Mene many mistranslations
“This is a list of translational errors that are found in the King James Version (KJV), a mediocre, even very sloppy, translation of
Scripture… Boy, are there a lot of them.” – Charlie Garrett [i]
“You couldn’t have translated ‘μεγαλειότητι’ any worse
than the NKJV (and Gary Hudson) did in Luke 9:43 if you tried. ‘Majesty’
is never connected with Christ’s humiliation state in thirty-two references.” –
Peter Ruckman [ii]
“The KJV certainly has some outright errors in translation.”
“There are other mistakes in the KJV which persist to this day, even though this translation has gone through several editions.”
“The KJV mistranslated ‘Easter’ in Acts 12:4.”
“‘Only begotten’ is a mistranslation.”
“‘Ekklesia’ has been mistranslated ‘church.’”
“[The NIV] is also one of the worst translations for anyone who is seriously interested in what the Bible says.”
A scholarly example
In one place Daniel B. Wallace wrote, “the KJV includes one
very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In
Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’” But the
Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’”
First, I deny that KJV advocates commonly admit this is an error. No doubt there are some who do, but not the KJV advocates with
whom I am familiar. Second, I dispute that “strain at” is a mistranslation of diulitzo (διυλιζοντες, to strain, filter). It is clear that the King James translators choose a translation distinct from most translators before and after them. If we
were to weigh translators and their Bibles, “strain out” would certainly be correct!
However, diulitzo is a hapax legomenon
(a word found only once in the New Testament). There is room to disagree on its
translation, plus there is disagreement over the usage of the two words “strain at.”
At and out are function words. “At” is a preposition indicating the goal of an
action or motion, whereas “out” is a preposition to indicate movement away from. Does diulitzo
suggest the act of straining or the result of straining? Intelligent translators and intelligent commentators have not found themselves bound by Wallace’s idea that this is a “very definite error.”
John Gill, in his commentary on Matthew (using “strain at”) writes:
“To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater.”
Note, in contrast, some writers have instead claimed this was a printer’s error. Contrary to that suggestion, we find the phrase “strain at a gnat” used by writers in England in this same time period. These are not all printer’s errors! No, it is a turn of phrase.
For example, one of the King James translators, George Abbot, who actually worked on the translation of the Gospel of Matthew, used it. (Abbot was a member of the Second Oxford Company, which translated the four Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.) In An Exposition Upon the Prophet Jonah, he wrote:
“This is a fault too common among the sons of men, to dread that which is little, and to pass by that which is more; to make a straining at a gnat, and to swallow up a whole camel.” (An Exposition Upon the Prophet Jonah, Lecture 12, London: Richard Field, 1613, p. 254)
Finally, the copy of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at the Bodleian Library used by the King James translators shows that the change from “out” to “at” was intentional, and apparently made in the General Meeting (if I read the notes of Ward & Allen properly. See The Coming of the King James Gospels: a Collation of the Translators’ Work-in-Progress, Ward S. Allen and Edward C. Jacobs, Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press, 1995, p. 150).
Both the meaning of the Greek word diulitzo and the English usage of “strain at” should give naysayers pause. Whether you think “strain at” or “strain out” best, “strain at” is neither a mistranslation nor a printer’s error.
Just stop
To begin to end, let me say that I believe there can
be and are mistranslations.[iii] However, I apparently
define a mistranslation more narrowly than many popular writers and scholars
(some, falsely so-called). A mistranslation is a mistake in translating, an
incorrect translation from the source language into the target language – the
use of a word or words in the target language that the original language will
not bear. Therefore, for example, the Greek ekklesia
(a called-out assembly) can be translated “church” in English, for the English
word carries that meaning. One can argue that congregation is also an accurate
translation, or that it is a better translation since it does not have as many
varying meanings, or even that the King James translators only chose church because
of the translation rules they were given. Notwithstanding, if one is both
knowledgeable and honest, he cannot (will not?) argue that “church” is a
mistranslation of ekklesia.[iv]
Obviously, for many people “mistranslation” is
shorthand for “I do not like that translation.” The dislike of a word choice
does not automatically create a mistranslation.
Here I revise a specific statement by translator Bill Mounce to a general statement:
“The only way you could show a deliberate mistranslation is to find a passage where there simply is no debate on the meaning of the passage, especially as reflected by the different translations, and then show the translators taking an interpretive position that the original language could not bear.”
Many things claimed to be mistranslations are rather different translation choices. Throwing that down as a gauntlet may make us sound intelligent, and even impress our peers. Unfortunately, this often seems to be the well-played means of winning an argument. It is a “show stopper” to those who have no answer. Both sides would do well to modify their usage of “mistranslation” in place of “I don’t like it.” Rise to a higher plane. Just stop.
[ii] Most students of Bible version debates know of Peter S. Ruckman. As to his education, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Alabama, and then the Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees at Bob Jones University (all accredited institutions).
[iii] There are also paraphrases, which are sort of translations (more of general ideas rather than words). For example, see the Good News Translation of 1 Timothy 5:10 . It has “performed humble duties” instead of “washed the saints’ feet.” The Greek clearly has wash (ενιψεν) and saints (αγιων) and feet (ποδας). The GNT substitutes their interpretation of the meaning of the verse rather than translating it.
[iv] I find a bit of humor in certain Baptist acquaintances who grind on about “baptize” and “church” being mistranslated, who boldly (or blindly) continue to name or call their churches “Baptist Church.” Concerning honesty, I knew a teacher who put verses from the UBS-3 on the overhead projector, translated them, and then would show where the KJV mistranslated those verses. He had to know better (that the King James translators were not using the United Bible Society’s Greek text), but at least some of his hearers did not. Apparently, he must have justified this deceitful practice because he believed the UBS-3 represented the original and that the KJV translators “mistranslated” because they were not translating from a text that represented the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment