Literal translation can make a big difference: example from Proverbs 8

by Dan Phillips

Have you been following along in, and been using the outlines for, my sermons through the book of Proverbs?  If so, you'll have noticed, to your amusement or amazement or indifference, that I always provide my own very literal ad hoc translation. Here's an example of why.

As I have explained more than once to my dear ones here, I don't do it to supplant any standard translation. Our church used a now-out-of-print edition of the NASB, and has since switched to ESV. Probably like anyone who's studied Greek and Hebrew closely, it drives me nuts. Every translation does. There is no fresh, consistently and readably literal translation.

Now, my point isn't to discuss translation philosophy or debate individual translations, but to make one point. I don't know whether it's the effect of committees or what, but one of the specifics that drive me nuts is the interpretive clues that translations withhold from readers.

For instance, here's one all translations do: there are a number of different Hebrew words for "fool" and "folly" in Proverbs. English versions all tend to render them all simply by "fool" and "folly." If Solomon is doing something with his word-choice, no English reader can tell; he'll sometimes look unnecessarily repetitive — as in 17:21, where ESV has "fool" twice to render two unrelated Hebrew terms.

Now, some of this is pretty much unavoidable. Anyone who reads my translation will say it's well-nigh unreadable, and I will agree. It's extremely literal. It isn't meant to replace a standard translation. My point is to try to make transparent nuances of structure and word-choice that a smoother, more readable translation would obscure.

Sometimes there's no good reason for what English versions do, and the less-literal hides delightful features of Solomon's art.

An example is found in Proverbs 8:32-36. Here's the ESV:

32 "And now, O sons, listen to me: blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it.
34 Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors.
35 For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD,
36 but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death."

It looks like Wisdom asks them to listen and promises a blessing, says to hear (similar word, but different), then gives blessing and warning. And that's not wrong. Nobody is harmed by that translation.

But what Solomon's doing is a bit more artful than what's apparent. Here's my very-literal translation:

8:32  “So now, sons, listen to me!
And oh! the blessings of those who keep my ways.

8:33  “Listen to discipline, and be wise,
And do not ignore it.

8:34  “Oh! the blessings of the man who listens to me,
Watching at my doors day after day,
Keeping vigil at the doorposts of my opening.

8:35  “For he who finds me finds life,
And he obtains favor from Yahweh.

8:36  “But he who misses me does violence to his own soul;
All who hate me love death.”

Oh, look, that's a little different. "Listen" is in v. 32a, and v. 33a; then "oh! the blessings of" begins both v. 32b and v. 34a. Could that mean something?

Indeed it does. It means that verse 32 is the key to the entire section. Line A's call to listen is expanded in the terse imperatives (three imperatives in five words) on v. 33, and Line B's exclamation "oh! the blessings" is expanded in vv. 34-36.

In other words, Solomon has Wisdom saying "So now, sons, listen to me!" in Prov. 8:32a. Keying on "listen," verse 33 then expands this to three commands of which two are positive and one negative. It is a terse five-word verse, of which three words are imperative. Positively: listen, be wise. Negatively: do not ignore.

Then in Prov. 8:32, Wisdom exclaims "Oh! the blessings of those who keep my ways." What does all that involve? She tells us in vv. 34-36. Keeping her ways involves listening (again!), eagerly watching at her doors daily, keeping vigil at her every opening (v. 34). The one who does this gains real life, which is to say favor from Yahweh (v. 35). This bounty is heightened by a glance at the anti-blessing, the consequences of not seeking and finding her: doing violence to one's own soul, and loving death. (As I expound it, Lines A and B ov v. 36 are cause/effect, then effect/cause, respectively.)

What ESV does with vv. 32 and 33 is what it does when it's at its worst: simply echoing RSV without needed revision (pun noted, not intended). Both versions translate the exact same Hebrew word (שִׁמְעוּ, shim`û) by two different English words (listen, hear) in two sequential verses. (CSB and [it pains me to admit] NIV do not obscure this connection.)

As I said: does it harm anyone? No. Would a false doctrine be born of it? No. Could a reader read and be blessed and built up? Absolutely.

