Vol. III Supplement, No.

Updated r.2.2.0
2018-02-18

This is a part of a new English translation (IRENT). See http://tiny.cc/bostonreaders

IRENT Vol. III. Supplement:

# 2 of WALK THROUGH THE SCRIPTURE

No. 1 (Words, Words and Words)

No. 2 (Text, Translation and Translations)

No. 3 (Names, Persons and People)
No. 4 (Place, Things, and Numbers)
No. 5 (Time, Calendar and Chronology)
No. 6 (Passion Week Chronology)

See the collected files in Collections #2 to IRENT Vol III. Supplement:

 Hominum confusione, Dei providentia
God's plan emerges from our human confusion.
 No. 2 Text, Translation and Translations
[Note: ‘Ref.’ means reading material I have found useful, not only to solve problems
but also to find challenges. Not all things written there are relevant to the topics under
the discussion here. Not all written can be correct, accurate, or acceptable. The
readers should exercise their own judgment to make best use of them.]

At the level of vocabulary: That a word is a word and is a word is contrary to what
we find in the language. Most difficult two words are ‘*meaning’ and ‘*definition’ –
how to find its meaning and how to define. Each word has only a semantic field – no
meaning(s) in itself. Meaning comes when a word is found in the context in the text.
[E.g. a simple word ‘dream’ if tried to put into Latin - If your request contains the word
"dream", read this before posting ]

Without clear meanings, a word can be at a root of confusion and miscommunication. A word
does not have meanings by itself. A meaning of a word in dictionaries does not go beyond
glosses. Only usage of a word by people (diachronic and synchronic) we can see its meanings
on which a writer or speaker rely on what is intended to convey.

The meaning of any word or expression is compounded in varying proportions of five

ingredients: (a) dictionary (rather ‘lexical’) definition; (b) contextual determination;
(c) the referent; (d) verbal association; and (e) emotive force. [G. B. Caird, “The
Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical Semantics” Mew Test.
Stud. 15, pp. 265-77. The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical
Semantics]

Since Bible translation work involves interpretation of the Scripture, this file also
includes material on interpretation as such. An interpretation of any document is
fraught with many and serious difficulties. [Cf. exegesis and eisegesis] The term
hermeneutics covers both art and theory of understanding and interpretation of
linguistic and non-linguistic expressions. It is the study of the principles that should
guide work of interpretation. Not about reading the present significance of a text (and
not only with its original meaning), nor a specific approach to interpretation (as in
“the new hermeneutic”). Nor it is explaining away nor finding application of the text
to bring to the readers’ life. Even The doctrine of so-called biblical inerrancy entails
certain interpretive positions. [Ref. Silva (1987), Has the Church Misread the Bible?]
*Bible, *Scripture, *God’s Word; Texts; Manuscripts; *Canon;

[Ref.
Paul Wegner (1999), The Journey from Texts to Translations – The Origin and
Development of the Bible.
Charles Scalise (1996), From Scripture to Theology – A Canonical Journey into
Hermeneutics.
Moisés Silva (1990), God, Language and Scripture – Reading the Bible in the light
of general lingcusitics,

Though often used indiscriminately and interchangeably, it is of immense help for

all people when we use these three terms clearly distinguished from each other. It
is one example of few things important in our life to be better clear and precise in
use of words and phrases.

1. ‘Bible’ is the Scripture which has been put into a vernacular language. Many
fail to distinguish between two synonymous expressions. Bibles are products
of such a translation work from the original language. Note how the
expressions, ‘the Bible’ and ‘Bibles’ are to be differentiated, having different
sense and usage. a
2. ‘Scripture’ (‘the Holy Scripture’) refers to what was written in the original
languages. Whoever claims the Scripture is inerrant has to examine their brain,
since it is impossible to read the whole Scripture (not ‘Bible’) to understand
what it is and what it is meant for by examining not just every letter, words,
sounds in it, but how it was written and used throughout the history of various
human society and community to be right on the context, textual and cultural 1.
3. ‘Word of God’ – though the expression is not easy to define or comprehend,
it is the Scripture that holds this great gift of God. It is not just written texts,
messages or even God’s sayings, but it IS Yeshua Himself revealed to the
humanity. The authors did not write them to be those for a canon of a
cult/religion and to be treated sacred.

4. Canon – this has been defined differently historically. Ref. Scalise (1996),
From Scripture to Theology, (p. 44).

These terms are to be differentiated:

Scripture – In this writing and all other related ones, it refers to Judeo-Christian
Scripture and does not concern with other religion’s scriptures. It refers to the
original written which holds the God’s Word as revealed. Often as ‘Holy
Scripture’.
Bible – Translated works and its text into various vernacular languages, or the
content within. There is no such thing as ‘the Bible’, other than it denotes a

a
Cf. ‘biblical inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration, and authority’.
 particular Bible of a certain version/edition in a language. Often it refers to the
published book of the translated text. The word with its concept is not in the
Bible itself.
Canon a – [ecclesiastical and religious jargon]; An official list or collection of
writings that a particular religious group considers as its core scriptures or
authoritative for their religious and practices. The Greek word kanōn originally
meant "measuring rod; rule; criterion" (cf. 2Co 10:13-16; Gal 6:16), but later
came to mean such a list of writings that met certain criteria.

"Canonization" or to be "canonized" refers to the process by which a book was

accepted into the official list of core scriptures (such as the Bible) by a particular
religious group. A scriptural canon is usually considered "fixed" or "closed",
meaning that no additional books will be added to it.
Biblical – pertaining to, contained in, or in concordance with what is said ‘in a
Bible’
Scriptural – ditto ‘in the Scripture’. If Scriptural, it has to be also Biblical,
though certain Bibles may not have translated correctly and clearly what is in the
Scripture.
Canonical; Non-canonical
Biblical; Non-biblical – not related to the Bible; not present in the Bible.
(necessarily also non-Scriptural)
Unbiblical – contrary to what is said in the Bible.
Non-scriptural
Unscriptural –contrary to what is said in the Scripture. (necessarily also
unbiblical)
Hebrew Scripture (TaNakh. Cf. LXX); Christian Scripture (NT and OT);
Greek Scriptures (NT and/or LXX);
The Scripture (used as a collective noun instead of pl. ‘the Scriptures’ in
IRENT. Most Bibles translate the plural word in Greek NT text as ‘the
scriptures’, the singular one as ‘scripture’. The latter is translated in IRENT as
‘passage in the TaNaKh scripture’), vs. the Bible vs. Bibles.
Original Scripture texts (original manuscripts; variants; OT Texts; NT
Greek Texts); Codex; papyrus; versions;

Textual criticism; critical editions

*version; vs. a (Bible) translation;

Cf. ' translator vs. interpreter

A Bible is a product of translation work and, as such, it should not be confused

with the expression ‘the Book’ or ‘the (Holy) Scripture’. It is a means to
access and read the Scripture of the language one can use. Any Bible claimed
to be the ‘Word of God’ is a blasphemy. b It is not something to be worshiped
a
canon – ref: Michael J. Kruger (2013), The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the
New Testament Debate
b
E.g. ‘KJV only-ism’ ‘KJV worship’ www.kjvonly.org/james/may_great_inconsistency.htm
 but to be read and studied just like any other literary (of different genre and
style) and linguistic work before one can discern God’s word. There is not a
single Bible [translation] which can be claimed to be reliable, and there never
will be – as our language itself keeps on changing and translators have to work
with something of agenda, whether it is doctrinal and religious or not, and
whether it is clearly expressed or kept hidden. “The Bible says (so and so).”
Yes, but what other Bible says may be different.
We should not see the writers of the books in the New Testament (also the
Old Testament for that matter) think of himself as writing scripture as such. If
we miss this simple (essential) point, we miss everything and get sidetrack
away from what it is to show us. “Scripture” in the sense that the word is now
used did not exist, arguably, did not exist in the full sense of the term until
well into the second century CE, either in the Jewish or the Christian
traditions. a

the Scripture ░░ (capitalized). IRENT renders Gk. hai graphai (pl.) ‘the scriptures’ as ‘the
TaNaKh Scripture’. Different from its use as a common religious jargon, it does NOT refer the
Bible, but TaNaKh, the Hebrew Scripture, Cf. Gk. hē graphē (singular) ‘the scripture’ refers to a
passage – rendered in IRENT as ‘the scripture passage [in TaNaKh]’. (e.g. Mk 12:10; Lk 4:21).
All the passages with expressions ‘scripture(s)’ within the N.T. refers to TaNaKh (‘Hebrew
Scripture’ > ‘Old Testament’). Except a few, most OT quotations in NT are parallel to LXX. b Other
than the five books of Torah, LXX is a late product affected by Christian interpretation of O.T.
When MT and LXX have different meaning and wording, its cross reference is indicated whether
it is from MT or LXX.

Old and New Testament = ‘Book of the Former (> Old) and Renewed (> New) Covenants’

Gospel ░░ [This term, appearing in the title of the first four books of the New Testament, refers
to the individual Gospel book or its content. It is about the life history and teaching of Yeshua the
Mashiah (> Messiah). It is derived from Old English gōdspel (‘good news or story’) (glad tidings;
joyful message). As such it is of God’s Kingdom reign through Yeshua the Mashiah (> Messiah)
to announce liberation from political and religious powers, to the audience of the Yehudim (Judaic
people) at first and then of the Gentiles of the nations; not about ‘personal salvation’, a theological
jargon.] [In the Gospels, the translation word ‘Gospel’ only here – in a technical sense and as a
title. Elsewhere as ‘the Good News’ ‘(a) good news’)]

‘Biblical authority’:

‘sola scriptura’ , which is a theological doctrine (not followed by Catholic). Yes,

but the problem is that what most follows is not the Scripture but their
interpretation of the Scripture, in their traditions and their favored Bible
(translation).

a
[The portion in italics is which is quoted from D H Akenson (1998), Surpassing Wonder, p. 60.]
b
How frequently did the NT book writers translate from Hebrew texts or quote from the Septuagint? Also
on the Tetragrammaton in LXX. http://tetragrammaton.org/lxx.html; www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
www.geocities.ws/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm www.scriptureanalysis.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/Grant-Jones-LXXNotesFeb06.pdf
 www.equip.org/article/what-is-sola-scriptura/
www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT
www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-early-christians-subscribe-to-sola-
scriptura

Bible, Bibles, Scripture, (Biblical) Texts:

Read the Bible, yes. But to say ‘interpret the Bible’ is not accurate in wording when it
is meant to interpret the (biblical) texts.
 “Worshiping the Bible”?
There is one which believes only one translation in English as the Bible.
(i.e., KJV onlyism) a. English of KJV (1611) is not Modern English, but
Early Modern English. As to understandability, KJV is very much
recommended for people who are 350 years or older as some suggests ;-
<

The problem of ‘Scriptural authority’ (Biblical authority).

The authority of the Scripture means ‘God’s authority exercised through the
Scripture – Cf. NT Wright in The Last Word (2005 Harper) p. 23.
Also N.T. Wright on the Problem with Biblical Authority (Cf. Surprised by the
Scripture (2014 Harper)] (Cf. Mt 28:18)

Literalism; Literal translation; Literal interpretation;

Ref. Francois Recanati (2004), Literal Meaning

Ref. Adrian Thatcher (2008), The Savage Text – The Use and Abuse of the Bible

Biblicism:
Ref. Christian Smith (2012), The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism
Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

[p. viii. - a doctrinal position (not “theory”) about the Bible that emphasizes together
its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal
consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability.” - note the use of the
term Bible, not ‘Scripture’, which makes it significantly different. If it is in the sense
of Scripture, those who try refute Biblicism have to be all-knowing the Scripture in
the original language – in its understanding, interpretation, and spirit’s revelation in
full linguistic, literary, cultural, and historical setting. – just same as those who deny
the truth and love to pick and choose to prove errancy and untrustworthiness of the
Scripture. There is no single human being capable enough to speak out with
credulity. It is like trying to prove some is non-existent, when no one can search out
even every corner of the universe, not mentioning outside and beyond the observable
universe. That’s precisely what it means by ‘God’ (El) or God-being – ‘mighty one’.]

• The God’s Word – The Divine Words (not ‘message’)

• The Scripture b – The Holy Writings

a
www.kjvonly.org/james/may_great_inconsistency.htm
b
The Scripture was written in three languages: in Hebrew (which is revived along with re-
establishment of the nation Israel in 1948 after almost two millennia) and for small portion in Aramaic
(which is now almost extinct) and, for the New Testament, in Koine Greek. (Common Greek, not
classical or modern.). Cf. LXX translation of TaNaKh.
 • The Bible a – a collective term for translation works into vernacular languages.

