Believe it or not, words such as “justification,” “propitiation,” “sanctification,” “flesh,” “predestination”, and “repentance” do not appear in the original biblical texts. There is no sound linguistic or theological reason why the original biblical words which have been translated by those theological terms cannot be translated by ordinary English words which mean the same thing as the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words did.
Better Bibles Blog writes in positive response to a post from Henry Neufeld, disagreeing with Mark Driscoll’s “theological reasons” for using the ESV as his church’s primary Bible. Neufield says,
It is critically important to state this correctly: The translator(s) of a new Bible translation do not alter the words of scripture, they reflect the words of scripture in a different way, using different words.
Linguist/scholar Peter Kirk discusses the same issue here.
This is really thought-provoking stuff, I think, as it concerns effectively translating the Scriptures so that the world has access to them and can understand them, as well as a person who had once bought into the whole “gender-neutral Bibles are born of a feminist/anti-God agenda” argument. Hey, the respected leaders in my circles all said so, not to mention WORLD magazine, so I assumed they were correct. Well, Molly, think again. Er, yet again.
Better Bibles Blog gets into the ”gender-neutral” issue in some very thought-provoking ways (examples here and here and here, if you are as interested in this subject as I am, with plenty more such posts where that came from).
While we’re on the topic of translation, here’s another recent post from Better Bibles, entitled, Accessibility in Bible Translation, that I thought was a great read. A snippet from linguist Wayne Leman:
I suggest that it would be better to study the kind of language used in the original texts of the Bible itself, and follow that kind of language as our example for translation. For instance, New Testament authors did not use a word like “grace” which was only understood by churchgoers. Instead, they used the Greek word charis which was commonly used by all Greek speakers…
But I think “church-ese” is a whole ‘nother language for a whole ‘nother post.
Posted by Kievas Fargo on January 7, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Discovered your blog through Henry Neufeld’s, and will be checking back often.
Posted by Catez on January 7, 2007 at 4:05 pm
There is no sound linguistic or theological reason why the original biblical words which have been translated by those theological terms cannot be translated by ordinary English words which mean the same thing as the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words did.
Those are ordinary English words. Which is why they are used. I see what he’s saying but he’s sounding like he’s saying those words aren’t English words. No theological reason? He would need to expand on that a lot before I’d consider a statement that justification doesn’t have a sound theological reason, as well as explaining how it is not now an English word.
Posted by Wayne Leman on January 7, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Catez said:
Those are ordinary English words. Which is why they are used. I see what he’s saying but he’s sounding like he’s saying those words aren’t English words. No theological reason? He would need to expand on that a lot before I’d consider a statement that justification doesn’t have a sound theological reason, as well as explaining how it is not now an English word.
Hi Catez. Thanks for your comments. By ordinary English words, I am referring to words that are used by ordinary English speakers. If we tape record the conversations of English speakers, we will find that a very low percentage of them *ordinarily* use the theological words which I pointed out.
The *concept* of justification is clearly taught in the Bible. My point is that there is no need to refer to it with the uncommonly used theological jargon word “justification.” It is just as accurate to refer to the concept using an English word which was used as commonly as was the original Greek word, dikaiosune. That was a common, ordinary, everyday word. Everyone knew it. Today we have a number of English Bibles which make heavy use of uncommon theological words. This does not follow the Biblical pattern of using words which were in common language usage, understood by most speakers of the language. By using church vocabulary we are erecting artificial barriers to evangelism and understanding of God’s Word. I personally believe that when we do not follow the Biblical patterns for vocabulary God feels sad. I think he would rather that we speak like Jesus did, using ordinary, everyday words. He did not make heavy use of theological jargon when he taught.
Posted by molleth on January 7, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I think this is pretty new stuff to ponder to most of us who’ve grown up in the church world. First of all, it’s difficult to understand how someone can NOT know what the word “justify” means—-hey, it makes sense to me, so of course it ought to for you, right? (Our fun human problem of not being able to see through any eyes but our own). What, you mean not everyone uses the word propitiation daily?
.
Secondly, the fact that the original Greek manuscripts *weren’t* full of technical religous terminology is another surprise. I think most of us churched folks picture the original manuscripts as a Greek version of the KJV. Every day language is something I thought that the liberals were trying to do to the Bible, right? I mean, isn’t there some conspiracy somewhere…?
