Featured Theological Basis for Translation Method?

I agree.
That's why, according to your bibliology, you believe in ipsissima vox (the very voice) instead of ispissima verba (the very words).

 

Actually, I've been meaning to take that off since I meant for it to refer to something different than as would be used in a translation discussion. I am referring to the gospel accounts primarily. It is such a sub-category, I wasn't sure why I listed it in the first place.

As it relates to translation, I'd have to think a bit more how I would apply verba versus vox.

 

I was only quoting from someone. The onus was on them to define what they meant by "word for word" translations.

As far as theology as a method of translation, I'm not convinced either way. In fact, theologically speaking, I see the need for various methods of translations just as I see the need in various theological disciplines.

 

This is a wonderful discussion from the OP.

I'm of the opinion that all translation work is theologically rooted and all translations have a theological basis. If for no other reason that each chooses to use a specific kind of method in their approach. The NIV11 has a different theological approach in its underlying translation methodology that is different from the NAS95 as both vary from, say, the NLT. As we choose to approach the text in a method that is more formally equivalent or dynamically equivalent we employ a theological basis rooted in our bibliology. This also is found in the original texts we employ and how we approach textual critical issues with the discussion.

That's a good question. One of my first points, in replying to this in discussions in our local church or even in classroom settings, is to begin by examining how the writers of Scripture used existing Scripture in their work. It shouldn't be neglected that the NT never actually quotes "word-for-word" from the Septuagint and that the use of Hebrew in the NT doesn't inherently pursue such a method. Second, and I know we've disagreed about this here, my position on word-for-word translations between the original (inflected) languages and English (a non-inflected language) is that it is extraordinarily difficult (if not truly possible) to employ a consistent "word-for-word" translation, especially in Hebrew. Adding to this is the issue of unique facets of the ancient language, turns of a phrase, idioms, generational specific terminology, among other things that make "word-for-word" translation nearly impossible into English. Now, if you're translating into another language it is likely easier, English is an accursed language that is further evidence of the Fall.

That point notwithstanding, I tend to gravitate towards a mediating position that appreciates the necessity of dynamic equivalence. There are some passages which, because of all the eccentricities of language, cannot be properly understood "word-for-word" in 21st century English. I do like many formal equivalent translations and use them in personal study as well as preaching & teaching for secondary texts.

I hope this advances things.

 

It certainly does not. And you have acknowledged such in the past.

 

But doesn't Jesus and his Apostles argue though for the very words themselves being inspired by the Holy spirit in the original texts?

 

The Septuagint or the Hebrew? Which one was the exact words?

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

It is easy for translators to say all the right things, but by their work product should they be judged. Does any translator's "theology" say they do not worship the truth? Nope Do some translators "fix" the translation to make it say what they think it meant? Yep.

 

What do you mean there would be no reason???

There is reason enough if we see Jesus prescribe this kind of hermeneutic and observe its practice among the apostles and early church.

Beyond that, this keeps us from moralizing the OT to simple stories we are to emulate and allows the gospel to be the main message of Scripture. If you don't see the value in that, then your theology is rather warped, IMO.

 

Yes, translators leave words out (behold at Matthew 1:20 NET) and also add words that alter rather than clarify the message.

 

In case you missed it, JOJ "the note given over and over" points to the NET deleting the word (G2400) again and again. I did not do a total count, but of the 165 times it appears in the text, it usually is missing in the NET. But the footnote appears in its place.

I did count up Matthew, where the word appears about 43 times. It appears in the NET about 15times and is deleted about 28 times. Another reason to stick to the NASB.

 

One question, and a two-part answer:
The Septuagint, like any translation from the original language, is "the exact words" only insofar as it accurately represents that original. However, I believe that the NT autographs hold the exact words God intended, and that's equally true whether a particular OT quote was taken from the Hebrew or the Septuagint.

 

Is the NET actually the worst when it comes to deleting G2400 from the translation? I did a quick count in Matthew of the NIV and only found the word in the translation 4 times! Must be the theology of omission.

Now the HCSB usually translated the word, but it uses many different words and phrases, rather just "Look!" or Behold. We find suddenly, unexpectedly, see, there it was, immediately, right away, at that, just then, at this, there he saw, here is, consider, listen, take note, here's, at that moment, in fact, and remember, Must be the theology of non-correspondence.

 

OTOH, a look at Matthew in the LEB gives us the truth, G2400 is translated as "behold" all 43 times! Must be the theology of truth.