Such self-evident statement is usually not well discerned. Though the word ‘Scripture’ and
‘Bible’ can be synonymously used, often times the difference should become important.
Note: Greek arthrous singular word hē graphē (‘that which is written down’) refers to the
(particular) Scripture passage (as IRENT renders as ‘Scripture passage’), while in plural
(‘those which are written down’, usu. translated as ‘Scripture’ as a collective word) it is in
the sense of a collective whole (as IRENT renders as ‘Scripture’ – not that there are more
than one. b Within in the text NT it refers to Hebrew Scripture (TaNaKh); these should not
be confused with the Christian Scripture, which also includes the 27 books of the so-called
New Testament.

• Old Testament (Hebrew Scripture; TaNaKh), [3 divisions - Torah (Teachings);

Nevi’im (Prophets); Ketuvim (Writings)]; Masoretic text; LXX; Torah; Dead Sea
Scrolls; Cf. Talmud, Oral Torah; Midrash (collection); Halakha (/Halacha) c.

Midrash; a Hebrew word referring to the exposition, or exegesis, of a biblical text.

The term usually refers to a specific compilation of midrashic teachings (midrash
halakhah and Midrash aggadah).
Pesher (www.xenos.org/essays/matthews-use-old-testament-preliminary-analysis )

Pardes
1. peshat, plain (simple) or literal reading;
2. Remez, allegorical reading through text's hint or allusion
3. Derash, metaphorical reading through a (rabbinic sermon's)
comparison/illustration (midrash)
4. Sod, hidden meaning reading through text's secret or mystery (Kabbalah).

• New Testament (Mashiahn Scripture); (27 books) consists of 4 Gospels, 1 Acts, 21

Epistles, 1 Apocalypse; [See a separate file: Appendix: Introduction to New
Testament]

• Relationship between Old and New Testaments:

“The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the

a
A ‘Bible’ is a translation work. Synonymous with ‘bible translation’. Often the terms ‘Bible’ and
‘version’ and ‘translation’ get mixed up. (E.g. Rather than KJ version it is accurate to call it King
James Bible with several revised versions. It is NIV Bible with several revised versions. Same for
‘Catholic Bibles’, ‘Protestant Bibles’.) Often refers to a book in print or in electronic file which
contains such translation work. There is no ‘the Bible’, other than a particular Bible that which is
referred to. There is no ‘Holy Bible’, but only ‘Holy Scripture’. No Bible is inspired or inerrant, but
only the Scripture is.
[Cf. Brevard S. Childs (2013), The Bible as Christian Scripture (its title is an incorrect phrase with
‘Scripture’ actually referring to ‘canonical Bible.]
To translate the Scripture and to read the Bibles, it is necessary to have right understanding and
interpretation in harmony of the whole Scripture – not at all on the basis of doctrines, religions, and
church traditions, but on the basis of linguistic, literary, and life-setting approach.]
b
[See Appendix: ‘the issue of inerrancy of the Bible’]. [esp. 2Tm 3:16, which has become a favorite
proof text for the idea of biblical errancy, as if the whole Scripture depends for its truth and power.]
c
halakha – the collective body of Jewish religious laws, based on the Written and Oral Torah,
including the 613 mitzvot, and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions
compiled today in the Shulchan Aruch, "the Code of Jewish Law".
 Old Testament revealed!” It is about the truth and the revelation through the teaching
(God’s torah) in the Scriptures; not about sophisticated catechetical formulated
doctrines (which are all products of human minds and religions).

Textural history and criticism

Manuscripts (mss), Papyrus, Parchment; Scroll; Codex,
text variants (v.l.); Versions; Editions;
Various texts of New and Old Testaments – Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and other languages.
Various translations into vernacular languages

Related words:
Literary Genre;
History (or historiography in contrast to study of history); Hagiography; Biography
Emendation; ‘Corruption’ (as to in copying process); conflation;
Canon; canonical; canonization (‘making it included into the biblical canon’, not
‘declaring someone died as church saints’);

Languages of the Scripture – copied from BW 1a.

• *Hebrew (religious) vs. Aramaic (vernacular).

• Koine Greek – lingua franca from the time of Alexander the Great;
(commerce, cultural).
• Latin – governmental in the Roman Empire.

Hebrew vs. Aramaic: (Reading material:

www.salon.com/2014/07/02/jesus_language_more_complicated_than_experts_clai
m_partner/}

The word ‘Hebrew’ means primarily of people, as in Phi 3:5 (where Paul called
himself a Hebrew) and in Act 6:1.

As a language it is the main language of TaNaKh (O.T.) and of modern Israelis. It is

to be contrasted to Aramaic language.

The Gk word Hebraisti (‘in Hebrew’) - Other than in Jn 19:20; Rev 9:11; 16:16, the
phrase in G-Jn (Jn 5:2; 19:13, 17; 20:16 v.l.) it should be understood as ‘in the speech
of the Hebrews’. Some renders it as ‘in Aramaic’ – ESV, LEB, NET, CEV, EMTV,
ERV.

In three places (Act 21:40; 22:2; 26:14) it shows as tē Ebraidi dialektō (‘in the
Hebrew dialect’).

*Vocabulary re: Bible, Scripture, Translation – copied from BW 1.

Textural history and criticism

Manuscripts (mss), Papyrus, Parchment; Scroll; Codex,
Text variants (v.l.); Versions; Editions;
Various texts of New and Old Testaments – Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and other languages.
Various translations into vernacular languages
Translation; interpretation, exegesis, hermeneutics; paraphrase; metaphrase; rewriting;
*Bible, *Scripture, *God’s Word; Texts; Canon; [See BW #1]
Literary Genre;
History; Hagiography; Biography
Emendation; ‘Corruption’ (as to in copying process); conflation;
Canon; canonical; canonization (‘making it included into the biblical canon’, not ‘declaring
someone died as church saints’);

[Cf. http://latindiscussion.com/forum/forums/english-to-latin-translation.2/ ]

Elohim and Adonai – these are used in IRENT as Hebrew loanwords for
translation Greek words (theos and kurios)

In the work of translating the Greek N.T. and in reading English version,
it should not be forgotten that a large vocabulary is Greek translation of
the Hebrew/Aramaic of words in addition to those words transliterated,
such as proper names. As a typical example of a translated word, the
word ‘theos’ (‘God) is a translation of Hebrew word ‘Elohim’, just as the
English word ‘God’ in the N.T. is translation of the Greek.
In turn, English words keep on changing, a vocabulary of religious as well
as biblical jargon comes and distorts meaning of the translated text.
Never trust the translation; no translation can claim be to accurate. All
we can accept is that a given translation treats somethings more accurate
than in other translations. Of course, we have to deal with a perennial
problem, the problem of defining the word ‘accurate’ itself.

While some transliterated words from the original languages are used in IRENT, two
important translation words, Elohim and Adonai, as used in IRENT work, are to be
recognized as Hebrew loanwords. It is for the purpose of translation only, with no other
agenda. The use of these loanwords is found to remove much of confusion when reading
English translations. It does affect vitally important doctrines which are derived from the
different Bible translations and formulated to fit one’s dogma and traditions.

They may be used freely in everyday language. However, in no way it suggests that these
should replace the corresponding English words (God and Lord).

See also other files in BW (Walk Through the Scripture) #3 Names, Persons, and People.
*Gospel; *Good News;

Related words: good news; euaggeliozō ‘bring good news’; kerussō ‘proclaim’. See
WB #1 – ‘Gospel’ is to be proclaimed and is to be brought to people. It is not
something to preach. (‘preach the gospel’ is a nonsensical church jargon.)

The Gospel is:

The Gospel of the Kingdom reign of Elohim

The Gospel of the Mashiah’s Cross
The Gospel of the God’s Grace

The Gospel proclaimed by Yeshua was the Gospel of Kingdom reign. It is not of
‘personal salvation’, ‘forgiveness of sins’, ‘theological justification’, socio-
political liberation, emancipation, paradise on earth, etc.

The English word ‘gospel’ is from O.E. the Anglo-Saxon word Gōdspel > gōd
(good) + spel (tidings, news; story, discourse). It was an accurate equivalent of the
original Greek word euaggelion, literally a good tidings or message. And the oldest
surviving Greek manuscript copies of the four canonical gospels bear only the
headings According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John (the four books together
comprise the whole of the single gospel; and the word canonical derives from the
Greek kanon (measuring rod) and indicates, in this case, those few gospels that
were approved as holy scripture by the orthodox church of the late second century).

The Greek word euaggelion (noun) meaning ‘good news’ (glad and joyous
tidings) in the New Testament refers specifically to the good news a which Elohim
brings through Yeshua the Mashiah for His Kingdom reign b (Mt 4:17; 6:9). It is
emancipating and liberating wonderful news for people in spirital c darkness under
political oppressions and religious bondage – an Apostolic kerygma
(proclamation). Only in this sense, the word may be rendered as ‘Gospel’,
denoting the ‘Gospel of Yeshua the Mashiah’.

It is NOT about ‘good news of (personal) salvation’ ‘good news of going to heaven
after death’ ‘good news of happiness, health, wealth, prosperity’.

a
‘Good news’ in the Scripture was to those who received in their life setting in the first century. It
cannot be ‘good’ naively for those who read now and are willing to hear what it may speak to them
through priests, pastors, preachers, or professors. It is rather a disturbing news – it’s a challenge to
persons, to the society, and to the culture, to make uncomfortable to sit and rest.
b
Kingdom reign – not about territory with control of its subjects. It is antithetical to ‘theocracy’.
c
spirital, that is, ‘of the realm of spirit’. Not ‘spiritual’, even worse, ‘spiritualistic’ of cheap
‘spiritualism’ of deistic and New Age movement – ‘worshiping Spirit(s)’.
Most people have the main theme confused with its contents such as atonement, salvation,
God’s love, ‘evangelism’, praxis of believers’, etc. Gospel does not mean a message of
personal salvation’ (as such in evangelical expression). It does not come at a personal
psychological level, nor so-called ‘spiritual’ level, but at societal level as a challenge to
religious and political powers. [So-called prosperity gospel peddled and trumpeted by
some Christian churches is nothing but a Satanic verse with words Christian religion
words. Cf. ‘Pure Gospel’ or ‘Full Gospel’ as in a title of sects and denominations,
purported to complement inadequacy of the Gospel in the Scripture.]

• ‘Gospel of Elohim’ Mk 1:4 v.l.

• (Gospel of {Kingdom of} God); Rm 1:1; 15:16; 2Co 11:7; 1Th 2:2, 8, 9; 1Pe 4:17;

• Gospel of Yeshua the Mashiah (> the Messiah) – Mk 1:1

[Note: in the four Gospels, only here in the title of G-Mk, IRENT has the English word ‘Gospel’
(with initial capital letter) which Mark implicitly uses in the specialized sense. Elsewhere in the
Gospels, as ‘good news’.] (Cf. Gospel as a Gospel book)

• Gospel of His Son – Rm 1:9

• Gospel of the Mashiah – Rm 15:19; 1Co 9:12; 2Co 1:12; 9:13; 10:14; Gal 1:7; Phi
1:27; 1Th 3:2
• Gospel of our Lord Yeshua – 2Th 1:8
• Gospel of the glory of the Mashiah – 2Co 4:4;
• Gospel of the glory of the blessed God – 1Ti 1:11
• Gospel of the Kingdom – Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14;
• Gospel of the grace of God – Act 20:24
• ~ of your salvation [in the sense of ‘affecting your salvation] – Eph 1:13
• ~ of shalom – Eph 6:15; /
• Our Gospel - 2Co 4:3; 1Th 1:5; 2Th 2:14;
• Gospel of His I’m proclaiming – Rm 2:16; 16:25; 2Ti 2:8;

“To be worthy of news, it has to be spread.”

“Goods that are not shared are not goods.”
“Most good news gets buried quickly [in media];
bad news spread like wild fire and linger on.”

Unless it is shared and spread, the good news can be neither a news nor good. This
is what is mean by ‘announcing good news, i.e. ‘evangelize’. To have an accurate
sense of this word, (1) one has to be clear of what is meant by ‘God’, and (2) one
has to come to know Yeshua, (3) and to understand what is meant by the
*Kingdom reign of Elohim, which stands in contrast to political systems of human
kingdoms in history.

Many Bible translations render the Greek word in the N.T. text as ‘gospel’ (as in
KJV), some as ‘Gospel’. Some as ‘good news’; some as ‘Good News’. Within
the [four] Gospels, the translated phrase ‘the Gospel’ is awkward. The Good News
becomes crystalized as ‘the Gospel’ in the kerygma of the followers of the
Mashiah from the later part of the first century as it moved beyond the [four]
Gospels. Since the readers have to rely on the context to see the referent and
 indexical for this word, ‘the good news’ or ‘the Good News’ may be found not
clear enough. (E.g. Gal 1:6-8.)