.
Oh, my sarcastic thoughts are running on high tonight. I’d better stop.
.
Oh, one more link related to this post that I just found and thought was excellent (from Henry):
http://www.participatorystudyseries.com/biblestudy/?p=129
Posted by ReneeM on January 7, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I am really interested to go read all those links and read the comments…
My parents are missionaries, with the huge task of church planting and translating… someone asked my Dad once if they used the KJV to translate, or some other version… which as ridiculous as it sounds to me, made perfect sense if you believe that is the true translation… only its still a translation. and the majority of the words aren’t even found in the Owininga language!!!
I’ll have my Dad email me a portion of BTE Scripture (Back-to-English translation…) it is quite different, and refreshing!!
YET, the same… KWIM?
Posted by molleth on January 8, 2007 at 2:29 am
Hi Keivas! Nice to see you here.
.
Wayne, thank you for commenting (and I really enjoyed your recent post on the BBB).
.
Renee, yes, that would be very interesting, and what a great perspective your parents probably have! Keenan’s birthday cake was…um…INCREDIBLE! Sheesh! Whatta mom! Stay warm up there (it was -17 this evening at my house—ugh!)…
Posted by M on January 8, 2007 at 11:23 am
This all ties to the long cherished tradition in humanity of erecting and maintaining boundaries and power systems between God and the common people. Isn’t it ridiculous that instead of using common language for translations of common words ‘they’ coined and named a philosophical/ theological concept – which is what something like ‘justification’ is – it is a term that correlates with a theological concept – a meaning past the English word itself- you are totally right about that Molly.
I look at it through the lens of something closely equivalent to the money changers of Jesus’ day – that the ordinary cannot access God unless they move through the interpretation of the ‘elite’ and ‘entitled’ at the high cost of never having the direct access at all – while the entitled shore up their status. And as I recall, the Lord was really pissed about that and fashioned a whip of cords to make an immediate and radical change to that system.
I love language. Really. King James (and many of the other traditional translations) are rich and beautiful… BUT I weekly sit opposite high school kids who have NO IDEA who Jesus is or what Christianity is all about – not for lack of having scripture read AT THEM all throughout their young lives. It is just has NOT inspired a concept of the ‘Living Word’, the idea made flesh, God entering into the world to engage them where they are and call them to truth.
I guess I am glad that people are hungry enough for truth that they will look past, through, and around the barriers ‘others’ erect. And I wholeheartedly believe that if Jesus had wanted elitist representation He would have commissioned somebody other than fishermen (etc)…but He didn’t. And I think we can all agree they did a pretty decent job representing Truth. If we all embrace that mindframe – the one Jesus embraced – then we have to go ‘common’. Which isn’t to say that we can’t think big – but we must talk straight to the people and tell the Good News as it is – a story and an idea from God for all – using words and ideas that are likewise from God and for all.
M
Thanks again Molly – these posts are the highlight of my workday!
Posted by molleth on January 8, 2007 at 11:29 am
Wow. Very thoughtful comment—thanks.
Posted by sara on January 8, 2007 at 11:40 am
I hope this isn’t a stupid question: How do you answer the assertion that the KJV is written at a fifth grade reading level? Is that even true? How is it then that I still occassionally have to sort of “translate” in my head as if I were reading a foreign language? I really like the King James and use it most often; but when talking to someone who might not read as well as I or who might not be used to that kind of writing I choose a different translation. And I avoid using christianese when witnessing – IMO it’s just not necessary.
Posted by sara on January 8, 2007 at 11:40 am
and I’m not talking about dumbing down or watering down or any other down either.
Posted by Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter » Blog Archive » Moderate Christian Blog Roundup - 1/8/07 on January 8, 2007 at 2:52 pm
[...] has joined the discussion of literal translation and also some of the gender language involved, and considering she says some nice things about my [...]
Posted by Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Rounding Up the Moderate Christian Blogroll on January 8, 2007 at 2:53 pm
[...] has joined the discussion of literal translation and also some of the gender language involved, and considering she says some nice things about my [...]
