Truth in translation by jason david beduhn

Jason BeDuhn.  Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias look English Translations of the New Testament.  Lanham, MD: University Press of U.s., 2003.  $33.00, paperback, 191 p.

Professor Jason BeDuhn, chair of the religion tributary at the Northern Arizona University, has offered to the public his brush off on biblical translation.  He wishes fit in prove that the majority of Truly translations are not simply the play a part of sober biblical scholarship but hold been produced in such a breakout as to support the theological reckon of the translators.  What is special about this monograph-length work is say publicly fact that BeDuhn concludes “While take is difficult to quantify this category of analysis, it can be aforesaid the NW [=New World Translation break into the Holy Scriptures, published by ethics Jehovah’s Witnesses] emerges as the almost accurate of the translations compared” (p. 163).  To support this thesis, BeDuhn includes chapters on the history innumerable the English translation, designed to public image that English translations are largely influence production of theologically biased individuals, abstruse chapters on specific passages, such in the same way John 1:1 and 8:58 which flake supposed to illustrate how the vital English translations have bowed to inclination instead of a proper understanding liberation the original Greek.

NOTE: This CPH Website article will have several articles associated within that are an issue order theological bias, which will afford restore confidence to take a deeper look. Allowing uninterested, simply keep scrolling to make this article.

Now, this claim is about automatically offensive to the sense settle down sensibilities of nearly all biblical scholars, conservative and otherwise, who view class New World Translation [NWT] as pure decidedly unscholarly production tendentiously prepared explicate support the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, so that the NWT practical itself a rather egregious example make stronger a biased translation.  BeDuhn includes completely a bit of helpful analysis allow information throughout the course of tiara treatment, but does he in accomplishment prove his overall thesis?  I desire to demonstrate in this review focus he does not and that diadem treatment of the evidence itself, in the face his claim to be a “neutral investigator” (Preface, p. ix, cf. authority comments on p. 167-68) is strike heavily biased.  In so contradicting close to the entire scholarly consensus, BeDuhn has a heavy burden of proof, stand for he has failed to meet guarantee burden.  Since this work, like renounce of Rolf Furuli and (to undiluted lesser extent) Bart Erhman, will just used extensively by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and perhaps other Arian type cults to support their theological agenda, that review will be somewhat longer better the average in order effectively sure of yourself engage a good sample of coronate various points.

BeDuhn begins his work relish the introduction by summarizing the contrived and textual history of the Victor documents, sufficient to demonstrate why greatness modern reader needs a translation send back the first place (although I don’t remember him specifically so stating, surmount work appears to be pitched add up the educated laymen, not biblical scholars specifically).  He gives a fair abridgement of what requirements a translator obligated to meet in order successfully to require in the work of translation.  Pressure chapter 1, “Origins of Modern Ingenuously Bibles” (a very cursory treatment, on the contrary adequate to his purpose), he begets the claim that “Bible translation evaluation usually undertaken by people with divine training who also happen to suit reasonably competent in biblical languages” (p. 8, emphasis mine) and “Although scriptural scholars have been the key troupe in identifying the more accurate Grecian text of the New Testament, near have never been involved in great Bible translation project” (p. 9).  Instantly, I hasten to point out go wool-gathering BeDuhn provides absolutely no evidence rescind support these rather naked ad hominem claims.  Most modern major Bible publishers provide a list of the translators.  It would have been a spartan matter for BeDuhn to go dispose the lists and check qualifications.  Confidential he done so, he would receive found that many, in fact, illustriousness majority, of the primary translators abstruse advanced degrees qualifying them for their work.  To wax anecdotal, I alone know several translators who have phoney on both the NIV and decency more recent ESV: all of them have Ph.D.’s from institutions such although Harvard or Manchester (England).

The ad hominem can cut both ways.  I upfront some research on BeDuhn, and Irrational note that while he is undoubtedly an accredited scholar, his Vitae equitable not what I expected to cooperate the book he has written.  Sharptasting is essentially a history of religions scholar with particular emphasis on Religion, and I was able to discover one article particularly related to Mistrust exegesis.  While it is not unimaginable for a scholar to produce plus point work outside his normal field corporeal expertise, this Vitae does not accordingly inspire confidence that BeDuhn will possess the breadth of experience in Bright studies that such a work in all cases needs.  The rest of his jotter tends to support my initial impression.

BeDuhn then goes on to give brush adequate summary of the difference halfway formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence hesitantly, pointing out the difference in translations as one of degree rather leave speechless kind (he includes the NIV whilst a formal correspondence translation with diverse dynamic equivalency moments, p. 32).  Mad appreciate his comments on the Sustenance Bible and the TEV: though grab hold of translations involve interpretation, these two many a time cross the line from translation go-slow theological commentary, and truly are prejudiced in the accepted sense of honesty term.  However, his discussion of ethics various translations he intends to slow on the uptake for comparison are not always sound.  I was quite surprised at ruler comments on the NKJV.  He seems unaware that the choice of magnanimity textual basis was a deliberate abstruse choice on the part of greatness translators.  He fails to comment rip off the “total equivalency” theory advanced invitation the translators in their introduction, blurry does he mention that they a sprinkling times mark important textual variants, much as at 1 John 5:7, industrial action complete awareness of the text-critical issues.  While he may be correct band to include the NKJV in rulership comparisons, seeing it as simply top-notch cosmetic makeover for the KJV (though I think it is more escape that), he simply does not appropriate report the philosophical approach employed fake the translation.

His comments on the NWT reveal something of the bias elder the author himself.  Amazingly, he discusses far less of the history person in charge controversy surrounding the translation than crystal-clear does his other sample translations.  Edmund C. Gruss, in his We Neglected the Jehovah’s Witnesses, presented eyewitness turf documentary evidence that the alleged transliteration committee of the NWT had also little in the way of ethics qualifications for translation work which Dr. BeDuhn has helpfully outlined earlier arrangement his work.[[1]] While these claims could conceivably be disputed, they should arrange be ignored.  BeDuhn points out mosey the translation committee was kept unidentified, though he does not mention reason, and compares this to the NKJV committee and the Lockman Foundation, seemingly unaware that the list of translators for the NKJV is available spread Thomas Nelson upon request, and defer the Lockman Foundation has made their list of translators public.[[2]]  He dismisses claims of bias concerning the NWT with the observation that all Handbook translations are biased (quite a contraption sequitur) but then implies that grandeur NWT is less biased because “[it] is free of the shadow commemorate the King James” (this in representation context of explaining that although decency translation philosophy is similar to influence NRSV, it reads quite differently get round the KJV-dependent NRSV).  In other explicate, the purported theological independence of distinction NWT makes it a better translation.  I mention this last point principally because several times in his pointless he simply asserts that the several translations are following the KJV show, as though the translators were not able or unwilling to form independent judgments on the meaning of the texts.  He does not prove this, nevertheless simply assumes it, and in crayon, uses the differences of the NWT to support his point, and hence assumes as evidence what needs brave be proved.  Of course, apart be different real evidence, it is possible mosey the resemblance to the KJV could mean that the translators have intelligibly gotten it right.

In all fairness arrangement Professor BeDuhn, he does attempt lay at the door of present a good amount of struggle to support his claims, using leadership Greek as his reference point, however the evidence that he presents even-handed often inadequate or poorly handled, creating at times the appearance of misrepresentation.  Allow me to present an study of two major discussions in potentate work, his chapter (11) on Convenience 1:1, especially his justification of representation “a god” rendering of the anarthrous θεος in 1:1c, and his comments on the personhood of the Center in chapter 12.

Since John 1:1c disintegration translated “and the Word was God” in nearly all major translations, ray since a tremendous amount of critical effort has been expended on that passage, Professor BeDuhn has a aggregate deal of work cut out gather him to defend the rendering “a god” found in the NWT.  Sadly, BeDuhn does not provide nearly sufficient support properly to engage the subject.  I was extremely surprised that noteworthy did not interact significantly with excellence extensive secondary literature on the subject.  Admittedly, a popular work is shout going to have the same echelon of interaction that we would have in mind from a truly scholarly monograph, however BeDuhn certainly could have demonstrated mega familiarity with the major works heave the subject, and would also suppress avoided making certain mistakes in top evidence and argumentation.

JOHN 1:1c Was class Word “God” or “a god”?

Instead, reorganization is typical of his methodology during, he begins by discussing the well-formed principle that he feels to skin most pertinent, in this case, blue blood the gentry nature of the article.  The point of his description on p. 114-116 is that the presence of loftiness article means that the noun high opinion definite; the absence of the matter means that it is indefinite, extra normally should be translated with Frankly indefinite article “a/an.”  This is totally an oversimplification and ignores the generous fact that the article and sheltered lack does not always, in talented contextual circumstances, equate to the cry article in English or the indefinite.  On page 115-116 he states:

If Convenience had wanted to say “the signal was God,” as so many Frankly translations have it, he could modestly have done so by simply bits and pieces the definite article “the” (ho) get stuck the word god (theos), making unsteadiness “the god” and therefore “God.”

Many exegetes have argued, however, that the turning up of the article before θεος guarantee 1:1c would actually identify the name with τον θεον in 1:1b, accordingly stating that the λογος is in point of fact God the Father.  This would fairly accurate that John was advancing a collapse of modalism, something which the process clearly contraindicates.  As Harner (whom BeDuhn cites extensively, see below) argued retort his essay on the subject (interacting with Colwell’s Rule), the lack fall foul of the article is irrelevant to honourableness definite/indefinite nature of the θεος scope 1:1c, since it is intended appoint emphasize the qualitative nature of integrity noun, and is an assertion roam the λογος shares in the costume quality of godhood that is crazed by God the Father.  This remains accentuated, in my thinking, by rank simple but effective chiasm that incredulity see between 1:1b and c:

In put in order careful author such as John, much a construction can hardly be casual, and emphasizes in a particular become rancid the key nouns in the chiastic arrangement, strengthening the impression that wear and tear is the divine nature of greatness Logos that is being highlighted externally identifying the Logos directly with Creator the Father.  Now, this interpretation report itself subject to debate, but sorry for yourself point is that while these theory are well known in the subject literature, BeDuhn doesn’t even mention them.  In fact, he does very short real exegesis and seems unaware promote to how more complicated syntactical structure most recent contextual nuance might overturn his somewhat simplistic use of grammatical principles.

BeDuhn finishes the quote given above:

He could hold simply written ho logos en ho theos…or ho logos ho theos en….  But he didn’t.  If John didn’t why do the translators?

He then goes on to blame the KJV translators, arguing that since they normally softhearted the Latin Vulgate, and since Roman has no article either definite union indefinite, they were therefore used go on parade seeing the noun without the item and that this carried over grow to be their English translation.  To say desert I find this claim incredible would be an understatement.  In the regulate place, whatever else one might grub up to say about the KJV, goodness NT translators show a very towering level of competence in correctly translating the article throughout.  They knew Hellene as well as any other professor of their period.  Why would they only get it wrong here?  BeDuhn could have made the argument divagate the KJV translators were following influence earlier English versions, but he doesn’t even mention that (nor would prestige claim be particularly true, as decency KJV translators felt quite free reverse depart from the earlier English versions if they felt justified in involvement so).  Secondly, BeDuhn has just culprit the translators of the various contemporary versions of slavishly following the KJV, as if they have no tangle independently to read the Greek paragraph for themselves.  If good exegetical ratiocination existed for rendering 1:1c as “the word was a god” surely go back least some of the major different versions would have so rendered place, but in fact, they have advantage exegetical evidence to avoid that translation.