The Gospel is His Gospel – Gospel of Yeshua the Mashiah. [ cf. The Epistle to Romans
is called ‘Gospel according to Paul’, but not ‘his Gospel’ (Paul’s Gospel), but His Gospel,
Gospel of the Mashiah.] [There are so many preaching and selling their own gospels in
these last days of our world - Cf. problem of ‘my’. ‘my church’ – church owned by me?
Under control by me? A largest church in the world built by ‘me’? The phrase ‘my gospel’
as traditionally rendered in Rm 2:16; 16:25; 2Tm 2:8 (See Gal 1:11 ‘the Gospel, which
is being proclaimed by me’) is very misleading as if there is something special ‘Gospel of
Paul’ apart from the very Gospel of Kingdom reign of God by Yeshua the Mashiah, but
different aspects Paul bringing into focus (cf. Rm 1:17). It should be rendered as ‘the
Gospel of His I’m proclaiming’.]

As early as the first quarter of the second century, the word Gospel (with initial in
capital letter) is also used to refer to the written-down accounts. We have the four
canonical Gospels in the New Testament. The phrase in the title as appear in the
later manuscripts of the Greek text, ‘kata Matthaion’, for example, implies the
authorship or editorship ‘as in the name of Mattithyahu (/Matthew)’. It is not merely
‘of Matthew’. Nor does it signify that the original teaching was Matthew’s, and the
present Gospel drawn up after that teaching (Alford, p. 1.) Cf. As a short-cut it is
called ‘Matthew′s Gospel’ ‘Gospel of Matthew’, ‘St. Matthew’, or even merely
‘Matthew’. To refer to, IRENT uses an abbreviation G-Mt, etc.

Other than the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, there are many
other ‘Gospels’ written up from the earliest time. Among these, called non-canonical
gospels, a well-known is Gospel of Thomas (its Coptic text found in 1945, dated at around
340 CE), a Gnostic gospel which is a darling of a fringe Jesus Seminar Gang.

• Ref: www.sbts.edu/resources/magazines/gospels-as-the-archway-into-the-canon/
• Ref. Jonathan Pennington (2012), Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and
Theological Introduction (kindle book)
• Ref. Martin Hengel (2000), The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ.
http://nicksdata.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/book-review_hengel.pdf

*book, scroll; *Scripture, Scriptures

Greek word biblos, from which the English word Bible came, is ‘scroll’, which later evolved
into a codex (similar to a modern printed book). Since it does not have a sense of the English
word ‘book’ as such to use it as a translation word in the Bible is anachronistic. It is
something that is ‘written-down’ (‘biblos’, is equivalent to ktb in Semitic languages.) It does
not connote something the readers can hold in their hands.
 Note. This is the first word in the Gospel of Matthews and should not be read as ‘book or
record’ (as of genealogy). See the entry. ‘life history’ vs ‘geneology’ on BW 1a.

Note: while ‘a scripture’ refers to a Scripture passage (in TaNakh), the word ‘Scriptures’ (of
plural) in the NT refers to Hebrew Scripture (TaNaKh) and is rendered as the Tanakh
Scripture – except the sense in the text is more like ‘the passages in the Scripture’ – Jn 5:39
‘search through the Scriptures [in TaNaKh]’

Cf. Texts, manuscripts; textual criticism

Cf. Papyrus, parchment, codex; versions and translations (i.e. Bibles);
Cf. pericope;

*Bible vs. Scripture vs. Word of God; *book, ‘scroll’; *Scripture(s), *Torah, torah, New
Testament, Old Testament, Hebrew Scripture, TaNaKh,

RENT is the fruit of an attempt for a new English translation of Greek New Testament, which
is undertaken with linguistic and literary approach, quite different from others which are
essentially for their particular religious and ecclesial needs with theological and doctrinal
bias. A translation is often a result of doctrinal position; such translation in turn lead them
reinforce their doctrines. Not just to come up with a translation useful for those who read it,
but to ask them be challenged – not only about the translations and the text, but about
everything conceptually and practically tied to the Bible. The Bible has become a canonical
book of religion by the people of the book – religion of liturgy, rules, rituals, and rites, as well
as relics and icons. In modern mindset, it is tapped as a book of application. Translation works
of the Bible have reflected the spirit of modernism and ‘religion-ism’. This has to return to the
book of life, light, and love.

Use of [hē] graphē (‘writing’) in Pauline Epistles [syn. with gramma 2Ti 3:14 ‘ta
hiera grammata’]

singular (most renders as ‘Scripture’) –[IRENT renders as the Scripture passage]

• (the particular scripture passage); Rm 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; Gal 3:8, 22; 4:30;
1Ti 5:18;
• (every scripture passage); 2Ti 3:16 (‘every Scripture passage, into which God-
breathed life in, is indeed ~) – a much discussed text for the issue of biblical
inspiration and inerrancy. [Cf. ‘Biblicism’ – See WB #2]

plural (most renders as ‘Scriptures’) [IRENT renders not as Scriptures, but as Scripture,
a collective noun in English, in the sense of ‘the whole Scripture’]
• (in holy Scripture); Rm 1:2;
• (comfort of the Scripture); Rm 15:4;
• (by the prophetic Scripture); Rm 16:26;
• (according to the Scripture); 1Co 15:3; 1Co 15:4;

IRENT rendering is consistent throughout the N.T. (/through all the N.T.; /x: all NT
– different nuance).
The word Scripture is capitalized, as most do, since it in all occurrences refers to
God’s, holy and sacred, not secular writings or of other religions.
*Torah; Law;
- www.mayimhayim.org/Allen/Law%20vs%20Grace%201.htm (a copy in WB #1)
The Greek term nomos for law was the only word used to translate Torah. Unfortunately, nomos is a very
poor term for 'law'. It doesn't come anywhere near having the same concept as Torah, which conveys
God's grace and love toward his people. Unfortunately, nomos indicates a strict regulation with mostly a
negative connotation, but it was the only word at that time that could be used to describe Torah.

Law vs Grace – are these contra'? No! What is the Judaic answer to that? Torah is a gift of Grace, and
Torah is much more than ‘Law’! Torah is not a means of redemption, it is the way redemptive folks live,
and what a gift it is!"

*interpretation and translation

“Reading and understanding (translated) texts – it’s a work of interpretation.

Translation the text is a work of interpretation.
“interpretation is always arbitrary” It is always through colored glasses; always
depends on one’s approach, bias, agenda, presupposition, presumption, limited
knowledge, etc.

[Ref. etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-2/… Martin Pickup, “New Testament Interpretation of the

Old Testament: The Theological Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis.” JETS 51/2 (June 2008) 353–81.]
• New Testament writers used midrashic techniques to interpret the Hebrew Bible
• ‘Christian midrash’ – Midrash method of interpreting a Biblical verse.]

crux interpretum – [Indicated in IRENT by  placed before a line begins.]

E.g. Tit 2:13; 2Pe 1:1
E.g. 1Co 15:29 hoi baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn. “Otherwise, what do
people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ones? If the dead are not
raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” [See EE in IRENT]

*interpreter vs. translator

Interpreting and translating are two closely related linguistic disciplines. Difference
is only in the medium: a translator interprets written text. On the other hand, the
interpreter translates orally and as interpret the written text which is as if ‘being read
orally’.

“Literary translator”
www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/what-makes-good-literary-translator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation#Literary_translation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation

*interpretation, exegesis, hermeneutics; paraphrase; metaphrase; rewriting;

[Related words: versions; editions; translation philosophy; translation issues; study

such as theology, Christology; teaching vs. doctrine. – See a separate volume, IRENT
Vol. III Supplement - <Walk Through the Scripture 1 – Words, Words and Words>.]
Interpretation is the transference of meaning between spoken languages, while translation is
the transference of meaning between written languages. These words may refer to outcome or
product of activity of interpreting and translating. When we interpret the Bible text, we are
working on the meaning of what the text is saying, now how it was written.

Translating as well as reading of the Scripture is a work of art and involves interpretation and
one’s agenda. A common comment, ‘it is not translation, but interpretation’, is only partly
true, since all translation work is not possible without going through interpretative process.
In a sense, we can say ‘translation IS interpretation’, figuratively speaking; not ‘translation
= interpretation’. A translation requires exegesis - work of interpreting the text, as is
reflecting in a well-known Italian expression – "Traduttore, tradittore" (‘Translator,
Traitor’). However, this phrase would hold true only if interpretation a involves doctrines,
ideologies, in contrast to interpretation is work of understanding of the text at the linguistic
and literary level, though translation itself affects theology in some aspect. Making things
further complicated and worse, theology itself influences translation. It is then work of
eisegesis, being effected by ecclesiastical traditions and doctrines and canonical creeds.
That’s why translation is a human work and there is nothing sacrosanct about it by itself. The
readers of any Bible should be clear about this quicksand. A Bible is a product of translation
work which should be a vessel for the Scripture, as the Scripture is what brings the very Word
of God. Just as the Scripture is to be read from within itself without bringing in external
garbage (doctrines, teachings, theologies, interpretations, and exegesis), translation work
should bear fruits from working out from within the Scripture. [In the same manner, (1)
interpretation re-enforces or changes translation, and (20 reading the Scripture is also an act
of interpretation, which is only possible in an endless cycle of questions-responses-answers-
correction.]

To study the Scripture, b one cannot study the Bible (whether it is ‘authorized by a mere
king’, or stamped with a seal of denominational or church approval or endorsement), one can
only study with Bibles, various available in one’s language using them in comparative mode.
That everyone is born a sucker in every area of life is also true in learning and self-realization
or attainment of truths. Notice it says ‘with Bibles’, not with the Bible. However different
may the various Bibles be, the more divergent from each other, the better. [Note: Bible
publishers are producing a dizzying array of products, with translations and editions pitched
to every conceivable human taste and bent. There are many translations which are supposed
to be ‘easy to read’ and ‘palatable’, but, in reality, they are paraphrase, or worse personal
rewriting which masquerades and being promoted as if a Bible translation.]

a
Interpretation of the Scripture – should not to be confused 1Pe 1:20
“… take note of:
that none of scriptural prophecies springs
from one’s own understanding and unraveling [of what’s happening].”
b
To study the Scripture here means to read and hear what the text says and absorb, by the readers
putting themselves into the original literary and life settings – to understand the Scripture from with
the Scripture, with one’s presupposition and agenda. That would presuppose reading in the original
language. It is as learning from the master Himself. It is not about analyzing, arguing, and
accumulating knowledge, however useful it might be – all of such effort is something for lay person’s
‘bible study’ all the way up to seminary and scholarly level. E.g. What Do You Do First in Studying
the Gospels: The Theological Narratives or Critical History?
In a sense, any translation is a paraphrase, unless two languages are very close to each other
in grammar, syntax, vocabulary and idiom. Technically speaking, translation from one
language to another is paraphrase, because it is phrase-based work – that is, the smallest unit
to deal is a phrase (which can be a single word), not a word.

Any translation is not possible without some elements of paraphrasing. However,

paraphrasing can be slippery slope and it drifts away from the original language and fails to
remain connected to keep the sense and idiom intact.

However, the word ‘paraphrase’ carries a sense of ‘free rendering with elaboration and
alteration which is the translator’s own, with the original sense and idiom be replaced, altered,
distorted and alien elements taking their places within the text – all agenda-driven to suit the
personal, pseudo-scholarly, linguistic, commercial, and ideological bent.

Not a few examples are found in modern translations – easy to find out if they are ‘easy read’
and palatable and ear-itching (cf. 2Ti 4:3): The Living Bible (1971 by Kenneth Taylor); New
Living Translation (1996, 2004, 2007); The Message (1993-2002 by Eugene Peterson). These
should not be called Bible translation, though the translators and publishers often let and
mislead the readers buy these as translation, while publicly claim that they are just
paraphrases. [Characteristics of such private enterprises are frivolity, farfetchedness,
flippancy, frippery, fantastic, faddish, fake, fickleness, flight of fanciful ideas, – all foreign
to the Scripture – frightening] Another category is no one would mistake as Bible translation
– ‘private rewriting’ 2 to make a repackaged product peddling for a different kind of message.
[See EE for examples here. 3 ] [Cf. Related terms – translating; translation work; translations
(= a Bible, a paraphrase or a rewriting).] The Scripture becomes translated and translations
(Bibles) become interpreted to suit for religious and doctrinal needs with it teachings altered
from the original sense and intention some becoming petrified and fossilized.

Cf. ‘code deciphering’ ‘Bible code’; ‘kabbalah (/kabala) a’ ‘midrash’; ‘homiletic’;

Cf. Parallel Gospels (cf. ‘Gospel harmony’ – problem of resulting in homogenizing all Four
into one – different and contrasting characteristics of individual Gospel are being discarded.)

