Doug Moo on translation - compiled

QTC has had the pleasure of hosting New Testament scholar Douglas Moo over the last few days. While probably not the most fruitful of his lectures to have live-blogged, I did take some notes from the exclusive ACT lecture that he did today on his experiences as a member and now head of the NIV translation committee.

You can find them, in order, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

And for those visual learners, here's a snap of Doug with QTC's professional fanboi, Joseph Wee.

Questions for Moo

Wez: Why are there less conjunctions in English NIV than in the Greek?

Doug: They use more conjunctions in Greek than in English, we take into account what it adds to meaning and then put that into the way we translate it.


Ian: Do you take a particular perspective on tense/aspect in Greek, which is the basis of the language? (Or in Hebrew?)

Doug: No particular stance. Waltke is on the committee, so his stances do have a significant bearing on how we see Hebrew things.


Kutz: Any bits where you didn't get your way?

Doug: Any bit that you don't like, that's a vote I lost.


Kutz: Do you kick the Hebrew guys out of the room when translating the NT bits?

Doug: No, we work together as a single committee for everything. No sub-committees or separate work. This is actually really valuable as most of the time is spent on working out not so much what the original language means, but on how to render it in English.


Q: Do you employ an English stylist?

Doug: No. The NIV committee doesn't. The NLT committee did. Not always to the satisfaction of the NIV committee.


Doug: A totally new study Bible is coming, with Carson as the editor.


Jeremy: How is it decided who is on the committee?

Doug: A brief doctrinal statement, similar to NA evangelical association one. Have to sign up to that, have to be an expert in Greek or Hebrew, but after that it's the committee's choice as to who to invite. Try to keep a variety of English spoken, nationality, experts on different parts of Scripture, culture, etc.

Translation: things Doug Moo has learned #6

To be wary of 'Biblisch'.

"Daughter of Zion" but Zion IS the daughter. "Daughter Zion"

"Blessed is the one... who does not stand in the way of sinners" ("ie, the way sinners do things, not standing in front of them to block them")

• ESV - "Understandable English"
• NIV - "Natural English"
• NLT - "Easy English"

Metaphors

Live vs. Dead metaphors. Do you continue to use the metaphor, or do you substitute the word for the idea.

Examples:

• "Cut off" meaning "destroy"
• "walk" meaning "live," "direct one's life"
• "sleep" meaning "die" (Not enough evidence that this is a dead metaphor. So using 'sleep 'in death' may help.)

The difficulty of the varieties of English used today

This gives some license for the translator to use different expressions to translate the same underlying word.

Wez: But surely you should try to preserve the same rendering for a word within the same author?

Doug: Well, not so much just within the one author, but where we think the author is trying to make a link between the two usages.

Gender: Third Person Singular Generics

A problem not of understanding the Greek, but of understanding the English that you're translating into.

ESV keeps third-singular forms

Luke 9:23 - "And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross..." (over 'literal' assumptions?)

NLT moves to second-person forms

"Then he said to the crowd, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must ..." (but what do you lose here?)

CEB uses plurals

"All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross ..."

NIV often uses the so-called 'singular' they

"Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross ..."

But, is that correct English?

NIV commissioned a study by the Collins Dictionaries, who own the Bank of English. (4.4 billion words)

Problem, then, is the different 'idiolects' that you find all over the world. What English are you translating into?

The database primarily filled the blank in "Every citizen was sent a ballot so that ____ could vote" with "they". This then is used as a snapshot of spoken English around the world. So the question is whether the lack of masculine focus in the original that would be present in the English by using 'his' is actually helpful.

Translation: things Doug Moo has learned #3

Syntax and 'literal' translation

Col. 2:11 "te peritome tou xristou"

Circumcised 'of' Christ, or circumcised 'by' Christ?

Some seem to think that 'of' is the literal rendering of a Greek genitive. This isn't true. There is no 'literal' or default rendering of a genitive, simply a number of options.

A principle of Metzger
"As literal as possible, as free as necessary"

But this leaves questions, says Moo. Particularly, "as necessary" to accomplish what?

In practise: Colossians 4:5

Form, but no concern for meaning
In wisdom walk toward the outside the time buying up

Form over Meaning
Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the beset use of the time. (ESV)

Form and Meaning (NIV :P) (Doug is head of NIV translation committee)
Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity

Meaning, but less concern for form (NLT)
Live wisely among those who are not believers, and make the most of every opportunity.

Moo's point: All of these texts have made translation choices. None could be rightly called literal.

Things Doug Moo has learned #2

To detest the word "literal".

How most people think translation works:

You apply a code that translates each word from its Greek or Hebrew original to its English equivalent.