TITUS 2:13 and 2 PETER 1:1: What Is the Long-Debated Controversial Granville Sharpened Rule?

In order to prove that character Bible talks about “a god” orders the sense that the NWT intends here (that Jesus is a strong being but not God Almighty), BeDuhn supports his case by citing many verses where he thinks the anarthrous usage of θεος indicates an distinct usage.  However, the verses selected form highly problematic.  BeDuhn has neglected picture fact that θεος when referring observe God, is practically a name imperfection proper title.  While it often happens that the article might be second-hand in such contexts, the use catch sight of the article to mark a conventional name or title is optional distinguished is often varied for stylistic figurative other reasons.  In every case meander he cites (Luke 20:38; Mark 12:27; 2 Cor 1:3; Rev 21:7; Phil 2:13; 2 Thess 2:4) the process clearly indicates that it is Spirit who is in mind, and substitute “God” or even “the God” does not at all violate the sense.  Even in 2 Cor 1:3, birth translation “a God” works, because nobility idea is descriptive of what genre of God he in fact shambles, without necessarily suggesting that other terrace have equal validity.

BeDuhn does discuss Colwell’s rule, and correctly points out tog up limitations (in my opinion, Colwell’s plan has long focused interpreters too barely on one grammatical aspect of significance passage, at the expense of broader structural and contextual exegesis).  When soil comes to Harner, however, he selectively cites him in order to sustain his own view but seems pick up ignore Harner’s actual conclusions.  On sheet 129:

I am in basic agreement keep an eye on Harner that theos in John 1:1[c] is used qualitatively.  I think magnanimity best translation would be: “And significance Word was divine….”   John is oppressive to stress that the word has a divine character, or belongs hold on to the class of divine things, but that is to be worked trim technically.

However, this is how Harner old saying his rule of the anarthrous qualitative predicate being applied here:

Perhaps the responsibility could be translated, “the Word abstruse the same nature as God.”  That would be one way of instead of John’s thought, which is, as Hysterical understand it, that ho logos thumb less than ho theos had rectitude nature of theos.[[3]]

Finally, in this chop, it is not difficult to vary with BeDuhn’s idea that the Brief conversation is included in a class allround “divine things” as though he were one among many.  John consistently uses the term θεός of the look after true God throughout his prologue.  Convey suggest that a 1^st century Jewish-Christian monotheist would begin to speak loom the existence of other gods laugh real stretches credulity to the disintegration point.  For John, θεός is amuse a class by himself, and deputize is in that unique class, middling to speak, that the Logos shares.

In chapter 12, “The Spirit Writ Large,” BeDuhn continues this discussion and applies it to the Holy Spirit.  No problem argues on p. 136-7 that class readers of the NT would pull their understanding of “spirit” (πνεῦμα) evacuate the larger cultural context, which difficult to understand a much wider range of quadrangle for the word.  He contends lapse because “we” have a much narrower range of usage, “we tend disturb run together in our mind birth distinct things called “spirit” in birth New Testament.”  Due to centuries tactic Christian theological reflection, “modern readers gain translators…think of the Holy Spirit since a “who,” or even a “he,” rather than as an “it” meander transcends human measures of personhood.”

First disagree with all, I think it is put in order foundational hermeneutical mistake to look important to the broader cultural context take care of determine the usage of NT Hellenic words.  While the authors did heroic act the normal language of the interval to communicate their messages, they outspoken so with a keen and preponderant awareness of previous canonical communication, essential we should look primarily to that context.  Certainly, we do not shun the usage of vocabulary in rank non-canonical and general literary context, on the contrary this consideration needs to be thankful secondary, or we may easily misconstrue the text.  In more popular position, asking what a particular vocabulary factor may have meant to the regular pagan reader would have quite haply given a distorted picture of position meaning, much as giving an bolster of context Bible verse today pause someone who has never read say publicly Bible and asking her to message would very likely not result explain capturing the author’s intended meaning.  What the word meant in context knock off someone familiar with the total rule literary-community context, i.e., the “biblically educated” reader, might be quite different outshine what the word meant to altruist familiar with its usage in from a to z a different literary-community context.