Criteria for good translation:

(1) Fidelity – (accountable to the original text as it was intended to the original
audience). How close would the back-translation be to the original language text?
(2) Sense and sensibility – to words, phrases, and sentences. Not only ‘meaning’
(whatever one can find be it in a glossary or a lexicon), but also ‘sense’ ‘nuance’
‘semantic field of synonymous and antonymous words’ ‘word association’ ‘word
picture’ ‘tone’ ‘accent’ ‘sound effect’ ‘collocation and collusion words’ ‘diction’ –
are all these aspects dealt with adequately and given due consideration across the
language and cultural barrier? If one knows only the original language and the target
language English, the translator would miss something of rich linguistic experience.
Linguistic sensitivity accepts the fact that a word has not a fixed meaning and the
meaning comes in the context and with the text. The meaning intended by the
author, narrator, or speaker is not same as the meaning understood by the real or

a
Kabbalah –
www.kabbalah5.com/What_is_Kabbalah.htm “The Kabbalah is the mystical and esoteric explanation
of the Torah. It teaches the unfolding of the worlds, the various ways of guidance of these worlds, the
role of man in the creation, the will of the Creator and more. No other writings explain in details; the
creation of this world and the ones above it, the lights or energies that influence its guidance, nor the
final goal of everything. These writings are based on ancient Jewish texts and mostly on the Zohar. …
 implied audience. a A word in translation may have a meaning by the translator
different from that which is formed in the minds of each reader or hearer. A common
word appears as specialized theological jargon, rather than in its plain sense and
usage.
(3) Faithfulness - Do the parts harmonize with the whole with consistency?
(4) Naturalness and clarity – devoid of Biblical or church jargons.
(5) Understandability – how effectively is the necessary context provided?
(6) Absence of contamination – cultural, ecclesiastical, religious, ideological,
doctrinal bent with anachronism. So-called Christian midrash.
(7) Proper cultural transfer – Translation cannot be meaning-based alone; it has to
be sense-based to go through the cultural barrier, not to create something new in a
different culture, but to re-create, so that the translated text can be securely back-
translated to the original language. b
(8) Acceptability to the intended audience who needs to hear the Scripture itself as
originally penned, rather than to hear catechisms, doctrines, interpretations,
theologies, apologetics c, polemics d, products of human translation work, or some
application or canonical books. How does it help the readers put themselves as
participants into the narrative, discourse, and audience – rather than as outsiders,
bystanders, analyzers, or treasure hunters?
(9) Visuality of the text - Page format, paragraph format, font and typography to eyes
for scanning, browsing, searching as well as text reading.
(10) Readability – Let the readers understand English the way it is put, with due
consideration for oral reading. Beware of ‘easy read’ type of translations of very
smooth readable text, as often resorting to expressions which are not biblical and
sometimes of second rate commentary or sermon level. [How useful are a number
of testing scheme (‘index’ ‘score’, etc.) for readability English text? Each proposal
may be for its intended material and its intended goal, hardly applicable to the
biblical texts of diverse genre. e] ‘readability’ – level of readability on the part of the

a
Cf. actors; insiders vs. outsiders. Cf. Ref: Culpepper (1983), Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel – A Study
in Literary Design, – definition of (1) the real author, (2) the implied author, (3) the narrator (pp. 15-
16); and narratee, implied reader, and real reader (pp. 6-7) of the Gospel. Cf. insider vs. outsider.
b
E.g. ‘what you will eat/drink’ is good as far as the meaning goes. Yes, the ‘literal’ translation
is actually meaning-based. However, the same expression has very different in affluent
Western society handing out a wrong sense from the ancient peasant society where
subsistence is a top priority, not consumption. One example is in Korean: ‘빵’, ‘for ‘bread’
since ‘bread’ is not food in the culture. Same for ‘wine’ which did not exist for consumption;
drinking wine is a modern imported culture.
Quote: We all think, act, and communicate in ways that are primarily predetermined by our culture’
– Jim Myers (http://bhcbiblestudies.blogspot.com/2014/05/using-culture-key-to-unlock-meanings-
of.html )
E.g. wrong attempt: Mt 19:24 ‘a pig might fly before ~’ in Source NT translation for ‘camel squeeze
through a needle’s eye’
c
Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position
(often religious) through the systematic use of information. It is paradoxically opposite of ‘apology’
in common vocabulary (which is an expression of regret; excusing). Early Christian writers (c. 120–
220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called
apologists
d
Polemics – is refutation for persuasion. Cf. polemic or polemical carries a word picture of
‘argument’ or ‘controversy’ ‘hostile (meaning of the Greek).
e
E.g. Gunning Fog Index; Coleman-Liau Index; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level; ARI (Automated
Readability Index); SMOG.
 readers; vs. – text comprehensibility (level of vocabulary difficulty; specialty
words; noun vs. counterpart verbal phrase;
(11) Horror of a vicious circle – It is a very common but pernicious practice of
misreading the text → misunderstanding → misinterpreting → finally
mistranslating in a vicious circle to reinforce the wrong presumption
creeping in the Bible reading and studying – all for a doctrinal and
ideological commitment.

Note on ‘*accuracy’: Since all the translations claim to be accurate, this term itself is actually
useless. [Note: the term which is often confused with ‘*literalness’] – accuracy is lost when
translation is affected by the translator's personal linguistic literary deficiency (even to their
financial gain by peddling their own bibles, such as The Message by Eugene Peterson) and
by the denominational agenda, often subtle but even outright alteration of what the text reads.

'Accurate as possible'? Consistently accurate? 'greater accuracy'??

Other high-sounding words – *reliability (of what and how so?), *faithfulness (o, yeah),
*literalness (how far literal? What is literal?); *easy reading (- even good for children's' bible?
Easy enough to require no serious study??); 'by scholar hands' (not their brains cooking the
bible texts??)

*Punctuation issue –
[See in detail in 'How to Read IRENT' in IRENT Vol. IV - Introduction]

However necessary it is in English convention, adding punctuations into the Greek text is
also as act of interpretation [G.B. Winer (1870), Treatise of the Grammar of New Testament
Greek regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis, p 64,
https://archive.org/stream/atreatiseongram00winegoog/atreatiseongram00winegoog_djvu.tx
t]

When verse or paragraph break of the text, even chapter break, is problematic, it affects
interpretation which may be found not insignificant at all. [E.g. G-Lk Ch. 23 – 24, as the last
verse (of the Ch. 23 - Lk 23:56) functions parenthetical to Ch. 24:1.]

Placing a comma affects interpretation of the text in significant way: E.g.

• Paradise in Lk 23:43 and punctuation problem [See #WB 3]
• Daniel’s 70 weeks in Dan 9:25 and punctuation problem

Text and translation issues

Quotable. “Where a translation is necessary, the gap between the spirit of the original
words and that of their reproduction must be taken into account. It is a gap that can never
be completely close.” Gadamer (1975), Truth and Method (p. 386)

Reading [the text] is an active act of interpretation; so is translation. No such thing which
can be called ‘literal translation’ literally exists. [twittered]

A quotable: “All interpreters are historically, culturally, and experientially

conditioned.”
Seminar on Biblical Interpretation in www.ibiblio.org/freebiblecommentary/
 http://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-is-an-accurate-translation-
mondays-with-mounce/ Cf. meaning of ‘literal’.

Word – meaning (common, lexical, specific), sense, usage, and definitions

(‘specification’).

Manuscripts, text (Scripture), cannon, translation process and translation product

(Bibles);

How not to translate the Bible

E.g. The Message by Eugen Peterson – (a private rewriting beyond paraphrase

E.g. Holton, New Metaphysical Version – 4 Gospels.
www.themetaphysicalwebsite.com/TheFourGospels/

Translation theories and techniques; principle and practice

• Ref.:
1. Porter & Boda, ed. (2009), Translating the New Testament – Text,
Translation, Theology.
2. RE Whitaker, ed. (2004), Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography
Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker
3. Moises Silva (1990), God, Language and Scripture – Reading the Bible
in the light of general linguistics
4. Whitaker, ed. (2004), Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography Essays
in Honor of Frederick W. Danker
5. SOCIOLOGY OF THE BIBLE
in www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_02930.html

• What is ‘text’? [Cf. adjective – ‘textual’]

Text (written vs. spoken) – a stretch of words, short or long. A passage in
such.
Text (of original language or translation)
May refer to a particular specialized text, such as biblical texts, texts of the
original manuscripts, etc.

• ‘translation’ vs. ‘interpretation’ in communicating into another language. –

1. interpretation of a foreign speech in real time
2. translation of a written document

Note: Reading the Scripture is inevitably also an act of translation, which

again is an act of interpretation. Reading of the Scripture should begin as theo-
 centric, not Christo-centric, as the so-called Christianity (Christianism of
westernized Christian religions) reads with a colored glass on, seeing every
words impregnate with their image of Christ remade. One of the unfortunate
consequence is the God’s name uncomfortable to handle, eventual falling into
a pit of Jehovah = Jesus, same person of a tri-theistic Trinitarian style in the
whole enchilada of Christological babbles. [A definition of Christianity = a
religion of Christians; Christians = those having Christianity as their religion
– definition by a circular reasoning]. Yeshua have made clear about who he
is, but the focus is not on Himself, but on the relation of Him to Elohim, His
father. He always points to Elohim in His teachings and acts. So-called
miracles of Jesus are the signs to reveal His Father, not as feats of magicians
or magician healers. [e.g. What do people make out of the so-called miracle
of ‘walking on water’ where the Greek text does not have that kind of
expression? What effect had on the disciples ever, if it was such a supernatural
feat?]

• translation process vs. translation product

To express the text of one language into a different language is not by itself;
it’s only a part of translation (process). As to Bible translation, it is the action
of achieving communication from the source language to the receptor
language to effectively transfer the total information content – sense of word
or phrases and tone and intention as well as the form and format. The task is
not to find the meaning of the text and its message (which are only from the
human mind of the translator and the audience) and to put them into modern
words as palatable as possible – brining into their translations what the
translator believes the original authors said. No, it is the very meaning of the
original authors who intend to communicate to their audience that should be
clearly in translation. In this respect, most of the recent crops of English
translations, many as trumpeted as easy-read and modernized and, for some,
to suit their ideology, are not trustworthy products, but only peddling their
ideas after tradition of Adam and Eve, who succumbed the Serpent’s
challenge and to choose to decide what is right and what is wrong,
independent of the Creator.

Some think there is a perfect Bible; this is what bibliolatry is about (such as
so-called ‘KJV-Onlyism’, KJVO in short). No human work is perfect even
for the work of translating the sacred Scripture. Neither translators nor
translations are ever ‘inspired’, whatever the word ‘inspired’ may mean. No
Bible as long as it means a translated work of the Scripture, is the product of
God, nor of divine origin. It’s product of human work of enormous effort.
Only what is delivered in the Scripture is from God (Jn 17:17). Many think
the more literal a translation is the more accurate. Many fall into a false idea
that the easier a translation is the more effective. However, the concept of
accuracy and readability should not come ahead of effectiveness of
communication and faithfulness to the original. Some with scholarly ideas
think the more precise the more informative it is, when, in fact, it proves to
 be much less useful when it has not given due consideration of the receiver
side and the text has not been treated as something alive only in its totality –
a victim of scholar’s fallacy. This is especially evident for translation works
driven by doctrinal and scholarly agenda.

• ‘literal translation’; ‘word-for-word’ translation (gloss); ‘formal

equivalence’; meaning-based; paraphrase; re-writing

[‘literal’ – Ref. Vincent Crapanzano (2000), Serving the Word –

Literalism in America from the Pulpit to the Bench. (pp. xv-xxvi,
Preface; pp. 1-28, Introduction)]

• One of the major problems of translation process in its philosophy and

practice is sadly unavoidable in human hands. The Scripture becomes often a
source of the religious doctrines (sectarian and denominational) and in turn
these doctrines are fed back into their work of translation to produce their
version of Bible, thus reinforcing their doctrines in all sophistry and, at the
same time, put veils over their eyes to the truths. It is the issue of agenda and
ideology.

• In reality there can be no translation which can be literally word-for-word

translation (cf. metaphrase). It’s only possible when we are talking about an
interlinear text (which may be thought of effective and useful as the so-called
Strong’s number system). The goal of translating the Scripture is to put into
idioms of another language; not conforming to the culture of the intended
audience of the receptor language, but reflecting the culture of the original
people of the source language, so that such Bible produced should remain
faithful as possible, linguistically speaking.

• We may have to concede that a best Bible to read may be the very one you
have on your hand, as long as you are able to read through without struggling
and without getting misled. On the other hand, a worst Bible to study with is
one single Bible you use. Use two or more different Bibles to study.

• Approaches to Bible translation process a – based on the concepts applied to

translation techniques or models of (1) formal equivalence vs. (2) dynamic
(or functional) equivalence. Many articles and books have been written on
this topic. [The latter should not be equated with a paraphrase work or free
re-writing, which is not a proper Bible translation. Some belongs to intra-
language translation, such as rewriting into a Children’s Bible, or a condensed
Bible. Peterson’s Message – a paraphrase masquerading as a transition – does

a
“The task of the Bible translator is to communicate the content of the Biblical texts
originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, in the native language of the readers
for whom the translation is being prepared... the translator is concerned with equivalence,
that is, he is concerned that his finished translation communicates accurately what the
original author wrote.” Robert Martin, Accuracy of Translation – Banner of Truth, p. 63.
 taste like a work of intra-language re-writing translation rather than cross-
language translation, intentionally re-packaging to put the translator’s speech
into the translated text, rather than the original author’s speech, with
bypassing of the intention of the author which was to be conveyed to the
original intended audience. [See EE on ‘Equivalence’ here 4]

Note: translation work deals with ‘meaning’ of the text. However, the
meaning-based approach should not suggest that what the translated text is
supposed to mean to its readers upon their biased opinions and limited
knowledge. On the contrary, what the Scripture text was meant to the original
audiences is the guiding post for translation. A Bible should let its translation
bring out what the Scripture says from within the text. That’s where fidelity
to the Scripture (to be faithful to it) comes from. As we read a Bible, we can
recognize different layers of *voices [s.v.]. The least we should have is a layer
of translator’s voice a.

The same thing is said also for reading. We come to read the Scripture with a
Bible, but it should be understood from within the Scripture b without bringing
something in which is not in the Scripture but which is from the human
religious ideas and traditions.

Quoted from
www.theguardian.com/books/2001/sep/08/historybooks.highereducation <<One
reason the Bible cannot be seen as literature is that too many people have been
killed for their opinions of it.>>

This is all the more reason that we should take the Scripture and the translated
work of Bibles primarily as literary work – with all the limitation and errancy
which is inherent to all - both linguistically and literarily. Unless we escape from
doctrinal and theological straightjacket, it will stop giving light and revealing
truth to lead people to life.

a
‘Translator’s voice’ should be minimally present within the text, as footnote is a proper
place for it. The space which is occupied by the footnotes in a page also should be kept
minimal.
[Cf. A book www.translationindustry.ir/uploads/pdf/venuti.pdf ]
See also Culpepper (1983), The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel - A Study in Literary
Design, esp. Ch. 2 Narrator and Point of View (pp. 13-50)
b
This should not be confused with a method of interpretation for the text, verse, word, or
phrase in one place of the Bible by finding the same or similar ones in other place in the
Bible – that is, interpreting the Scripture by the Scripture. It means a Bible translation
should make the readers re-live the text as it is reenacted, esp. the narratives, rather than
the sourcebook of (1) doctrines and interpretations and (2) keys for deciphering hidden
things (mysteries, prophecies), serving as a canonical text for liturgical reading and
recitation, or memorization. Often times, translating or reading actually puts in opposite
way to take the Scripture to be re-made to fit into our own wishes and needs – turning into
a Bible code book and a personal application book, to extract prescriptions and formulae
for our earthly life.
Translatability and un-translatability

Limit of translation - Linguistic and cultural untranslatability –

See articles in the RENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #2).

the issue of ‘biblical inerrancy’ and 'biblical authority'

Cf. (‘Every Scripture’ – the word ‘Scripture’ in singular)

2Tm 3:16 As for every Scripture passage [you hear]
they are all as God-breathed life into it
and beneficial [as you sure find]
2Tm 3:16 Scripture passage ░░ [Gk. graphē in singular = ‘that which is written down’] [The word
‘Scripture’ (a collective noun rendering in IRENT the Gk. plural noun) in the Bible refers to the
Hebrew Scripture (TaNakh), as our New Testament was yet to form. Not to equate the Scripture
with the ‘Bible’ (a translation product).]
[Often used a proof text for an] /As for the scripture, it is all divinely inspired, being serviceable
for – Cass; /every Scripture passage is - ARJ; /xx: every part of Scripture – MSG] [i.e. Scripture
in every part – JFB];

[i.e. those in the sacred writings Timothy had been reading. The v. 16 is not an isolated theme out of
blue here but is thematically tied to [τὰ] ἱερὰ γράμματα in the preceding v. 15. It is quoted most of
time out of its setting and context, to serve as a proof text for the idea of ‘Biblical inerrancy’, even a
doctrine of ‘(plenary) verbal inspiration of the Bible’ as such. The verse actually does not dwell on
it, which is by nature to be found intrinsic to the Holy Scripture, which hold the Word of God in
human language. Whoever denies it are commended not to bother with the Bible, but to read the
Scripture.

Ref. www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2014/02/six-factors-that-do-not-affect-inerrancy/

Problem of ‘Biblical inerrancy’: Often confused with the inerrancy of the Scripture.
Only those who has knowledge of the original language and history of the people
may dare argue about ‘inerrancy’ when they have thoroughly read and studied. Those
against ‘inerrancy of the Bible’ is actually barking at a wrong tree.] [For some in the
religion the Bible may be a rule book. However, the Scripture is NOT a book of Rules;
nor a book of rituals, liturgies, doctrines, and theologies, nor applications. The
Scripture does not belong to and is not bound to (Christian) religions, unless of course
priests, pastors, preachers and professors can make it so for people with religiosity.]

An example of an illogical statement: ‘The Word of God is inerrant’ → ‘Bible is the

Word of God’ → ‘Therefore Bible is inerrant’. It is a syllogistic fallacy. Here the
conclusion is wrong, because the minor premise is wrong. The Bible is simply a
human product of translating the Scripture and cannot be inerrant logically. It is not
relevant whether or not one can invoke ‘inspiration’ in the translation process.
Problem of NT midrash of OT texts and Christian Church midrash:

NT shows its own midrashic exegesis of O.T. text and expression (in quotation and even
allusions. It is common especially in case of the Gospels. What we have from such
exegesis is actually unrelated to the original meaning in the setting of OT text. (It is
not so much of committing error (fabricating) of taking out of context’. E.g. Mt 1:22-
23 (quoting Isa 7:14 LXX), Jn 19:36 (of quoting Ps 34:20), etc.

This should not be confused with so-called ‘Christian midrash’ of N.T. as well as of
O.T. text which is more of theological and doctrinal elaboration. A singular example
is KJV, ESV translation of Psa 22:17.
This is to be examined with its quotation in Jn 19:34 had pierced [with a spear] ░░
(logchē ~ nussō) (cf. ekkenteō. Cf. nussō v. 34); /have pierced – NET, ESV trio; /pierced
– most, Bishops; /pierced {with a spear} – ERV; / have thrust through – Geneva; /[had]
pieced – AUV!; /have pierced – WNT; /x: have impaled – Mft; / [Cf. Not to be confused
with so-called Christian midrash of Psa 22:17 ‘like a lion they are at my hands and my
feet’. Only once in this text, the word is intentionally mistranslated in KJV, ASV, ESV as
‘they pierced my hands and my feet’ to mislead to allude to ‘signs of the Cross’ from
nailing on the execution stake.]

Issues in NT texts and textual criticism:

On the terms ‘original (text)’ and ‘autograph’:

Ref. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/02/earliest-use-of-
original-text-or.html

Ref. Hill & Kruger, eds. (2012), The Early Text of the New Testament

p. 4 - concept of the ‘original text’; ‘early text’ ‘initial text’ ‘authoritative text’
p. 6 – ‘text type’ or ‘type of text’

(‘text family’)

Extracted from:
Ch. 1. Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism – Moving from the Nineteenth
Century to the Twenty-First Century by Eldon J. Epp (pp. 19-76) in David Alan Black,
editor. (2002), Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism.

… Since New Testament textual criticism is both an art and a science, as a discipline it
is all about choice and decision. I therefore characterize the major issues as follows:
1. Choosing among variants – and deciding on priority. This is the issue of the so-
called canons of criticism what are the arguments we employ to decide between
the variant readings in a given variation unit, and, as a consequence, how do we put
 it all together to reconstruct readings that make up a text most like that of the early
Christian community? (p. 20ff)
2. Choosing among manuscripts – and deciding on groups. Here the concern is
text-types-can we isolate clusters of manuscripts that constitute distinguishable
kinds of texts as evidenced by shared textual characteristics? And can we marshal
these to sketch the history of the New Testament text? (p. 34ff)
3. Choosing among critical editions – and deciding for compromise. Do our
current critical editions of the Greek New Testament reflect a reasonable
approximation to the text (or a text) that was extant in very early Christianity? The
difficulties inherent in reconstructing such a text suggest that compromise may be
the order of the day. (p. 44ff)
4. Choosing to address context – and deciding on influence. This engages the issue
of placing manuscripts and variant readings in their church-historical, cultural,
and intellectual contexts-how did they influence the church and its theology, and
how, in turn, did the church and the surrounding culture influence the manuscripts
and their variant readings? (P. 52ff)
5. Choosing to address goals and directions – and deciding on meanings and
approaches. What is the goal or what are the goals of New Testament textual
criticism? More specifically, what do we mean by original text and what can we
mean by it? And how will our decisions inform our future directions and our
methods? (p. 70ff)

Reading material on translation process:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160205024457/www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheScripture
s/intclv1.html
www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheScriptures/intclv1.html#developing
http://concordant.org/version/intro-to-the-concordant-new-testament/

WEYMOUTH’ RESULTANT GREEK TEXT

Before a version of the Scriptures can be made we must have a settled Greek text. The three most
ancient and almost complete manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus, generally
referred to as A, B, and the Hebrew letter Aleph (which we designate as s). They agree in the main,
yet there are many minor variations. Opinions may vary as to which is the original reading.
Several years of research resulted in compiling a Greek text which gives all of the readings of these
three most ancient codices, and all the readings from other sources which we feel are important. As it
would be impossible to collate all the hundreds of later manuscripts, we decided to base our
comparisons on Weymouth’s RESULTANT GREEK TESTAMENT. Richard Francis Weymouth
based his text on the greatest editors of the nineteenth century: Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,
Lightfoot, Weiss, Alford, Ellicott, Stockmeyer & Riggenbach, the Revisers, and Westcott & Hort.
Weymouth’s apparatus was also consulted which gives the results of Stunica, Erasmus, Stephens,
Elziver and Scrivener.
The work was done as follows: Photographic facsimiles of each of the ancient manuscripts were
carefully compared with a copy of the text of THE RESULTANT GREEK TESTAMENT, and every
variation was noted in it. Then another copy of Weymouth’s text was cut up and pasted, line for line
on large sheets which were bound into a book. Much space was left between each line, so that all the
variations could be entered in place, above the words. If another reading was preferred instead of
Weymouth’s, the notation above the line was changed accordingly. The principles on which this text
was constructed are explained in the Introduction to the CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT. This
volume of the Concordant Library contains every word and letter of A, B, s, Codex Vaticanus 2066
(046) for the Apocalypse, and some recently discovered fragments of Papyri. Differences between
manuscripts are shown in the superlinear. A uniform, literal word-for-word sublinear translation is
given below the Greek text, which is printed in the ancient uncial letters as we find them in the most
ancient manuscripts. The manuscripts used by us, A, B, s, were evidently written by professional
scribes, with comparative accuracy, and carefully corrected, having been designed for monasteries,
libraries or public use. There were doubtless many copies in circulation in those days, especially of
parts of the Scriptures, made by amateurs for private use, on cheaper material, and often full of errors.
Fragments of such copies are being found, some of which are even older than the manuscripts we use,
but they are not always completely reliable, though certainly of interest.