But as I say and have often said, a pastor is like a professor of ancient Hebrew and Greek literature. It'd be pretty rough for him to teach that course without knowing the languages. And one of the things that knowing the languages does for anyone is show greater color. If you've got a good B&W TV, can you watch Star Wars or Sound of Music and "get it"? Absolutely. But might you miss the color, and in some cases, the beauty is in the chromatic variations? Sure.

Proverbs 8:32-36 is a perfect example where a pastor's possession of a color TV can serve to bless his congregation with a deeper appreciation for and reverence of what God did in inspiring Solomon to craft this masterpiece.

POSTSCRIPT: having said all that, it is also true that the woodenly-literal can sometimes mislead an English reader, as I illustrate in today's post over at my personal blog.

---

Beauty, art, wisdom, knowledge of God, and Proverbs 2

by Dan Phillips

Preaching through Proverbs is being quite an adventure. Though I've done studies, conferences, sermons, and a book on it, I've never actually preached through Proverbs. As you'd imagine, it's being quite a workout.

Among many things, the exercise is deepening my appreciation for the artistry of Proverbs, something often visible only in Hebrew. For instance, chapter two is one long Hebrew sentence composed of 22 verses, mirroring the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. It divides neatly into two sections of eleven verses each. The main movements of the first are dominated by sections begun by words starting with א (aleph), the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet (if [v. 1], then [vv. 5, 9]). The second section is structured by sections beginning with ל, the middle letter of the Hebrew alphabet (to deliver you [vv. 12, 16], that [v. 20]).

Judging by the work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture as surely as that of the Trinity in creation, God is no utilitarian pragmatist, but is a lover of beauty and art. Indeed, He is its original and font. I brought this (and more) out for our dear folks in beginning my sermons on this chapter.

That said, while Derek Kidner's comment on Proverbs 2:1-5 overlooks the structure of the Hebrew text, it is a good example of what is particularly delightful about his commentary. When I first read the commentary, decades ago, I looked down on it because of its brevity. As the years passed, I came to see that Kidner's brevity mirrors Solomon's own. He had a poignant knack for saying a great deal in very few words. For instance, I call as witness his comment on the first five verses:

2:1–5. Wisdom, hard-won. This is the essential counterpart to 1:20ff., where wisdom was clamouring to be heard. Here it is the pupil who must clamour (3). Yet the search, strenuous as it must be, is not unguided. Its starting-point is revelation—specific (words) and practical (commandments); its method is not one of free speculation, but of treasuring and exploring received teachings so as to penetrate to their principles (see the verbs of 1–5); and its goal, far from being academic, is spiritual: the fear of the Lord … the knowledge of God (5). With these two phrases verse 5 encompasses the two classic Old Testament terms for true religion—the poles of awe and intimacy. 

[Kidner, D. (1964). Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Vol. 17, p. 59). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]

Deftly-said, true, and instructve.

---

Good-riddance, TNIV; hello, Son of NIV

by Dan Phillips

In my own reading of the NT, I generally read the Greek text; if I'm preaching from the OT, I consult the Hebrew.

If I want an English translation, I generally use the ESV. If I want a commentary, I use a commentary.

Or the NIV.

A few years back, They unrolled a misbegotten version called Today's New International Version (TNIV). WORLD called it the "stealth Bible," for good reason. It was marketed in sneaky ways.

Though a laundry list of Big Names said glowing things about it, it apparently hasn't caught on, which is a very good thing.

I went through the Proverbs TNIV, and the notes I enter in my beloved BibleWorks contain many tut-tuttings over their renderings. The most frequent is to this effect: "Again, TNIV pluralizes the singulars to fit its agenda." That refers to the translators' fad-driven, politically-correct decision to turn singular verses (i.e. 26:16a — "The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes") into plurals ("Sluggards are wiser in their own eyes"). Without textual warrant, the excuse offered is that a sluggardly woman who is reading will be too stupid to see herself in the verse because the standard English device of "he" is used. We're to picture her snorting "Whew! That ain't me!" and popping another Bon-Bon into her mouth.

This results in many atrocious changes of meaning, such as Psalm 1:1-2, which is transformed into —

Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but who delight in the law of the LORD
and meditate on his law day and night

There is no lack of clarity in the original text. The TNIV paraphrasts simply take it to themselves to "improve" it, by changing it.