Posted by M on January 8, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Ok this is from the KruseKronichle blog – which I love – http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/01/two_strategies_.html
Quoting:
The great mass of people form their political beliefs with little regard for facts or logic. However, the elites also have a strategy for avoiding truth. Elites form their political beliefs dogmatically, using their cleverness to organize facts to fit preconceived prejudices. The masses’ strategy for avoiding truth is to make a low investment in understanding; the elites’ strategy is to make a large investment in selectively choosing which facts and arguments to emphasize or ignore. Endquote.
Is it any different in religion?
Posted by Catez on January 8, 2007 at 2:56 pm
H Wayne,
The *concept* of justification is clearly taught in the Bible. My point is that there is no need to refer to it with the uncommonly used theological jargon word “justification.”
Well I don’t know how it is where you are but where I am non-Christians use “justification” all the time in conversation. They say, “I don’t see the justification for that”, or as some-one I know said when discussing gambling as a means of making money for a disadvantaged group, “we couldn’t see the justification for it”. So it’s part of everyday conversation. I’m wondering if you converse with many non-Christians or if perhaps there is a type of speaking where you are that is different.
Definitely not just a theological term here or in other countries I’ve been in. So I don’t see any justification for removing justification from the bible.:)
Posted by Catez on January 8, 2007 at 3:04 pm
new stuff to ponder to most of us who’ve grown up in the church world.
I didn’t grow up in the church world. So nah, I think it’s about talking to people who aren’t Christians. I’m all for using understandable English, but people aint dumb either. If they talk about justification then I will too. I used the word before I was a Christian anyway. I grew up with people saying “where’s the justification for that?” just like a whole bunch of people did.
Posted by Jennifer on January 8, 2007 at 4:29 pm
The *concept* of justification is clearly taught in the Bible. My point is that there is no need to refer to it with the uncommonly used theological jargon word “justification.”
Uncommon in whose circles? I hear it used theologically on a weekly basis if not more often. Perhaps we should be using these terms more frequently. I believe there would be a lot less doctrinal confusion if we could just get our terms straight.
Posted by tonia on January 8, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I hear and use “justification” all the time too. Perhaps “sanctification” would have been a better example – I don’t hear that one a lot in every day conversation!
*wicked grin*
Don’t throw anything! I’m slinking back off to oblivious-ville where everyone is happy and supper is nearly ready.
Posted by Catez on January 8, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Tonia,
You think you can slink off and I aint gonna throw nuthin?
Sanctification – well when I first read it in the bible it didn’t throw me for a huge loop. I mean I got the gist. And I asked some folk about how it works.
Even more wicked grin – we do discuss the bible with each other right? It’s those genealogies that were difficult – should they be taken out because the names are mind bending?
Posted by Catez on January 8, 2007 at 6:59 pm
P.S. – actually, just remembered how I have heard people talking about “the sanctity of life” and what it means – non-Christians. So sanctity, sanctification – not unheard of terms.
Repentance – interesting. Non-Christian guy I know had a dispute with some-one (also a non-Christian) but advised me she was “repentant”. And even mass media have been known to refer to some-one as “unrepentant” – meaning they persist in their story or don’t apologise for their actions.
You got it, I’m unrepenatant about repentance staying in the bible too. Good common English word.
Posted by tonia on January 8, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Heck yeah! We could have a suburban version. It would be so much easier to read “and then Austin begat Preston and Preston begat Michael…”
Hee!
Potential stone-throwers on both sides, please be aware that I have no idea what I’m talking about. No rocks at the village idiot please.
Posted by Catez on January 8, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Lol. No rocks??? You think you can get stoned here? (double entendre totally intended)
Posted by Catez on January 8, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Austin didn’t begat Preston. He begat Cedric. Cedric begat Marmaduke and Marmaduke begat Austin. Girl – what version are you reading?? You’ve got bits missing.
Posted by Catez on January 8, 2007 at 7:05 pm
That’s Austin Jr – two Austins.
Posted by molleth on January 8, 2007 at 7:08 pm
You guys are funny…
The point is that it is NOT “theologically” incorrect to use the word justification or a few words that get across the same concept, because the word “justification” was never in the original text in the first place.
.
We churched folks are totally used to this kind of language, but I’m not sure if that means we have to be disturbed if translators try to translate a Bible that the average secular Joe is going to be able to “get.”
.
It’s not so much whether or not it’s okay to have the word “justification” in our bible, but more of a question of whether it’s a mandate from God for it to stay there (which Driscoll’s post seemed to be saying).