Ie, a greek word that menas "X" = English word

How translation really works:

There is no single, default 'meaning' of a word. Instead, words have a semantic domain. A semantic range. A word's meaning within its semantic range is determined by its context.

There may not actually be an English word that is equivalent or even has a similar semantic range.

An Illustration: the Greek word sarx

One possible translation option -> "a person"
Another translation option -> "sinful nature" (NIV 1984 & NLT) or "flesh" (NIV 2010)

There is no translation that seeks to always use the same word to translate sarx. To do so would be to betray the meaning of the Greek.

How you translate the word 'bit' into another language would depend greatly upon whether you were talking about horses or computers.

We should ban all talk such as "this word literally means..."

In whose judgement

There is an interesting ambiguity in Paul's grammar in Romans 3:4. The NIV reads:

Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

While the quote reads a little differently in the ESV:

"That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged."

The change of the final word makes us ask: "Is God judging, or being judged?". We'll go into the fascinating use of Psalm 51 in this chapter tomorrow, but for today it will suffice to ask the question, "in whose judgement?".

Why did the different translations choose to make the meaning of the words different?

The answer is that in Greek the phrase is ambiguous. The words are:

kai nikeseis en tw krinesthai se

Or, word for word translated,

and be victorious in the judging you

So is the phrase objective or subjective? Is it 'in your judging' with God doing the judging of with God being judged?

The implications of the decisions are interesting (though not completely earth-shattering). The change from the NIV to the ESV brings the verse to mean that when God stands trial his testimony will always be found true, and the verdict will always display him victorious. In any proceedings. The implications of this are vast, especially given our propensity not to trust God. There is no situation we find ourselves in in which God's words and actions will not be shown to be right.

With context being the basis for the decision as to which we should go with, we've got plenty to help us think through the answer, especially given that it's an OT quote. But that's for tomorrow...

Anything you ask for...

Now, perhaps like many of you, I've heard a lot of defences for why "ask for anything and you'll get it" doesn't mean "ask for anything and you'll get it". Perhaps, like me, you've always thought that they sounded weak as a skinny white guy drinking diet-caffeine-free coke on a weekday.

Especially that whole smug "Well, what does 'in my name' mean then, hey?" comment. Pffft....

Well, today I was priveleged to have a crack at translating John 15, and get a bit of an insight into what is going on under the hood. It comes up a couple of times, but in particular vv16-17 are one which seem different in Greek than in English.

ESV:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
(Joh 15:16-17)

Now this is a good translation, I'm not complaining about it. What I had missed previously was 2 things.

1: The links between the sentences: the 'that's and the 'so that's.
2: That everything in the sentence after the first 'should' is in what is called the subjunctive mood. That means, it's a more hypothetical way of speaking. This is what the 'should' is trying to achieve.

Putting these together, you could outline the verse like so:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and have placed you
- so that
- - - - you might go
- - - - and you might bear fruit
- - - - and your fruit might remain
- so that
- - - - whatever you might ask the father in my name
- - - - he might give to you

When placed in this context, and so understood as a purpose statement (ie, it is the goal of the choosing, not a universal promise) it starts to look a little different to my eyes.

However, I don't think this gets completely gets Jesus off the hook for me not being in Spain playing professional roller hockey. More to come tomorrow. (some hints in the bolding)

What did a faithful Israelite believe?

My favourite 2-hour period of the week is the 2 hours on a Tuesday when I translate a chapter or so of John's gospel. Not least because it means I feel good about my ability to translate when it's really because John is the easiest thing in the world to translate!

Now, on to another cool discovery.

John 5:46(ESV)
For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.

However, the word 'believe' is both times in the imperfect tense. (ἐπιστεύετε) This means it is talking about a continuous action that happened in the past. The following translation would bring this out more:

For if you were believing Moses, then you were believing in me.

I reckon this is a fascinating little saying of Jesus. Is he essentially saying here that a faithful Israelite who was trusting in the testimony of the OT that pointed to Christ was in effect trusting in Him?

Very cool.

How does God give the Spirit?

To be honest, I'm not quite sure. But I do know how he doesn't give Him to us.

My translation of John 3:34 (which, some Greek scholar can correct me on later) I think is actually more encouraging than the standard:

"For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. "

I think a more literal rendering for the final phrase would be:

"for he does not give the Spirit with a measuring cup."

I really like that. It's not all gushy about how generous God is, it's a beautifully negative statement about God not using a measuring cup when he liberally pours out the Spirit. I like that image. No stingy shop owner making sure he doesn't give too much away, no finicky worrying about putting too much flour in a cake.

God just pours.