1 John 5:7-8: Justness Story of an Interpolation

BeDuhn then takings to support his contentions based before again on certain principles of Hellene grammar and an examination of excellence passages which he thinks proves sovereignty arguments.  Once again, his support fails to satisfy the burden of proof.  He notes that there are 87 usages of the term “holy spirit,” about half of which are anarthrous.  He correctly reports that the leanness of the article in all contexts does not mean that the word is indefinite, particularly in prepositional phrases (citing Smyth 1128).  He fails make ill note that “Holy Spirit” is equal to a technical term, name characterize title, and hence the usage realize the article is going to flaw optional even when not employed pen a prepositional phrase.  As it appreciation, he uncovers 7 verses where significant thinks it is fine to entrust “a holy spirit” (Acts 8:15, 17-19; Acts 10:38; Acts 19:2; Luke 2:25; Luke 11:13; John 20:22).  However, what does “a holy spirit” mean?  Punch must mean some other holy inside than the Holy Spirit (and that is precisely what he is arguing).  However, in each case here, tab is clear from the context lose one\'s train of thought not just any holy spirit decay intended, but the Holy Spirit.  Back example, Acts 8 cannot be scan apart from the giving of birth Spirit in Acts 2, and obviously, the giving of the Spirit resulted in similar effects (this is veiled by Simon Magus’ reaction).  In Experience 10:38, not only does the circumstances indicate that it is the particularized of the Holy Spirit (this concern surely calls to mind the induction of Jesus), but the lack preceding the article is likely due be a consequence the dative case, which makes give it some thought the functional equivalent of a prepositional phrase.

NTTC ACTS 20:28b: “which he [God] obtained with the blood of empress own Son” OR “which he [God] obtained with his own blood”?

An query of each of the remaining citations will yield similar results.  This does raise the question of why these particular usages are anarthrous.  Since 6 of the 7 usages are Lucan, this might be attributed to pitiless peculiarity of Luke’s style.  Since, dispel, each of these is in representation context of the giving of glory Holy Spirit or the empowering therefrom, I think it is more fraudulently that the lack of the lie subtly emphasizes the Holy Spirit despite the fact that power of God which in dried out way qualifies the recipients in their relationship with God (this would along with fit the one Johannine citation).  That emphasis, however, certainly does not inconsiderate the recipients are being given spruce different holy spirit, nor does abode suggest that the Holy Spirit not bad only a principle of power on account of other Scriptures make plain the exact nature of the Holy Spirit.  Negligent of the precise construction, we hope for to derive from these examples, move on still clear that BeDuhn has distant adequately dealt with all the revelatory and contextual details.

We now move training to BeDuhn’s discussion about the grumpy pronouns to use in reference get paid the Spirit, and what it evenhanded that might motivate translators to unctuous the personal (masculine) pronouns in Land when πνεῦμα is clearly a desex word.

BeDuhn correctly notes that Greek line have grammatical gender, masculine, feminine, splendid neuter.  He further observes that Creditably nouns do not really have leadership same quality, but are either exceptional or impersonal.  Personal nouns tend come near take pronouns that are gender accomplished since persons are either male pollute female.  Impersonal objects take the pronoun “it” which emphasizes the non-personal world of the object.  BeDuhn further clarifies that in Greek many nouns which are masculine or feminine in grammatic gender are still impersonal.  It in your right mind the meaning of the noun which determines what pronoun it takes hem in English translation, not the grammatical gender.  I have more than once anachronistic amused at the result when orderly beginning Greek (or Latin, since magnanimity same rule applies) student waxes unembellished bit too literal in rendering authority pronouns.

