Truth in Translation is a critical study of Biblical translation, assessing the accuracy of nine English versions of the New Testament in wide use today. By looking. I recently read Jason David BeDuhn’s Truth in Translation and found it deeply intriguing and at times disturbing. I’ll give some positive points and then I’ll list my . Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is a historian of religion and culture, currently Professor of Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. Lanham: University Press of America. Augustine’s.
|Published (Last):||25 December 2016|
|PDF File Size:||12.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.83 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
You are commenting using your Twitter account. Hebrew versions are not, in fact, part of a textual apparatus for the New Testament. Whether a Latin noun is definite or indefinite is determined solely by context, and that means it is open to interpretation. At the very least, a translator could bias the translation toward one possibility while acknowledging the second in a footnote. About Jason David BeDuhn.
I have pondered why these two translations, of all those considered, turned out to be the least biased. The fundamental problem of Biblical translation: However, to maintain uniformity with other pages on our website, we have altered this to NWT without further notation. He points out this one, saying that while it was not bias-free, it could be considered as the most accurate of the translations compared.
For the doctrines that Protestantism inherited to be considered true, they had to be found in the Bible. The distinction in the examples is whether Jesus and God are the same or different subjects. The Greek word proskuneo is used as the example. The other translations, which along with the NAB do not indicate additions to the text in any way, slip interpretations and glosses into the text.
Although he considers two of them to be more of an interpretation than translation and one to be a dubious paraphrase.
As such, our site is not a forum for discussing theology or even Bible translations. Of course when Paul was writing to Timothy, he was referring to the Septuagint Bible. Trutg only unbiased translation which would be free of interpretation would use “homage” or “obeisance” with both Jesus and God and then let the context interpret the word to the reader.
They simply could not translate many of the verses as “Lord” without verifying the deity of Jesus. In it, he lays out the spectrum jaosn translation philosophies from a Interlinear to b Formal Equivalence to c Dynamic Equivalence to d Paraphrase.
In Jesus’ time, proskuneo meant to prostrate one’s self before another of higher rank or one who might grant a request. As a result, evangelical Protestants will often, without merit be suspicious of Truth in Translation. The only remaining possibility is to take prototokos hierarchically.
When all of the manuscript evidence agrees, it takes very strong reasons to suggest that the original autographs the very first manuscript of a book written by the author himself read differently. No translation is unflawed, but the success of a translation should be based on how closely and accurately it matches the original source, and not the number of copies it sells.
I felt franslation BeDuhn’s understanding and awareness of the modern debate on veduhn, at least within Christian Fundamentalism, was lacking. No two languages are identical in structure grammar or vocabulary. As a definite noun, “God” corresponds to the Greek ho theos lexically “the god”tranalation also is used often as the proper noun “God” in both the New Testament trandlation other Greek literature from the same time.
He argues that too often, even in mainstream translations, the translators make the subtle journey from translation to interpretation. Then there are three more verses where, by the principles applied by the NWT editors, “Jehovah” should be used, and yet is not: BeDuhn seems to operate under the impression that he has avoided all bias in his analysis.
In his final chapter, BeDuhn gives a thought provoking analysis of translation bias. It is always possible that the interpretation of the significance of the gesture may be correct.
For this reason, it is trkth that modern translations find appropriate terms to accurately convey precisely what is implied by the use of proskuneo in the various passages where it appears. Open Preview See a Problem?
For the doctrines that Protestantism inherited to be considered true, they had to be found in the Bible. With this fact in mind, modern translators must be careful not to undo the work of the author by “restoring” God’s name in a place where a New Testament author may not intend ebduhn.
Bias is bias irrespective of which end bwduhn the theological spectrum an individual may be on. In this way, the word will always be used to describe an observable physical act. Thus, the New World Translation is just as biased as any other translation in its use of the word “obeisance” in reference to Jesus. Jaason the NWT editors are actually doing in these notes is citing other translations. Nevertheless, they are all best sellers.
It is more correct to say that anytime the word pneuma occurs in which a meaning such as “wind,” “breath,” etc. It has been driven mostly by an idea of where one is most likely to find bias, namely, those passages which are frequently cited as having great theological importance, jasin verses that are claimed as key foundations for the commitments of the belief held by the very people making the translations.
If the reader is not familiar with translatiion topic, it is one that has been debated frequently in today’s Bible translation field. BeDuhn for a book which should cause all of us who read the Bible to raise our expectations regarding Bible translation. To do otherwise is interpretation. The translations he reviews say. BeDuhn seems to work from a basis of absolute neutrality on basic fundamentals of the faith such as the deity of Jesus Christ.
That was the sense of the early assertion that Jesus was “of the same substance” as the Father. Why did the question wait for several hundred years before the “deity of Jesus” was reduced to a theological equation? Therefore, hopefully with both translationn and the readers’ understanding, this will give the author the opportunity to tdanslation his argument and avoid taking what he says out of context.
Beeduhn in Translation is a carefully crafted and scholarly work. If I had to peg him based bbeduhn what little he gives away about himself, I would suspect he is a theological Liberal. To suggest such a reading not supported by the manuscript evidence is called making a conjectural emendation. Though I do not agree with all of his examples.