.
And, for what it’s worth, I was an A student with honors courses (and grew up in a bible-teaching fundamentalist church), btw, but I didn’t really get the Scriptural concepts of justification or sanctification until I went to bible college.
Posted by Catez on January 8, 2007 at 7:21 pm
if translators try to translate a Bible that the average secular Joe is going to be able to “get.”
The point being that perhaps translators don’t communicate with average secular Joe – because a lot of average secular Joes use those very words. In fact those words are a reference point. So why change them when folk do “get” them.
I got them – used them before I ever picked up a bible.
Posted by Catez on January 8, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Except propitiation – that was a new one. But reading is about learning some new things anyway.
Posted by molleth on January 8, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Hm. Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one (and the God is male thread too, me thinks). But that’s cool with me.
I’ve already submitted to the fact that a.) I am fallible, and b.) everyone else in the world may not always agree with me. (It’s difficult to remember this at times, but…with valiant effort, I manage to keep trying). 
Posted by tonia on January 8, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Molly, your valiant efforts at moderating these crazy comment boxes deserves a standing ovation. You are brave and gracious…and well-loved.
Posted by Allthings2all on January 8, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Words and Relevance: Removing Repentance is Unjustified
I usually stay out of these controversies, not the least reason being I don’t like to get too in-house here at Allthings2all. So in keeping with the focus of this blog, this post isn’t meant just for those of us who read the bible, and is meant f ……
Posted by Tiffany on January 9, 2007 at 9:15 am
My question is, why do we think the average non-christian is going to be able to grasp everything in the Bible without the indwelling of the holy spirit, regardless of how we translate terms?
Posted by BruceA on January 10, 2007 at 8:56 am
Catez -
It’s not that these words are never used by average people: It’s that they have taken on an added technical meaning in “churchspeak”. To be justified, in a Christian sense, is to be made right with God. So what’s wrong with the Good News Translation saying, “But by the free gift of God’s grace all are put right with him through Christ Jesus, who sets them free,” instead of saying “they are justified by his grace,” as traditional translations put it?
And again, to repent means more than saying, “I’m sorry.” It means changing one’s ways. So what’s wrong with the New Living Translation saying, in Acts 2:38, “Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” instead of “… repent from your sins…” as the traditional translations say it?
That is the issue here. Some Christians want to say that the very words of the translation (not the original) are inspired by God. Is there really any justification (pun intended) for such a claim?
Posted by Catez on January 11, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Bruce,
We could go on and on. Good News for Modern Man has it’s place – but I wouldn’t use it as my primary bible – for translation reasons I don’t have time to go into. I’ve done two posts discussing the quote from Wayne and related issues and explained what I mean. Thanks.
Posted by Catez on January 11, 2007 at 7:06 pm
One last thing – I haven’t said, either in my comments here or my posts that repentance means just saying sorry. Neither did Wayne in the piece quoted. I know of many examples where non-Christians use it meaning a change of behaviour and direction. I’ve explaine that in my post too. Thanks.
Posted by molleth on January 11, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Catez, What Wayne was saying has nothing to do with removing the concepts of justification or repentance or anything else. He was simply saying that we do not *have* to use such terminology—-that to make a “theological” claim that such terminology *must* be used is to make a claim on faulty logic/information.
.
I completely agree–justification and repentance, etc, are important. I just think it’s fair to admit that one can share those concepts many different ways. Your posts make it seem as if Wayne is trying to remove the *concepts.* But he’s simply saying that it’s not logical to say we are theologically bound, as Driscoll was inferring if not outrightly saying, to using those specific *words.*
.
We can still choose to do so, or not, but it’s nice to know it’s OPTIONAL to do so, not required in order to have “right theology.”
Posted by Catez on January 12, 2007 at 1:03 am
Molly,
I replied to Bruce because he was introducing things here that were covered already in my posts, and which dd not reflect anything either I or Wayne have said.
It’s getting repetitive – I already taken pains to explain that being “theologically bound” is not what I’m saying.
What Wayne is saying is written in the quote – he is saying there is no sound linguistic or theological reason for those words being translated as they are. That’s not the same as what you are saying.
There are very sound linguistic reasons. There are also sound theological reasons. He did not just say the concepts can be related in other ways. He said in essence the words are obsolete.
You are the one who is talking about “many different ways”. I’d agree there are different ways to say some things. However, when a word is already commonly used in our culture it is contradictory to say it isn’t. When a word has been translated that gives the theological import of the original language then it’s contradictory to say it has no sound theological reason for being translated that way.
1. The words are commonly used.
2. The words are theologically accurate.
That’s what I’m saying. All this about being bound etc is missing my point. I’m not saying these are the only words we might ever use when talking to people about Christianity. I’m saying it is not correct to say they have no linguistic or theological reason for being in the bible. Which is quite different to what Wayne is saying.
And I’m saying we can use these words.
I read what Driscoll said – I don’t believe he was saying one should be theologically bound either. He was giving a preference based on comparison.
Posted by Catez on January 12, 2007 at 1:10 am
Molly
I’m finding some of your arguments on this seem to appeal to preconceieved ideas you have about what is being said, i.e. inferring that I’m saying certain things are not optional. I haven’t said that. Saying the words have no sound reason is making it without option.
Posted by Catez on January 12, 2007 at 1:23 am
Let me clarify it – when he refers to “ordinary English words” he is doing it comparatively – so he’s saying those words aren’t ordinary English words. Which is detracting from their linguistic utility. Except for one of the owrds, they are ordinary English words. But I’m not hearing an admission of that.
To place the words outside of being ordinary words and then go on to talk about sound theological reason comparatively conveys that he is not giving an option on those words.
All I’m saying is that they are ordinary words. There is sound reason for them and in fact some words are so commonly used we’d find it hard to come up with a better translation that is both linguistically useful and theologically appropriate both in meaning and textual continuity.
I do hear what you are saying, but I think he has made a mistake in asuming that these words are just church words and not comonly used. And implying they have no sound reason.
Posted by molleth on January 12, 2007 at 1:30 am
Okay.
Posted by Catez on January 12, 2007 at 1:42 am
To be fair, Wayne’s argument for obsolescence seems mainly to be about linguistics – which I think he is mistaken on. The implication on theological reasons can be construed, but it’s his linguistic reasoning that I disagree with really. Ok – I hope that clarifies it.
Posted by Catez on January 12, 2007 at 1:45 am
Oh – you are online
Yeah – ok. I hear you on this my friend. It’s the end of the week and I’m feeling much more like watching Spongebob Squarepants right now. I want to check out your guest post at the other blog too.
Posted by Peter Kirk on January 13, 2007 at 3:50 am
Belated thanks for the link. No need for the “Linguist/scholar” though. I have an MA in theology but no PhD and am not doing scholarly work, so I hardly count as a scholar. My current work is translation and so I suppose I count as a linguist because of that, but my linguistic training is rather limited.
Catez wrote: “Except for one of the owrds, they are ordinary English words.” If the words in question are apparently “justification”, “sanctification” and “propitiation”. Of these three only one, “justification”, is used in normal non-theological English, although the meaning of “sanctification” can perhaps be guessed from “sanctity”. But the regular use of “justification” refers to an act or an argument, and not to a person. Therefore the biblical use of the word is in a quite different sense from the regular use. So Wayne’s claim that “justification” is not in regular use is justified if qualified by with “as used in certain Bible translations”.
Sara asked, “How do you answer the assertion that the KJV is written at a fifth grade reading level? Is that even true?” No, Sara, it is not true. Certain simplistic programs measuring reading level, if fed KJV text with each verse as a separate paragraph (and so with few very long sentences), may give this result. But these programs work only on simple measures like sentence length, and do not consider at all whether the words or grammatical structures used are widely known or easily understood. Even so, if the KJV is presented to these programs as continuous text a much higher reading level is indicated, in fact off the scale of the test built into Microsoft Word.
Posted by Catez on January 18, 2007 at 3:43 am
Just wanted to let you know I read your comment Peter. I disagree on only used as an act or argument but won’t prolong the debate further.
Posted by Catez on January 18, 2007 at 3:46 am
Sorry – except to add there are more than three words being discussed.
Posted by skye on February 9, 2007 at 11:55 am
where is the Real first written Bible? What is the name of the next one re-written? and who re-wrote it? Is there a site online that shows, in english the number of different bibles written in english today?