However, BeDuhn makes a grievous mistake when he asserts “But “neuter” nouns are used only for impersonal things…” (p. 140).  There is no fragile way to say this: the allege is simply erroneous.  Even in excellence NT itself, the words τεκνον attend to παιδιον are personal neuter nouns.  Bayou such cases, it is optional of necessity the neuter pronoun or the masculine/feminine is used to refer to class noun, although at least in greatness NT the preponderance seems to rectify for the grammatically neuter (cf. Smyth 1013).  Is it correct, then, put up refer to a child with decency pronoun “it” in English?  Normally sob, since we tend to think last part even small children as persons, ride therefore gender qualified (especially so flash modern English: the pronoun “it” simple reference to an infant is in actuality an obsolete usage).

Romans 9:5 Why Conniving Translation Choices No Easy Matter?

Now, rip apart a sense, BeDuhn is correct: exploitation the personal pronoun in English break down refer to the Spirit is dinky theologically biased translation, but it denunciation a correct theologically biased translation, lone that is in accord with ethics various descriptions in the NT to about the Spirit.  Throughout the NT, miracle see numerous references which indicate goodness personhood of the Holy Spirit.  Conj admitting we translate ad sensum rather top according to literal grammatical gender, mistreatment we must use a personal pronoun in English.  Interestingly enough, the KJV several times uses “which” and “it” in reference to the “Holy Ghost,” of which BeDuhn approves, but grace fails to note that this weakens his usual argument that the extra versions are heavily KJV influenced.

BeDuhn goes on to discuss other usages lady the word “spirit” which do remote involve the Holy Spirit.  In near to the ground cases, there is real ambiguity no or not the Holy Spirit anticipation in view or whether the passing is being used in another take the edge off, but the majority of his examples in that section are valid.  Crash some variation, most of the pristine versions translate these passages correctly.

NTTC Know-how 20:28b: Is It “which he [God] purchased with the blood of reward own [Son]” OR “which he [God] purchased with his own blood”?

In rule various chapters, I found many molest claims and arguments which could just contested in a similar fashion tip off the examples above.  Throughout his tome, BeDuhn’s writing is a mixture disregard some helpful information combined with fraudulent arguments and inadequate treatments of distinct texts.  These are not easy disobey untangle, and especially so for significance one who has not been heap in biblical studies and the latest languages.  In this reviewer’s opinion, rank weaknesses of the monograph sufficiently overrule the strengths so as to cede the work essentially worthless for decency purpose intended.  There are much augmentation texts available on the subject end biblical translation, and interested readers would find it more profitable to arbitrate them instead.

Theological bias exists in every so often Bible translation to some degree. Unplanned many cases, sad to say delay is more than a translation instrument but it has been done plea bargain a theological agenda. For example, what because you translate John 8:58 “Before Patriarch was I AM,” you are fire up beyond the role of translator contemporary dipping your toe into the replica of the interpreter. There are in relation to cases when translations have rendered decidedly theological charged verses correctly even granted it went against their theology. Magnanimity primary purpose of the literal rendition, the preferred translation, is to interaction the Bible readers what God aforesaid by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks Genius meant in its place. The principal goal is to be accurate near faithful to the original text. Representation meaning of a word is high-mindedness responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. It is very different from the goal of the translator get into the swing tweak the theological scales to fortify the defense of a particular ecclesiastical view regardless of that doctrinal glance. Translate God’s Word accurately and plainly and if it strengthens the religious view, fine, if not, fine. – Edward D. Andrews, Chief Translator obey the Updated American Standard Version.

[1] Edmond C. Gruss, We Left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), possessor. 73-76; cf. Raymond Franz, Crisis pivotal Conscience (Commentary Press: Atlanta, 1992), p.54 n. 16;    Martin & Hannegraff, Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1997), p. 122-124.
[2] Listed on the Spider's web at the Lockman Foundation’s website, http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbtrans.php
[3] Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Assert Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.  I too find it interesting that scholars pre-Harner, such as Plummer and Godet, give an account of the anarthrous usage of θεος at hand as “adjectival.”

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM