Assumptive Theology
and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying, Acts 21:40 (NASB)
Hebrew Dialect – Sometimes I am simply amazed at the theological assumptions that are built into our translations. Most of us never know that we are reading the bias of the translation committee. You might think that just because “scholars” do the translation work, the results would be accurate and correct. But everyone comes to the text with a particular point of view. Everyone interprets the world through his own eyes. A translator will always have a particular frame of reference. The key is to tell the reader when a particular word is being translated according to the theological bias. Otherwise, there is just no way to know unless we go back to the original.
Let’s use this verse as an example. In the Greek, the phrase is ‘Ebraidi dialekto. Even non-Greek readers can see that this means “Hebrew dialect.” So, why does the NIV translate this phrase “he said to them in Aramaic”? Yes, there is a footnote that says, “possibly Hebrew.” Even in the NASB, the footnote says, “i.e. Jewish Aramaic.” The assumption here is that the people of Israel in the time of the Messiah did not speak Hebrew, but rather spoke a dialect of Hebrew called Aramaic. But if that were the case, why didn’t Luke simply say that Paul spoke to them in Aramaic? Furthermore, the Greek word dialekto means nothing more than a language spoken by the people of the region. It is translated “language,” not dialect, in Acts 1:19, 2:6 and 2:8, but every time the Greek phrase is used in connection with Yeshua or Paul, it is translated “dialect.” Luke is the only writer that uses this word. Do you suppose that he meant two different things by the same word?
Paul has just been conversing with the Roman guard. Obviously, the Romans did not speak Hebrew, so Paul was speaking to them in Latin. Then Paul addresses the crowd in their own language. What language was that? Hebrew. That’s what the text says, so why does the NIV alter the Greek and translate the word ‘Ebraidi as “Aramaic.” Because the translators assumed that Luke meant Aramaic when he wrote Hebrew. That’s like a translator assuming that I mean Castilian when I write Spanish. This is not translation. It is interpretation.
OK, so why do we care? What’s the big deal if the NIV or the NASB or some other Bible translation says Aramaic instead of Hebrew? It’s not such a big mistake, is it? In this case, maybe not. It could be a really big mistake if the assumption that Yeshua spoke Aramaic and all the disciples spoke Aramaic leads us to conclude that Hebrew was no longer understood by the people of the first century. That might push us to believe that Yeshua and Paul were moving away from the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. That might lead us to believe that there is a difference between the first century view of Torah and the view of Torah during the time of Moses. That might lead us to believe that Christianity rests on some other foundation than Torah. So, a tiny translation issue could lead to much bigger mistakes. It might not take us there, if it is only one little error, but the problem is that it is not simply one little error. This theological bias, that there is a gap between Jewish faith and Christianity, shows up over and over in our translations. Frankly, it is disguised anti-Semitism, concealed in theological propaganda.
But unless you read Greek, you will never know. Maybe it’s time to demand that translations be translations – and not theological interpretations.
Topical Index: Aramaic, ‘Ebraidi dialekto, theological bias, Acts 21:40
My father used to have a “project car” which was a Kharmen Ghia made by Volkswagon. I don’t know why but he found “value” in that car and enjoyed it’s restoration. Someone this made enough of an impression on me to where out of the thousands of cars passing me by on the South Florida expressways, I was able to “spot” every so often a Kharman Ghia and selectively recognize this model of car even at high speed and if only for a brief moment. This phenomenon is called “recticular activation”
http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/marketing-advertising-channels/12278438-1.html
Our minds can become biased or bent toward a particular focus. If I “believe” someone does not like me, I will be prejudiced in my mind toward every subtle nuance of word or action and be on the “lookout” for any indication of negative behavior toward myself.
Knowing the phenomenon of recticular activation exists, how is my mind prejudiced when I approach the Scripture? Is is trustworthy? Is it valuable? Are these the words of the Christ or merely the opinion of a man?- (even one who is a rabbi and is “intelligent”)
What does the Scripture say of itself? Do I “err” not knowing the Scriptures or the power of G-d?
I must confess.. I have been recticularly activated by the cross of Jesus the Christ. I have been recticularly activated by “the Lamb of G-d which taketh away the sin of the world”. All Scripture speaks of Messiah. Check out the “all” series by Herbert Lockyer. All the miracles,men, women, apostles,doctrines, trades and occupations, prayers,kings and queens, etc. speak of Messiah and focus on the tslav of Messiah.
If your lost among the trees and can’t see the forest for inspecting the leaves, just ask your guide, “which way is it to the cross?”, and then travel in that direction.
Would someone please “translate” the cross for me? “What meaneth this”?
What is meant by “to the Jew first” and also “to the Greek”?
A passage I have always found striking is Luke 2:14. If you look at the many versions on the Blue Letter Bible site, for instance, the meaning of it is distinctly different, from one manuscript to the next. It sure leaves you wondering what the ORIGINAL words were. However, if we accept that the meaning will be in harmony with the Torah scriptures, the determination is not so difficult.
Dear Gayle,
A good choice for showing translation alterations. Of course, angels speaking to shepherds in Israel are not speaking Greek. So, whatever the meaning of the words they use must be found in Hebrew. That means that phrases like “glory to God,” “peace on earth,” and “good will” must be understood from the Older Testament context. And that drives us right back to the prophets. If you want to conduct a little exercise in what the “gospel” means from a Hebrew point of view, try following these leads into the work of men like Isaiah. You will find something very different than our version of forgiving sins and going to heaven.
Skip
Wow! that was really great. As long as I have been a Bible scholar (studier I should say), I had never made the necessary distinction between interpretation and translation. Is there a Bible that we can purchase today that you know for a fact to be an accurate translation and not an interpretation? Thanks for the insight.
Dr. B
Dear Dr. B,
See my reply to Keith. I have literally dozens of books that I use regularly to help bridge the gap, and I have trouble with lots of the translation. This is a LIFETIME effort. I often wish that I had been born in an orthodox Hebrew environment, but God knows what He is doing, so I guess He planned that I should have to WORK at it. 🙂
Do you know anything about BibleWorks 8 and whether this would accomplish what books you recommend on Hermenuetics lessons
Thanks
Dusty
I know the program but am not familiar with its content. Sorry. Most Bible software, including the much touted Logos, includes books that have expired copyright protection or have made other arrangements with the software provider. I use the software only for original language work and lexicons.
Skip
It might be easier if everyone just switches to the Amplified Version as their favorite Bible version. It must not have had as many translators with baggage on the translation committee. (I’d like that also because the prices would fall and I could give more of them away.)
The Amplified Bible might be some help, but although it offers multiple meanings in an attempt to capture the linguistic umbrellas of words, it suffers from the same theologically-bias interpretative view. For example, simply knowing that a Greek word in the Amplified translation of the New Testament has several different meanings in classical Greek or in its use in the LXX does not really help me to see that the word is a translation of a Hebrew thought, or in the case of Yeshua’s speech, an actual Hebrew word. No English Bible that I know portrays accurately this complicated relationship between the Hebrew of the OT and the NT and the Greek-LXX use of terms in the NT. So, there is no simple, easy way to get at all this. David Stern’s Jewish NT is a start, but it still comes down to being able to stand inside the Hebrew worldview and see the writing from that perspective, and that just takes time and effort.
Thanks, Skip, for what you teach. Language is a fluid thing. It always has been & I don’t doubt, always will be. Each generation tries to take the spoken language & make it uniquely theirs. So bible translators are dealing with the spoken language written down. [Does that make sense?] That is quite possibly why translators seem to tread so cautiously at times, & at other times rush ahead heedlessly. The title of this ‘lesson’ says it all – Assumptive Theology.
Suz
Skip … Your assessments on this issue over the years remain just as valid today as in the past. No doubt there are many interpretations which have been made to support theological convictions. Yet we should also admit that even when translations are correct … i.e. literal, our body of Messiah has found inventive theological ways to deviate from G_D’s Word.
My point is this: “despite the errors and misinterpretations in translating The Word, there should be no doubt that the practice of the church today is not reflective of the practice as described or mandated within The Word for G_D’s people …. a.k.a. Israel.”
So having scholars such as you expose these bad interpretations is of course a wonderful thing indeed. Without attempting to downplay the importance of your work however, I would note that we as believers should be able break through the smoke and mirrors to get to the truth even using today’s less than perfect interpretations. Or at least conclude that the Church has not been faithful in following The Path!
Would you agree that there is enough truth remaining in most bible translations which should cause an individual to ask: “Why do we do things so differently than in The Word?”
Shalom,
Drew
I agree with you, Drew. If we began to do the things that are instructed in the Scriptures, there is no telling what kind of change might occur in the Body of Christ.
I agree entirely. There are plenty of disconnects between the church as it practices the faith today and the story that we read in the writings of the apostles. The disparity is so obviously that it is painful. Thus, all the theological gymnastics to try to justify why we are so far removed from the experience, the evidence and the results. Once we remove the Apostles from their Hebrew background, any interpretation is possible. There are several good books on this transition from a Messianic Hebrew point of view to the contemporary pagan foundations of our version of “Christianity.” I feel God calling us back.
Anyway, even reading in English confirms that there is something amiss. So, we press on.
Skip
…then to top it all off there is the issue of the which is one of a myriad of blatant corruptions of the original texts.
in Christ, zaph