DEVELOPING THE CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT

In order to understand why it was necessary to form a special Greek text for this Version, the following
facts must be clear. The actual “Originals” have not been preserved. In ancient times books were
copied by hand. In the course of time thousands of copies were made, but they differed slightly among
themselves. Early English translators did not have access to the earliest and best of these manuscripts.
The latest Greek texts are almost all based upon the judgment of those who compiled them. We desire
to present the actual evidence of the most ancient texts, so that our readers may be able to use their
own judgment if they wish. Hence the CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT (which has been published
as a companion volume to this Version) gives every letter of three of the most ancient manuscripts,
either in or above the line. These three manuscripts are:
CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (A) was presented to Charles I of England by the Patriarch of
Alexandria in 1628. It is now in the British Museum, in London. It was probably written in the
fifth century. Each page has two columns of text, as shown on the illustration herewith. It came
too late to be used in the making of the AUTHORIZED (“King James”) VERSION. Until the
middle of the nineteenth century it was the only ancient text accessible to Protestant scholars. It
is incomplete in some places. The greater part of Matthew’s account is missing.
CODEX VATICANUS (B) seems to have been in the Vatican Library at Rome as far back as
is known. It seems to be older than Alexandrinus, and is supposed to be especially exact. The
close of Hebrews, Paul’s personal epistles and the Apocalypse are lacking. For the last two we
substitute Codex Vaticanus 2066 (046) (b) which was probably written in the eighth century, so
is not nearly as reliable as the rest. The text seems to agree better than any other manuscript with
Codex Sinaiticus. It is written on very fine vellum, nearly square in shape, about 10 by 10 inches
in size. The accents and other marks have been added by a much later hand. The subscription to
Galatians shows how these were added. The oval stamp between the last few lines of the second
and third columns is the stamp of the Vatican Library at Rome. It reads Bibliotheca Apostolica
Vaticana. It will be noted that this manuscript has three columns to the page, while Alexandrinus
has two, and Sinaiticus four. It has no initials and practically no indications of words, sentences
or paragraphs.
CODEX SINAITICUS (s) was discovered in 1859 by Constantin von Tischendorf. In 1844,
while seeking ancient manuscripts, he visited the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai, and
found a few very ancient sheets of vellum, older than any he had seen before. They proved to be
pages of the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures into Greek. The
monks seemed to have no idea of the value of these sheets and were using them in place of
firewood! Tischendorf managed to get the monks to give him some pages, but his joy was so
great that they became suspicious, and refused to part with any more. No one seemed to know
anything of the rest of the volume, whence these pages had come. But the monks at least did not
burn any more manuscripts. Tischendorf determined to get the rest of this manuscript if he could,
but it was not until he went there the third time that he found the treasure he was after. In the
name of the Czar, the head of the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church, he took it to St. Petersburg,
where it remained until it was bought by the British Museum at a cost of one hundred thousand
pounds (£100,000), and brought to London.
During the work of comparing Sinaiticus with the other manuscripts we were much impressed
by the notations of one of the so-called “correctors” of this text, whom we designated by the sign
S2. A critical study of his changes convinced us that he was really a reviser. It is probable that
he compared it with other, more ancient manuscripts, for he did not merely correct errors, but
revised the text according to other evidence. This revised Sinaiticus seems to us to be the best of
all the ancient texts, hence it is given special weight in forming the CONCORDANT GREEK
TEXT.
 The original of this famous manuscript was written on thin vellum, each page being now about
13 by 15 inches in size. This allows the letters to be quite large and clear. This page contains two
notable corrections by the later editor we have spoken of S2. In the upper right-hand corner will
be seen the reading: “Not according to flesh are they walking, but according to spirit” (Rom.8:1).
In the space between the last two columns, a little over an inch from the top, are the words “Yet
grace,” which answer the question at the end of the seventh chapter of Romans (Rom.7:24). In
the first line on the page there are three abbreviations. These are indicated by horizontal strokes
over the words. The first two letters stand for Christ. The second two are the first and last letters
of Jesus. The next two are the article the. The seventh and eighth letters stand for Master or Lord.
The title God is abbreviated in the fifth line from the bottom of the third column, the fifth and
sixth letters from the end of the line.
None of these codices nor any other of the older manuscripts contains the incident of the
adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11). It is also absent in some of the Old Latin Versions and not
mentioned by some of the prominent Fathers. So the Version puts these verses in brackets.
Theory, text, theology, translation methods; principle, practice and problem of
translation and translations

http://missionsmandate.org/pdf/sgi12/Dynamic-Equivalence-and-its-
Daughters_Article.pdf

In their book Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber The Theory and Practice of
Translation (1969) with Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translating (1965)
proposed a new translation theory based on the concept of ‘dynamic equivalence’ to
stand against ‘formal equivalence’ in translation practice. It seems to me that
‘equivalence’ is a fancy name for ‘rendering (to be close to the original) and ‘dynamic’
means no more than thoughtful rendering and as if the other were no more than
mechanical process or computer translation.

The two sides – form-based and meaning-based – are not separate entities, but two
sides of one. It is just matter of how much is form-based or meaning based for a
particular rendering of a word, a phrase, a sentence, or a paragraph in actual work of
translating. For example, form-based would be theoretically very important for
translation of poems, it may well nigh impossible, unless the source and target
languages happen to be closely related. Translation work itself is translating meaning
with underlying form being subservient and supportive. The problem in actual Bible
translations is that the translators are bent on translating the text into what the text is
meant to their target audience, whereas what should be translated is what the authors
want to say to the original audience, not just meaning but also intention. Most English
Bibles are Westernized, Anglicized, and even Americanized. Here and there it is not
difficult to spot in the translations cultural difference having been blatantly
disregarded, besides religious and doctrinal issues. a

Paratext consist of all information representing elements that are added to a text
by an author, editor or translator in order to materialize the text into a specific
publication.
Paratext in Bible translations - SIL International

Skopos_theory of translation

Note: All the written things about translation philosophy, principle and practice
did not materially aid my own translation work of IRENT. Of course it did help
only for retrospective inspection to allow the result of work to check against these
scholarly ideas.

a
E.g. of such – [nothing would be more frivolous than these!]
(1) Eugene Peterson (1993) The Message: Mt 6:11 “Keep us alive with three square meals.” Cf. “With
the bread [of Life] for us [from above] in full measure — have us provided today” – IRENT. Does he
know how it is to a human being, many dying of starvation? What kind frivolous thing he asks God,
thinking God may hear. That kind of his God is dead – we don’t need Sartre to declare it.
(2) Ann Nyland (2007), Source New Testament: Mt 19:24 “a pig might fly before a rich one enters the
reign of God.” Cf. “It is easier for a camel to squeeze through a needle's eye, than for a rich one [like
him] to get into the Kingdom reign of Elohim.” – IRENT. Does she know about cultures as much as she
is a self-described lexicographic expert?
Problems of translations:
1. agenda driven and biased good to address to a particular audience
2. anachronism; archaism; neglect on the Hebrew mindset; rather westernized, Anglicized, and
Americanized.
3. glossary approach to translating words.
4. modernized to frivolity; replacing with alien and non-Scriptural expression from religious
traditions.
5. unable to see the underlying sense the original language carries.
6. audience characteristics – read-ability, language and literary levels, cultural setting and mind-
set, presupposition.

Translating:
1. intra-language
2. cross-language – not only ‘form’ ‘meaning’ but ‘sense’ which is shaped by the culture
(http://bhcbiblestudies.blogspot.com/2014/05/using-culture-key-to-unlock-meanings-of.html)
(1) Source language (language of the source text);
(2) Target language (of the intended audience);
(3) Original languages (of the audience hearing what authors wanted to bring in their life
setting. E.g. Aramaic, not just Koine Greek);
(4) Receptor languages – other than the target language (to beyond culturally-bound one-
language mind-set in order to understand and to interpret the text which is foreign to the target
language.
3. between the languages:
A real life problem of using the Malay word for ‘Allah’ in their traditional Bible
translation with religious-political conflict: In Malaysia, the word Allah has been in use
from the start in the native language. This practice has been recently challenged by the
Muslim authority insisting that this Arabic word should be for the exclusive use of
Muslims – www.asianews.it/news-en/Authorities-again-stop-Catholics-from-using-
the-word-Allah-28808.html .
For purely linguistic and literary viewpoint, use of Allah in the Arabic translations of the
Scripture collides with who the very God is. Despite historical tradition in their language,
linguistically and culturally Muslim position is on the right.

For other translation issues in Muslim context, www.christianpost.com/news/wycliffe-bible-

translators-receive-recommendations-for-muslim-context-95034/

Another example: what seems to be back-ward rendering in their new translation of the Catholic
Bibles in Korean from the uniquely Christian word ‘하나님’ to a generic ‘하느님’ which is God
of generic notion which belongs to a common secular and indigenous (‘pagan’) vocabulary.
However, the word is originally ‘하느님’ (heavenly one), but when the Scripture was translated
into Korean for the first time, the translator adopted a dialect ‘하나님’, seeing that ‘하나’ means
‘one’, suitable as monotheistic expression. At any rate, either is to be used consistently
throughout the translated Bible text.

Ref. Porter et. Boda (Ed.) (2009), Translating the New Testament, Text, Translation,
Theology

http://missionsmandate.org/pdf/sgi12/Dynamic-Equivalence-and-its-
Daughters_Article.pdf
 In this age of electronic document creation and editing, translating the Scripture is much
easier. Search on the topic of ‘Franken-Bible’, a neologism, which I would expand into
a fuller expression Frank-Franken-Frankenstein Bibles.
www.openbible.info/blog/2013/03/how-to-train-your-franken-bible/
http://bibleandtech.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-train-your-franken-bible-by.html

www.adaptivebible.com/

On various translation (versions) issue:

*KJV-only controversy: Tracts and booklets re modern translations

"An Appraisal of the RSV" by Robert L. Sumner (booklet)
"The New English Bible: Version or Perversion?" by Ian R. K. Paisley (booklet)
"Guide to Bible Translations" by Wayne Walden (booklet)
Peter Thuesson (1999), In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles
Over Translating the Bible:

www.inplainsite.org/html/bible_controversies.html

Hebrew thought vs. Greek thought; Western mind vs. Oriental mind

Though the NT text is in Koine Greek, it is important to appreciate Hebrew thought

underling the Greek. In Many books are written on the subject of Hebrew mind vs.
Greek one. [E.g. Thorleif Boman (1970), Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek.]

Problems in the English Bibles -

Only bits of thoughts can be here as there are millions written on the subject.

*KJV or *KJB or AV (Authorized Version)

KJV has some words translated taking Latin words from Vulgate:
1. ‘publican’ for Gk telōnēs (tax profiteer or tax collector) – from publicanus in
Vulgate.
2. ‘charity’ for Gk agapē (love) from 1Co 8:1 on.
3. ‘Calvary’ (Lk 23:33; elsewhere as ‘skull’) for Gk. kranion from Calvariae in
Vulgate; [Most as ‘Skull’; IRENT as ‘Head’]

• As the pre-eminent literary work in English history; KJB served very well with
linguistic and literary as well as biblical pre-eminent role for four hundred years in the
history of English language. With continued change in English language itself, it is
archaism among other issues in the translation that is now difficult for modern people
to understand. [Ref.: Brake et Beach (2011), A Visual History of the King James Bible
– the Dramatic Story of the World's Best-Known Translation. – it covers its descendants
as well as history of English and earlier English translations with wonderful historical
 photos.] Everyone should own not for reading but for comparison since it is in 400 years
old English with archaic and obsolescent words, phrases and syntax, as well as textural
issue.
• Gk text – TR
• Various editions and revisions
• KJV-onlyism
See WB#1 for *Testament vs. *Covenant; *Renewed Covenant; /x: *New
Covenant

‘Jews’ - how to translate the word: the Jews in G-Jn and in N.T.

G-Jn – ‘Jews’ 68x (in 65 verses) in KJV (no word ‘Jewish’);

1:19; 2:13, 18, 20; 3:1; 4:9, 22; 5:1, 10, 15, 16, 18; 6:4, 41 ,52; 7:1, 2, 11, 13, 15, 35;
8:22, 31, 48, 52, 57; 9:18, 22; 10:19, 24; 10:31, 33; 11:8, 19, 31, 33, 36, 45, 54, 55;
12:9, 11; 13:33; 18:12, 14, 20, 31, 33, 36, 38, 39; 19:3, 7, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 31, 38,
40; 20:19.

Edited on
"The Jews" in the Fourth Gospel by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.
http://catholic-resources.org/John/Themes-Jews.htm

Introduction: We need to reflect carefully on one of the most difficult problems in the
interpretation of John. This Gospel is often considered "anti-Semitic" because it contains some very
harsh statements directed against "the Jews". It has also unfortunately been used (or misused) to
justify some very anti-Semitic opinions and actions. However, recent scholarship looks more
carefully at the exact meaning and referents of the original Greek words.

Terminology: The term Ioudaios occurs 71 times in the Fourth Gospel, all but four of which are
plural (Ioudaioi):

'Jews' in Gospel of John

1:19 the Judean authority 10:19 among the Judeans
2:6 purification ritual of the 10:24 the Judean in authority
Judaic custom
2:13 Judaic Festival 10:31 the Judean in authority
2:18 the Judean in authority 10:33 the Judean in authority
2:20 the Judean in authority 11:8 the Judean in authority
3:1 a member of the Judean 11:19 many of the Judeans
Ruling Council
11:31 those Judeans
3:25 (sg.) Jews {/a Jew} 11:33 the Judeans
4:9 (sg.) a Jew [vs. Samaritan] 11:36 the Judeans
4:9 the Jews (salvation 11:45 the Judeans
through ~)
4:22 through the ~ 11:55 Passover of the Judaic festival
5:1 Festival of the ~ 12:9 crowd of the Judeans
5:10 the Judean in authority 12:11 many of the Judeans
5:15 the Judean in authority 13:33 the Judeans
5:16 the Judean in authority 18:12 officers of the Judean in authority
5:18 the Judean in authority 18:14 the Judean in authority
6:41 the Jews 18:20 all the Judeans
7:1 the Judean in authority 18:31 The Judean in authority
7:2 Judaic Festival 18:33 the King of Judea
7:11 the Judean in authority 18:35 (sg.) a Jew [vs. Roman]
7:13 the Judean in authority 18:36 the Judean in authority
7:15 the Jerusalem Judeans 18:38 the Judean in authority
7:35 the Judean in authority 18:39 the King of Judea
8:22 the Judeans 19:3 the King of Judea
 8:31 those Judeans 19:7 The Judean in authority
8:48 the Judean in authority 19:12 The Judean in authority
8:52 The Judeans 19:14 The Judean in authority
8:57 The Judeans 19:19 the King of Judea
9:18 the Judean in authority 19:20 many of the Judeans
9:22 (x2) the Judean in authority 19:21 the chief-priests of the Judean in
authority
19:21 (2x) The King of Judea
19:31 the Judean in authority
19:38 the Judean in authority
19:40 the custom of the Jewish people
19:42 Preparation Day for the Judaic
festival of Passover
20:19 fear of the Judean in authority

The word Ioudaia, the geographical area of "Judea", occurs six times: Jn 4:3, 47, 54; 7:1, 3; 11:7;
(as adjective) 3:22 (Judean country).

Referents of the word:

However, in different passages, Ioudaioi seems to refer to three different groups of people:
A) specifically and only to the "Jewish leaders and authorities," rather than to the people as a
whole; B) only or mainly to the people living in the geographical territory of Judea, that is,
"the Judeans”; C) to all members (or some or any in general) of the ethnic/religious group of
people still called "Jews" today.

Moreover, we must be careful to read this Gospel on at least two different historical levels, that of
Jesus himself (late 20's) and that of the Johannine community (80's or 90's). Close investigation
shows that some statements are anachronistic in the mouths of Jesus and/or his opponents in the
early first century, but instead reflect more accurately the circumstance of the end of the first
century.
We should also recognize that not all of these verses are harshly negative, but some say very
positive things about the Ioudaioi, while others could be classified as "neutral" statements. Some
say nice things about "the Jews" and/or the Jewish religion, some simply give factual information,
while others do betray harsh/hostile attitudes.
Thus, reading each of these verses (and the surrounding passages), we should ask which of the
above groups is most likely being referred to in each case, and whether the reference is positive,
negative, or neutral. To do this, one should consider whether the verse still says the same thing if in
place of the word "Jews/Ioudaioi" we substitute the phrases:
A) "the Jewish leaders and authorities"; or
B) "the Judeans" or "people living in the territory of Judea"; or
C) "any or all religious and ethnic Jews."

Examples:

First example, John 1:19 - "This is the testimony given by John when the Jews sent priests and
Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, 'Who are you?'"

If we try substituting the underlined word here with the English translation, "all religious and ethnic
Jews," the passage does not really make sense, since the average person or the people as a whole
would not have had the authority to send priests and Levites on investigating missions; so option C)
does not fit. Similarly, even though Jerusalem is in Judea, it is not really "all people living in the
territory of Judea" who send the priests and Levites, so choice B) is also out. However, substituting
with "the Jewish leaders and authorities" makes good sense in this verse, so 1:19 belongs in the list
under category A).
Second example, when the phrase "King of the Jews" comes up, its political connotations suggest
that it does not just mean "King of the Jewish authorities," nor "King of the religious Jews living
anywhere," but rather, "King of the people of Judea"; so here the best option is category B). Note
that the six uses of the related term "Judea" (clearly referring to the geographical region), obviously
belong in this category.

Third example, John 2:6 refers to the "Jewish rites of purification." (Caution: here English uses an
adjective "Jewish" to translate the original Greek phrase meaning "of the Jews," just like in 7:2,
18:12, and 19:42). Does this really mean A) "purification rites of the Jewish leaders," or B)
"purification rites of the people of Judea," or C) "purification rites of all religious/ ethnic Jews" in
general? Clearly, option C) makes the most sense.

Another example: Jn 8:44 "…yoů are from a father, the devil" ['yoů refers to those
Yeduhim in authority with religious hypocrisy (8:31, 40), not Yehudim in wholesale, nor
'the Jews' or the 'Jewish' people. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.]

How it is rendered in IRENT in G-Jn.

Initially, it was tried to differentiate as the context warrants.

• Judeans: ‘a crowd ‘of the Jews’ < a large number of the Judeans. [Problem –a
geographically confined term – those living in Judea, which do not include
Galileans, for example.]
• Judaic: > ‘of the Jews’ related to a festival, custom - 2:6, 13; 7:2; 19:42
(Judaic festival/custom)
• Judean in authorities: ‘officers of the Jews (18:12); ‘high priests of the Jews
(19:21).
• ‘king of the Jews’ – 18:33, 39; 19:3; 19, 21 (x2); also in synoptic Gospels. –
‘the Jews’ is retained; it has political connotation (despite modern
ethnic/religious connotation) as this epithet is from the mouths of other than
the ‘Jews’ themselves. [Cf. ‘King of the Jews’; ‘King of Judea’; cf. ‘King of
Israel’]

Eventually, adopting a Hebrew loanword ‘Yehudim’ – which is true to the

Scriptural meaning and setting – as a neutral term (unassociated with ‘Jews’ in
modern English). A clarifying phrase is added in the passion narrative as ‘Yehudim
in authority’ to distinguish from people of Yehudim in general. This applies as well
to the rest of N.T

Cf. Meaning, usage and nuance of ‘the Jews’ vs. ‘the Jewish people’ should also
examined as in contemporary English and in the modern world.
`
Cf. ‘King of the Jews’ vs. ‘King of Judea’: ‘A French king’ vs. ‘A king of France’.
(The King of England may be a French king.)
 Cf. ‘The festival / custom of the Koreans’ vs. ‘the Korean festival/custom’ vs. ‘the
festival/custom in Korea’.

[Adopted from Robert G. Bratcher, “The Jews” in the Gospel of John,

Appendix I pp. 641-661 in Newman and Nida, Handbook of Gospel of John,
(Originally in Practical Papers for the Bible Translator 26, Oct, 1975, pp. 410-9)

Ioudaios – adjective – from Iouda ‘Judah’

Used as (1) an adjective (3:22 land of Judea) (cf. 4:47, 54 Ioudaia (out of) Judea
(2) noun, singular (3:25 v.l.; 4:9; 18:55)
(3) noun, plural – Jewish people vs, Judean(s); the King of Jews/Judea (19:19,
21)

‘of the Jews’

Adjectival, modifying festivals, classes, and customs: 62 verses, 65 hits

(1) An unnamed festival (5.1); the Passover Festival (2:13; 6:4; 11:55); the
Festival of Tent-making (7:1); Day of Preparation (19:41).
(2) a leader (3:1); the Temple guards (18:12); the chief priests (19:11);
(3) a ritual cleansing (2:6); custom of burying (19:40)

Some technical issues on translation

Syntax

(1) punctuation issue – problematic punctuations in Greek text: Lk 23:43, Jn 1:3,

and Rm 9:5.
(2) complex vs. compound vs. simple sentences – [e.g. Eph 1:3-14 – is a single
sentence in Gk. text. – comprehensibility vs. readability.]

Grammar – genitive problem

(1) many faces of genitive – subjective / objective /source; /appositive

(2) substantive possessive pronoun.

e.g. ‘my friend’ ‘a friend of me’ ‘a friend of mine’ ‘one of my friends’.

e.g. ‘follower of me’ vs. ‘follower of mine’ (my things).
e.g. ‘my part’, ‘a part of me’, vs. ‘a part of mine’ (my things)
Grammar – article problem

Gk. – no indefinite article

Latin – no definite or indefinite
English – both indefinite and definite article. Also, nouns can carry no article. Both
articles used with the noun followed by a phrase or a clause. (E.g. ‘a God who is
~~’)

E.g. – same with other words, e.g. God/god.

• a king;
• king
• the king – [the king the readers know; the aforementioned king in the within
text]
• the King
• King
• 'King'; 'KING'
• kings; the kings
• The Son of the King = princess; not king, but may be treated 'as King'

Grammar – pronoun problem

(1) pronoun of grammatical gender vs. sexuality issues – third person singular
pronouns for non-person nouns, e.g. ‘devil’, ‘satan’, ‘the Spirit’, etc.

Personification confused with person-identity (personhood): (e.g. ‘the Sprit’)

(2) Singular they

(3) referent confusion for the pronoun (especially 3rd person singular masculine):
The same pronoun occurring more than once but with different referents.

• Heb 1:3 (Father or Son);

• Rm 11:35 (‘him’ for YHWH and for a person in the same short sentence);
• 1Jn (the referents of third person singular pronoun can be God, His Son, a
believer and a fellow-believer and a non-believer, etc.)

Grammar – emphatic pronoun problem

The inflected form of a Greek verb indicates about the subject; usually nominative
pronoun is not needed in the sentence (in ellipsis), but its presence tells it is
emphatic. Depending on the context it may be translated in several different was to
bring out its emphatic sense.
[? Ref.
https://ia601403.us.archive.org/2/items/greekinflectiono00hardrich/greekinflectiono
00hardrich_bw.pdf ]

Available solutions: (the I in bold may be in a larger font)

• I, I [after the practice in Everett Fox translation of O.T. – need

to check it]
• I [in bold font; only for the written text; the reading aloud
needs to put accent on the word.]

The following does make it stand out (separated from the verb) but may be other
than ‘emphatic’ but e.g. concessional:

• I myself [- confusing as a reflexive pronoun]

• I on my part
• As for me, I
• It is I who

The same effect is achieved by placing the pronoun before a conjunctive if it is

associated in the sentence: e.g.

• I, however,
• I, indeed,

[Some have it in bold. Having it in italics is very misleading as KJV convention of

using italic font for those words which are not present in the Greek text.] [In
contrast, I’m or I’ve is used to reflect Greek verb with the subject implicit, not to
put the word in colloquial English; it helps to de-emphasize the pronoun.]

Vocabulary and others

(1) archaic words still crept in; jargon (esp. church or religious jargons). E.g.
‘preach’. ‘bless’ ‘praise’ ‘pray’.

(2) difficult and common words; technical

(3) capitalization and font use

(4) gender inclusiveness: e.g. (a) when man is not man; (b) ‘brothers’, vs. ‘brothers
and sisters’, vs. ‘brethren’. [Cf. inherent problem of ‘maleness’ of God –
grammatically masculine.]

Typography, font, format

- dealt elsewhere in detail in the file 'Introductory Notes to IRENT'.
Debates on the Bible

‘biblical inerrancy’; doctrine of biblical inerrancy; Biblicism; biblical literalism;

‘biblical inspiration’ (Cf. 2Ti 3:16 – nothing to do with English word ‘inspiration’;
nothing to do with ‘divine dictation’ (‘typewriter version’).

Cf. ‘Bible vs. Scripture vs. Word of God’ vs. canon

Cf. inerrancy vs. infallibility
As such, Bible cannot be said to be inerrant, whatever the word ‘inerrant’ is used to
mean. If the expression ‘inerrancy’ is to be used, it should apply to the Scripture, not
to the Bible. Any claim to deny the inerrancy should be formulated only after thorough
study of the Scripture in the original languages and in the original text and life context.
Cf. inspiration and authority
Cf. biblical text; textual criticism.

Biblical hermeneutics; biblical interpretation

• Biblical exegesis. (exegesis - explication of the texts. cf. eisegesis.)

• biblical interpretation – understanding of biblical texts; cf. Theological
interpretation of the Bible is more of its theological application and
apologetics in defense of dogmas and doctrines. Cf. Biblical literalism
• “Translating the text is an act of interpretation; reading the text is an act of
interpretation.”
• literary criticism - textual criticism higher criticism

[Pick and choose reading is at danger of a great sin, as what and how are usually to
serve one’s own desire.]

Reading the Scripture; reading the Bible

Why and how. How to choose Bibles to read.

A bible is a product filtered through human interpretation and created for use by a
particular (religious group) as their canon, creed, and catechism.

The spirit of IRENT is to encourage reading of the Bible (understanding,

interpreting, and translating) on the basis of linguistic and literary level, freed from
religious and doctrinal level, as all the religions in practice and their teachings are
of human origin, however they claimed to be ‘inspired’.

Ref. Klaas Smelik and Karolien Vermeulen (Editors, 2014) Approaches to Literary
Readings of Ancient Jewish Writings. pp. 281
http://faculty.washington.edu/snoegel/PDFs/articles/noegel-64-literary-craft-
2014.pdf
[See in the IRENT Supplement III (Collection for #1-#2)]
Reading the New Testament - Introduction

The premise of the work of IRENT translation of the New Testament is that the
readers should be wise enough not to take it as the book of a religion (or a Church
canon) or an application book on how to live well. To bring oneself into the world
where it was written down with all modernistic presuppositions and bias as well as
the ever dangerous ‘little knowledge’ to be thrown off.

The text to be read is much more than words written down after another. Something
between the lines and underneath the surface one needs to discover and pay attention
to — tone, intention, rhythm and flow, ellipsis, word play, ambiguity, narrative and
rhetoric device, allusion, interruption, pauses, interjection, word association and
picture, etc. as well as the extraneous crept in the translated English words, syntax,
and idioms.
Outline of New Testament Books

New Testament: (27 books) of 4 Gospels, 1 Acts, 21 Epistles, 1 Apocalypse

Gospels (4x)
— John a
— Matthew
— Mark
— Luke b
Acts (1x)
— Acts of the Apostles

Pauline Epistles (14x)

‘Fifth Gospel’ a
— Hebrews c (the 14th of Pauline)
Major Epistles
— Romans; 1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians; Galatians,
Early Epistles
— 1 Thessalonians; 2 Thessalonians
Captivity Epistles
— Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians
— Philemon (a personal letter)
Pastoral Epistles
— 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

General Epistles (7x) [/x: ‘Catholic’ Epistles]:

Johannine — 1, 2, 3 John,
Non-Johannine —Yaakob d, 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Yudah e

Apocalypse (1x)
— Revelation of John

a
‘Fifth Gospel’ – in the lane of the canonical Gospels. The so-called Gospel of Thomas which the
pseudo-Christian Jesus Seminar fellows take as canonical. A translation by Stephen Patterson (1998)
was titled as The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age. However, it is a Gnostic product,
not canonical Gospel. Cf. www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/49/49-1/JETS_49-1_67-80_Perrin.pdf
Nicholas Perrin, “Thomas: The Fifth Gospel?” [Cf. a German fiction called ‘The Fifth Gospel’ (Das
fünfte Evangelium) by Philipp Vannderberg – in the line of another fiction The Da Vinci Code by Dan
Brown 10 years later.]
 Notes:
a – John – it is the fourth Gospel. Thematically and theologically distinct from the
rest of Gospels (so-called Synoptic Gospels). It is placed as the first in IRENT
to help keep both G-Lk and Acts contiguous.
b – Luke – G-Luke and Acts are by the same author and thematically contiguous.
c – Hebrews – Thematically it is a Gospel to tell how the Renewed Covenant in
Yeshua the Mashiah fulfils the Former Covenant. It is placed as the first of
Pauline Epistles.
d – Yaakob – the half-brother of Yeshua. Not ‘James’. Not to confuse a neologism
(e.g. in Historical Jesus as a Fifth Gospel ) as, in reality, Yeshua IS the Gospel.
e – Yudah > Jude – traditionally it takes an odd position after 3John as the last of the
Epistle Group. IRENT keeps it together with the non-Pauline General Epistles.

Relationships btw the Synoptic Gospel

[Source: https://rhapsodyinbooks.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/review-of-jesus-before-the-
gospels-how-the-earliest-christians-remembered-changed-and-invented-their-stories-of-
the-savior-by-bart-d-ehrman ]
acrostic bibles

www.slideshare.net/acrosticme/acrostics-in-the-bible
Barry Huddleston (1978), The Acrostic Bible

Print book vs. digital book format

[IRENT is necessarily in digital book format because its cost is prohibitive for
production and distribution into the hands of many readers as possible and (2) its
nature of being a serial requires continuous editing and updating, which is impossible
in print book format. Here are some advantage and disadvantage of digital book
format.]

• www.thetakeaway.org/story/paper-vs-plasma-how-digital-reading-shift-
impacting-your-brain/
• How the shift from paper to digital has caused a gigantic change in the way
we read.
• Digital distraction vs. ability to concentrate with print book reading; – "non-
linear" reading — a practice that involves things like skimming a display
screen or having our eyes dart around a web page.
• Linear reading, which is something we humans have developed over years
and years, is what we need to do when want to do deep reading—like immerse
ourselves in a novel, or read a mortgage document. Dense text that we really
want to understand requires deep reading, and on the internet we don’t do that.

Advantage of digital books: ‘flexibility’ – dynamic; not static.

• Easy to carry with no heavy weight

• compact with no space to occupy to keep;
• cheaper (saving trees and inks)
• Easy search-and-find;
• Highlighting and annotation which do not affect the text
• interactive; multi-media; audio;
• zoom level allows comfortable display font size, limited by the line length
of the text (except in HTML format with word-wrap).

Print book;

• ‘physical side of a book’; hand-on experience of holding, opening, and

actually turning pages; flipping through and browsing; focusing the reader’s
attention;

Points to consider: Annotation, high-lighting; navigation; sear-and-find (vs.

indexing); immersion experience; emotional response; comprehension of the text;
www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/12/the-case-against-kindle-
why-reading-paper-books-is-better-for-your-mind-and-body/

M. Julee Tanner Digital vs. Print: Reading Comprehension and the Future of the
Book

Naomi S. Baron (2015), Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World

Words, terms, vocabulary, semantics

Problem of honorifics

Ref: Ji-Youn Cho (2010), Politeness and Addressee Honorifics in Bible Translation
(As his thesis 2008 http://goo.gl/pVhTMf )

[End of the File]

1
On the notion of ‘culture’, see Ref. Ernst R. Wendland (2009), The Cultural Factor in Bible
Translation Forty Years Later: A Personal Perspective from Zambia, Journal of Translation, [Vol. 5,
No. 1]

pp. 63-67, 1. Introduction: What is the “cultural factor”?

Perhaps it would be helpful to begin with a short discussion of the key notion of culture,
which, unfortunately, “is one of those pesky, paradoxical concepts that everyone knows
what it means as long as they don’t have to define it” (Schultz 2009:23). In 1987 I made
the following attempt, defining “culture” as a people’s “design for living—for thinking
as well as doing”, or more explicitly, the sum total of their “system of beliefs and
patterns of behavior which are learned in society, whether by formal instruction or by
simple imitation, and passed on from one generation to the next” (Wendland 1987a:5).

The well-known cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz would rule out the overt, visible
aspects of culture, namely, those “complexes of concrete behavior patterns—customs,
usages, traditions, habit clusters” that tend to popularly define the concept, in favor of
“a set of control mechanisms—plans, recipes, rules, instructions (what computer
engineers call ‘programs’)—for the governing of behavior” (1973:44). But why not
include these explicit manifestations as vital parts of, and contributors to, the manifold,
ever-changing “webs of significance” (Geertz ibid.:5) that constitute a given culture, or
its components, at any given point in time? And time itself is a significant factor, for
diverse cultural “meanings and patterns are negotiated, contested, people who live in a
given social setting. The following then might serve for our working definition:
 Culture is then a complex, dynamic system of patterns of action and
interactions that a loosely bound group of people share in a particular
environment. Culture is [also] a system of symbols and their meanings
are shared by a group of people that allows them to interpret
experience. (Schultz 2009:23)

But I am no anthropologist, and this is not a paper about culture per se. Rather, I wish
to explore in a practical way the relevance of certain culturally-related issues for Bible
translating, the entire production process from beginning to end—not just the
completion of an electronic translated text in the target language (TL), which is the focus
of most of our Scripture-applied sociocultural studies (including my own of 1987a).
Before one can deal effectively with this “cultural factor” in the translation process, a
considerable amount of personal preparation is necessary. The amount of time and effort
required for this will of course vary according to the circumstances, e.g., whether we
are talking about a mother-tongue speaker of the TL or an expatriate consultant; which
stage of the overall process is being dealt with; whether the focus of attention lies in the
SL or the TL; which aspect of the task is being undertaken— translating, reviewing,
testing, project management or promotion, publishing, and so forth. In any case, each
and every person involved in a Bible translation project will at some point or another,
to a greater or lesser degree, confront the cultural factor and have to deal with it in a
satisfactory manner, appropriate to the particular situation. In my original monograph,
I emphasized this in relation to the translators themselves and a “cultural conditioning
of the translators” (1987a:193):

This is a process whereby the translator becomes accustomed to the various

types of non-equivalence that may occur, and at the same time sensitizes
him/herself to the main cultural correspondences and contrasts as they appear
in a comparison of the source and the receptor settings. Recognition, then, is
the first vital step towards a solution, since many of these difficulties lie
beneath the surface of the normal form-meaning problems of message
exchange (as dealt with in most manuals on translation).

However, in the present study I would like to widen the focus of consideration to suggest
ways in which the cultural factor influences or impacts upon the various phases of
Scripture production as a whole, including the post-translation engagement stage.

I will conclude this introduction by outlining some of the key aspects of my own
experience-based cultural conditioning over the years. This was indeed a progressive
training process, full of ups and downs (especially in the early years), and as the saying
goes, “the Lord is not finished with me yet” also in this ongoing area of socio-relational
education. I have lived and worked in Zambia (Northern Rhodesia) and have been a
student of Scripture for most of my life, but I still encounter on a daily basis those
culturally related surprises with regard to the biblical text and/or my adopted African
locale that continue to make life interesting and challenging as well. But what sort of
cultural training program did I undertake (and am still engaged in)? The following is a
summary that you may compare with your own strategy of contextualized education: …

2
Note on ‘rewriting’ - André Lefevere (1992) Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation
of Literary Fame – he describes translation as ‘a rewriting of an original text’. For the
translation of the Scripture, however, his statement does not hold true. As for the Scripture
translation work should not be thought of rewriting by a translator to bring what the text is
supposed to mean to his intended audience, but re-writing as if by the original author to bring
what was intended to our vernacular languages. To achieve this (hypothetical) goal, the
translator should make sure themselves remain invisible in the words and phrases put into
translation as well as any other insertion to the text. The truth is that ‘what the text means to
the readers’ is a false goal. It is only what the text meant to the original audiences. Here we
require fidelity as the essential characteristic of a translation as a literary work, not as a
technical work – faithfulness of a translation to the Scripture. Rewriting it to produce one’s
own faddish is an insult to the Scripture and the Word of God; it is guilty of blasphemy. The
translator has to strive to be invisible.[Cf. on ‘invisibility’ - Lawrence Venuti (1995) The
Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation ]
3
Examples of ‘rewriting’ to give alien gospels:
• Cotton Patch Version, an allegorical story (? satirical or whimsical) from rewriting of
N.T. by Clarence Jordan, 1968).
• The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth by Thomas Jefferson, a deist. The third US
President came up about 1820 with this book, as it is formally titled, which was
constructed by cut and paste literally using a razor, carefully removing from the canonical
Gospels all the things which points to the divinity of Yeshua, including His resurrection.
This volume was kept largely secret and passed among Jefferson's relatives until 1895,
when it was discovered by the librarian at the Smithsonian. In 1904, it was published by
Congress. It is commonly referred to now as the Jefferson Bible.
• The Scholar’s Version (1993 by the Jesus Seminar) – produced by cut and paste (from
the Four Gospels), color-coded for authenticity of Jesus’ sayings of different level
according to their own criteria and with a group tallying method. The gnostic Gospel of
Thomas is favored as authentic source as the four Canonical ones. Much of the sayings
of Yeshua in the N.T. is discredited. In fact, they have created a new Jesus after their
own image in their false “gospel according to Jesus Seminar Gang”.
• In a recent CT news article several Christian bestsellers are mentioned
[www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/november/christian-bestseller-best-practices-
navpress-tyndale.html] The Message by Eugene Peterson (2002) – a rewriting of Bible
masquerading and promoted as a Bible translation. It is in the style of his personal sermon
material (second rate for that matter), unworthy to stand against the Holy Scripture. The
Prayer of Jabez by Bruce Wilkinson (2001 Multnomah Publishers) – an appetizing
reading good for the gospel of prosperity and blessing. [See The Real Prayer of Jabez
and http://lostjabez.com/jabez/ ]

4
“As Roman Jakobson famously put it, “equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem
of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics” (1959/2000: 114). This statement seems
particularly fitting to both the theory and practice of translation, up until recently quite
commonly regarded as a branch of applied linguistics. Equivalence has long been the key
term in defining the essence of translational activity: “Whoever takes upon himself to
translate contracts a debt; to discharge it, he must pay not with the same money, but the
same sum” (West 1932 in Nida 1964/2000). This fundamental notion of equivalence has
led some to the conclusion that “no linguistic specimen may be interpreted by the science
of language without a translation of its signs into other signs of the same system or into
signs of another system” and has drawn the attention of many to “the urgent need for …
differential bilingual grammars … defining what unifies and what differentiates the two
languages in the selection and delimitation of grammatical concepts” (Jakobson
1959/2000: 115). Based on this realization, implicitly present in the translational thought
for centuries, numerous contrastive studies have emerged; more importantly, however, the
scholarly paradigm encouraging the exploration and representation of peculiarities of one
language in terms of the structures found in another language has developed and
established itself. ...” from Piotr Blumczyński, On Translating the Greek Aorist into English
(Introduction).