Gallons of ink (literal and virtual) were spilled trying to rationalize such changes. Thankfully, it never did catch on with most Bible-believers, and now it has been announced that the TNIV is being round-filed. Notable luminaries such as Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler have responded positively, and more will come. This subluminary also is happy to hear it.

So now the NIV will be updated, and Douglas Moo confirms that the translators are welcoming input and suggestions.

Do I have any suggestions? Oh, I have a few, off the top of my head. They're all serious, in case anyone wonders.

1. God is not "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named." Call God by His name when the Holy Spirit does. God moved the writers of the Hebrew Old Testament to call Him "Yahweh" over 6800 times. Anyone believing in the plenary, verbal (hel-lo?) inspiration of the Bible should do the same, eschewing the superstitious practice of unbelievers who try to be holier than God by refusing to do what He commanded to be done. (I may have shared this thought previously once or twice... or three or four times, or more.) It's disgraceful that only one-man versions, a Roman Catholic version, or cultic versions honor the text-as-given in that regard, while supposedly VPI-accepting translators persistently don't.
   
2. Never, ever pluralize a singular. The men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit (as you and I are not) knew how to use plurals as well as singulars. When they don't, you don't.
3. Be much more cautious and conservative in dropping conjunctions for the sake of "smoothness." It is true that Hebrew uses the waw conjunction much more frequently than English can easily bear. However, conjunctions reveal the writer's logical progressions. Sometimes they are interpretively significant (as with the kai ["and"] which begins Matthew 17:1, dropped by the TNIV and other versions.) They should only be dropped when absolutely necessary... and even then, I'd wish some note of their presence could be made.
   
4. Resist the temptation to substitute commentary for translation. It tempts the pride to "correct" ambiguities in the text, but it is more respectful to the text to leave them there for believer-priests to wrestle with. To select one should-be-beyond-argument example, take Paul's use of "flesh." Every English reader knows that word. What does it mean? The answer to that is interpretive. To render it "sinful nature" as NIV does removes the text's own ambiguity and makes a decision for the reader. Don't.

There. I said "a few." I welcome you to share your own, particularly if you have some training in Hebrew or Greek.

NOTE: KJV-only folks (as opposed to those who simply prefer the KJV) are not invited to this discussion. We know what you think, and frankly, it is one alternative for which I (to speak as kindly as I can) have no respect.

---

Olive Tree Greek NT and Hebrew OT for iPhone (review)

by Dan Phillips

Olive Tree Bible Software lays out a very impressive array of resources for the iPhone. A surprisingly large list of free books are available on the site. In this review, we take a look at Olive Tree's Hebrew and Greek Bibles.

(Click all images to enlarge.)

The Hebrew text is the standard Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). I really love the display: very clear characters, sharp vowel-points and accents. In fact, their Hebrew display is even clearer than in my dearly-beloved BibleWorks.

There are a couple of temporary glitches, which actually allow me to illustrate another Olive Tree strength. In some displays, the Hebrew text is cut off (i.e. in the right margin of Psalm 32:4). But this has been reported through their online forum, and Olive Tree support is always very responsive. They're working for a resolution.

One other oddity about the text; in just a few passages that I've seen so far, boxes are inserted (see left, Isaiah 7:14). They are also aware of this problem, and working to resolve it.

You would not expect a textual apparatus for such a small display, and there isn't one. However, the text does preserve the kethib/qere'. [The former preserves the traditional text without emendation even when it made no sense to the copier; the latter is the way the text should be read aloud.] The readings are indicated by bracketing the kethib between single hash-marks, and the qere' between double marks, as in the image at the right.

The Greek text is the 27th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Text of the Greek New Testament.

It is also a very sweet, clear display, very easy to read. Like the BHS, the Greek text also contains no textual notes whatever. After Mark 16, the text includes both the "shorter ending" and vv. 9-20 in French brackets. Same with John 7:53—8:11, as in the following image.

Another very nice feature of Olive Tree's iPhone software is the ability to split-screen. Thus you can have (say) the Hebrew text and its English translation:


...or the original Hebrew OT prophecy and the Greek quotation in the NT:

Navigation is performed by selected book, then chapter, then verse. The application even supports Hebrew and Greek searches, either by exact spelling, or using wild-cards.

You can alter the font sizes, if you prefer larger or smaller displays, change colors, and perform other customizations.

I don't think anyone looks to his iPhone to support a full-orbed study program such as BibleWorks or Logos. But I think these are some absolutely terrific apps for redeeming the time (Ephesians 5:16), "using up odd moments" as F. F. Bruce once wrote me. Waiting for the doctor, or the DMV clerk, or the teller in the bank — you could be listening to some nice classical music, and reading your Hebrew OT or your Greek NT.

What was a pointless aggravation becomes an occasion for firming up your grasp on the very Word itself.

Sweet!

(I also have the ESV Study Bible by Olive Tree on my iPhone, and plan to review it at a later date.)

---

Pastordude: please, before you say that word....

by Dan Phillips

So you're a pastor, and you're preaching this passage, and you want to mention some Hebrew or Greek word that is in the passage. Fine. Great, in fact. Terrific.

One request.

Say it right, or don't say it.

Now, many would advise that you just not say it, period, because it's not going to help your largely (linguisitically) unschooled audience, and may just look like preening. Most of the time, I think that's good advice.

But because I know we pastordudes can be a bit thick, let me break it down and be very specific.

You're preaching a passage. There's a Hebrew or Greek word in it that is cool, that you think is worth commenting on. Fine.

If you do not actually know Hebrew or Greek:

1. You should learn Hebrew and Greek. (After all, you are an instructor in ancient Hebrew and Greek literature. Your Principal wrote the class textbook in those languages. Your students have the right to expect that you're conversant with them, or working on it.)
2. Until then, you probably should not say any Hebrew or Greek word.
3. If you do, find someone who has studied, and ask him whether you're about to say it right.

If you studied Hebrew and Greek in seminary but haven't kept it up:

1. Tsk. Make time. Get current. (See #1, above)
2. See #3, above.

I can easily think of two pastors I've heard, very different traditions, but both well-known for Bible teaching. I know neither personally. Both said Greek words in these sermons I recall. Both said them badly. In the case of at least one word each, both clearly had no idea what they were doing — just sort of made a running, stumbling lunge at the respective words. It wasn't pretty.

Now, I know a lot of you are thinking, "So? Good heavens, man — only you will care!" To that, three thoughts:

First: I'll admit, it's a reflection of how seriously I take the pulpit. I think the pulpit is a terrifying place in which to stand. I think everyone should think that same way, or not stand there (James 3:1). Most people should not stand there at all, if you think about it.

I'll admit this, too: when I see a guy in a pulpit, chatting and yarning and speculating and obviously casually pulling things off the top of his head... well, you know, even typing this, I stop and struggle for words. I just cannot fathom that. C-a-n-n-o-t.

Simplest and most charitable way I can put it: obviously such an one and I view the pulpit very differently.

Second: if you don't know it, you shouldn't be preaching it. Do I really need to expand on that? Say what you know, know what you say, or shoosh.

(I do, by the way, strive to practice what I'm preaching here. I may be current in Hebrew and Greek, but I don't really know French, or Latin, or German. Yet I've had occasion over the last 30+ years to use words from those languages — and I've done due diligence before doing so. You know, they're not just funny-looking English words. If you apply American pronunciation canons to a Latin word such as oratio, or a French word such as métier, you will mispronounce the word.)

Third: think about overall credibility.

Suppose I choose to draw an illustration from the field of biology, or anatomy, or a physical science, or an historical event. Suppose, further, someone in my audience happens to be well-studied in that field. And suppose he instantly recognizes that I'm full of beans, that I pulled out some old chestnut that every well-studied ____ist/ian/ologist immediately knows to be an urban myth, or a common but long-since-exploded misconception.

What will he think of my faithfulness? of the seriousness of my intent? of the thoroughness with which I research what I am about to hold out for people's trust and acceptance?

He'll instantly know I'm willing to say things of which I haven't taken the time to make sure.

And he'll wonder — he'll have good reason to wonder — how thoroughly I have researched and thought through the other claims I'm making. He'll have good reason to think, "Okay, I know anatomy, and I know that what he just said is simply beans. But I don't know Greek, or theology, or much about the Bible. How do I know whether he knows what he's talking about on those subjects, or whether he's just as sloppy about them as he was about this?"

Think about it, brothers.

It matters.

One Dan's viewpoint, your mileage may vary.

---