrew ben admamm and Greek huios tou anthropmou is another difficult issue without easy answers. While these phrases usually mean “human being,” this translation may obscure messianic references in some contexts. Again, explanatory footnotes are sometimes necessary. A number of other agreements could be added to this list, but these are sufficient to demonstrate common presuppositions and philosophical perspectives.

Do you agree?

In the end, I decided on and ordered a UBS Reader’s Greek New Testament (one without textual notes as I already have a UBS GNT, but without dictionary), a Hebrew Bible Insert (a concise syntactical guide to keep with your Hebrew Bible), a Greek New Testament Insert and a volume edited by Dr. Dave Black called Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Why the last book? Well, while I’m familiar with discourse analysis, this passing comment on Dr. Black’s blog really convicted me:

5:54 PM Got the parts but now lack the proper wrenches. Can’t do the work without the right tools. It’s like trying to interpret a Greek letter without knowing anything about discourse analysis.

Who knew plumbing could be a means of sanctification!?

As you may be able to tell the books I chose reflect a investment for the long-run rather than temporary thrills. With slimming down my library I’ve had to make a lot of choices concerning books and which ones I’ll keep. My new aim is to hang onto and acquire those book which will most likely benefit those whom I am preparing to serve through work with Wycliffe as a Bible translator.

I see it this way: I am one to whom much has been given (e.g., the gospel!); therefore I must give much away. I’m not just talking about books but even more so education. I went to seminary to give it all away. I study linguistics to give it all away in the form of Bible translation. And look at this blessing of a $50 gift certificate. (Thank you, WTS Books!) I can only use that to give more away.

Or, did you say pros-koon-glottal stop-o?

You know the glottal stop. It’s what you do when you say the word “button” in normal speech, if you’re American anyways. Also, the glottal stop is infamously employed by Cockney speakers (cf. Ricky Gervais). There’s nothing wrong with the glottal stop. I’m not saying there is, but I don’t think it belongs in an anglophone’s pronunciation of Greek verbs, or any ‘phones pronunciation for that matter.

So please stop glottal stopping. And perhaps go with the open-mid front unrounded vowel instead.

Note, I’m not being a prescriptivist; a prescriptivist would say, “Don’t say…” I’m only kindly requesting you don’t. =)

“Leon Morris points out that ‘verbs ending in [-oo] and referring to moral qualities have a declarative sense; they do not mean “to make __.”‘”³ Therefore Reymond willingly concedes that justification is “an objective forensic judgment.”⁴

Where’s Room for Imputation?

How then can definitions of justification contain “make” language as one finds in definitions that include imputation of Christ’s righteousness? Consider how Reymond characterizes justification (emphasis original; red text mine):

“[J]ustification refers to God’s wholly objective, wholly forensic judgment concerning the sinner’s standing before the law, by which forensic judgment God declares that the sinner is righteous in his sight because of the imputation of his sin to Christ, on which ground he is pardoned, and the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to him, on which ground he is constituted righteous before God.”⁵

“Constituted righteous”? Here constitutive, or “make” language as I’ll call it, creeps in, subsumed under declaration justification. Reymond’s next sentences are helpful for further elucidating this point (emphasis original; red text mine):

“In other words, ‘for the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly’ (Rom. 4:5), God pardons him of all his sins (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:6-7) and constitutes him righteous by imputing or reckoning the righteousness of Christ to him (Rom. 5:1, 19; 2 Cor. 5:21). And on the basis of his constituting the ungodly man righteous by his act of imputation, God simultaneously declares the ungodly man to be righteous in his sight.”⁶

Here Reymond is clearly defining justification as containing a declarative action and a constitutive action when on the very next page he will approvingly cite Leon Morris’ conclusion that dikaioo and verbs like it “have a declarative sense [and] they do not mean ‘to make’.”

Where’s room for the constitutive language of imputation on this understanding of dikaioo?

Imputation in Rome

If when in Rome one is does as the Romans, imputation is in Rome because it is doing as the Romans.

Reymond repeatedly writes that “justification is an objective forensic judgment, as opposed to a subjective transformation” and backs it up with Deut. 25:1, Job 32:2, Proverbs 17:15, and Luke 7:29.⁷ He’s attempting to distance the Reformed position as far as possible from “Rome’s tragically defective representation.”⁸

But how is imputation not also “subjective” as Reymond classifies the Roman Catholic understanding of justification which holds to infused righteousness? Imputed and infused are both “subjective,” a understanding that goes against Morris’ definition of dikaioo.

Wright on Dikaioo

Augustine interpreted “justify” as “make righteous.” “That always meant, for Augustine and his followers, that God, in justification, was actually transforming the character of the person. . . .”⁹

Let me just let Wright continue in his own style and words with what he’s saying (emphasis original):

“The result was a subtle but crucial shifting of metaphors: the lawcourt scene is now replaced with a medical one, a kind of remedial spiritual surgery, involving a ‘righteousness implant’ which, like an artificial heart, begins to enable the patient to do things previously impossible.

“But part of Paul’s own language, rightly stressed by those who have analyzed the verb dikaioo, “to justify,” is that it does not denote an action which transforms someone so much as a declaration which grants them a status. It is the status of the person which is transformed by the action of ‘justification,’ not the character. It is in this sense that ‘justification’ ‘makes’ someone ‘righteous,’ just as the officiant at a wedding serve be said to ‘make’ the couple husband and wife . . . .”¹⁰

In other words, Wright is reiterating the point that justification with a right understanding of dikaioo describes a verdict rather surgery. Imputation like infusion both seem to be surgery.

Feedback

Am I missing something?

photo credit: lambdachialpha

photo credit: Lawrence OP

Sing for Joy

Every Sunday morning the pretentiously titled local classical station–The Classical Station–airs several syndicated programs featuring sacred music. One of those is Sing for Joy, a production of Minnesota’s St. Olaf College. Every week the College Pastor presents choral music selected to coincide with the readings from the revised common lectionary. The result is a beautiful production that is well worth your listen, especially if you come from a non-liturgical tradition such as I. I’ve found that keeping up with the common lectionary vocally enhanced by world-class choirs is a delightful way to connect with the Church universal. Sing for Joy presents that certain bountiful depth of sacred music that is too often forgotten. My only disappointment is that the broadcasts, as far as I can tell, are not available via podcast. There is, however, a vast streaming archive available on their site of current and past episodes. You can listen wherever you are no matter the day of the week. Check it out.

Lectionary at Lunch

I discovered this second gem on iTunesU. Concordia Seminary St. Louis hosts an enviable Lectionary at Lunch group every Wednesday that is led by a professor who reads through the OT and NT lessons in Hebrew and Greek, translates them and discusses particular points of interest. The podcast of the group is available free of charge and is well worth your listen, especially if you’re interested in exegesis, translation and original language study. I can’t tell you how beneficial this is to listen to. Check it out.

John Calvin

• By the age of twelve he was a bishop’s clerk. I was just a jerk.
• Soon after, he started college and began taking Latin from one of the greatest teachers of the language. I waited until my senior year of high school to take Latin I. I started college at eighteen.
• By age twenty he had been to two or three different universities and knew Greek. OK, so we’re about even on this point though I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to say I know Greek.
• At twenty-three his commentary on Seneca was published. Only things I’ve ever published are right here through WordPress.
• At twenty-four some thought him a heretic for being aligned with reformation-esque sentiment. He fled. Though I try to punk people out in a Reformation spirit, nobody listens and I needn’t flee.

John Gill

• By age ten he had read through the entire Greek New Testament and began teaching himself Hebrew.
• Mastered Latin classics by age eleven. At age eleven, I mastered my BB gun.
• Before his teens, local clergy would stop by and find out what little Johnny thought. Sunday School teachers told my parents what a brat I was.
• He was the first Baptist to develop a complete systematic theology and a verse-by-verse commentary on the whole Bible. I was probably the first toddler to poop on a church sidewalk.
• He was called Dr. Voluminous. Me? Not even a doctor.
• There was a saying in his day “As sure as John Gill is in the bookseller’s shop.” A saying based on me might be, “As sure as Drew is on his laptop.”

Jonathan Edwards

• At eleven he wrote a remarkable essay on spiders. By eleven, I had barely even killed one.
• Started at Yale not even thirteen years-old. Me: Marshall University, age eighteen.
• At twenty, he pastored a church in New York. At twenty, I hadn’t even been to New York, let alone a pastor.
• Around the age of twenty-three he wrote his rigorous and convicting Resolutions. I’m a slacker now twenty-four.

I Am What I Am

What do I take solace in on my birthday knowing that these Johns before me have accomplished way more than I by my age? Djing. Playing records on turntables. Nay!

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:10,

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

Twenty-four down? Twenty-four down. Let’s keep moving, working harder by God’s grace that is with us.

For example, where Zhubert once provided a portal for the study of the GNT it now reads:

It has come to my attention that the MorphGNT team has had to pull their text offline at the request of the German Bible Society, so this site is offline as well. As their database was the heart of the window-dressing we provided here, there’s not much to show without it.

Others projects like Open Scriptures, an open source project in the works to carry on the baton of Zhubert, is running into similar copyright infringement problems as it utilizes the same MorphGNT database which is in question. Why MorphGNT is still available I’m not sure. The MorphGNT web site says it will be back soon; but I wonder if “soon” isn’t an overly-optimistic word choice. I would hope all efforts are being made to bring projects involving the GSB’s copyrighted text into full compliance.

German Bible Society

When the pioneer of Open Scriptures emailed the GBS concerning the use of their text in his open source project, he received this reply:

The German Bible Society is a not-for-profit religious foundation. Its
mission, in collaboration with other members of the United Bible Societies,
is to promote biblical research and worldwide Bible translation work in
order to make the Bible available to everybody in their own language.

Biblical research and translation work costs a lot of money. Therefore,
according to the standing rules of our foundation, we have to earn money
with our texts to enable further Bible translations worldwide.

Please understand that as a matter of principle we don’t license the NA27
or the UBS4 Bible text for open source projects.

Regarding the “MorphGNT with UBS4″ on the Open Scriptures website: This is
again a copyright infringement as the basis of the text is the UBS4. We ask
you to remove this text from your website, too, as we are the copyright
holder of the UBS4.

The GBS is not to be blamed for bringing or slowing these projects down. Their principles are sound and understandable and should be respected by those looking to forward any Scripture project. At the same time, it can be desired that an agreement be reached in which all parties benefit from their labors and are equipped to continue with their projects. I know I’m not the only one hoping for such a cooperative, Scripture-propagating outcome.

Watch the “Licensing and the German Bible Society” thread on the Open Scripture forum for updates.

Alternative: E-sword

While online projects work to reach an agreement with the GBS, those interested in GNT studies can make use of the exceptional freeware E-sword which utilizes public domain texts not in danger of copyright infringement. E-sword offers six GNT Bibles free for download: the Majority Text, Scrivener Textus Receptus, Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament (w/ Strong’s), Textus Receptus Greek New Testament (w/ Strong’s), Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament (w/ Strong’s), and Greek New Testament (w/ Variants). Though these are obviously not the UBS4/NA27 text, they are very good, helpful and important for original language study. Don’t overlook ‘em!

A Word about the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine GNT

Of the above six versions of the GNT freely available, the most salient, in my opinion, is the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament. Here is a life’s work carried on by a professor at my seminary (SEBTS), Maurice Robinson, who believes that the Word of God should not be copyrighted nor sold for profit. It is the Word of God and for all. Praise God for such labors of love!

The Bottom Line

Don’t get rid of your red UBS4!