Wednesday, December 28, 2022

A Case Example in Translation: 2 Kings 8:26

One of my friends posted about this subject in another venue, but I want to take the topic in a different direction than he did.

NWT 2013: A·ha·ziʹah was 22 years old when he became king, and he reigned for one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ath·a·liʹah the granddaughter* of King Omʹri of Israel.

Note: Lit., “daughter.”

ESV:
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah; she was a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.

NET Bible:
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king and he reigned for one year in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter[a] of King Omri of Israel.

Note
[a]: tn Hebrew בַּת (bat), “daughter,” can refer, as here to a granddaughter. See HALOT 166 s.v. בַּת.

KJV:
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

This brings up an issue of how one should translate the Bible: should it be according to dynamic equivalence or formal equivalence principles? What is the difference?

Bible translators explain that dynamic equivalence is also known as functional equivalence: Bibles that chiefly use this translation principle might render certain passages "literally," but for the most part, they seek to render the source language in an idiomatic way for the target audience. For example the NLT (a dynamic equivalence translation) renders Ezekiel 40:5, "
I could see a wall completely surrounding the Temple area. The man took a measuring rod that was 10 1⁄2 feet[b] long and measured the wall, and the wall was 10 1⁄2 feet[c] thick and 10 1⁄2 feet high." Conversely, the RSV translates this same passage: "And behold, there was a wall all around the outside of the temple area, and the length of the measuring reed in the man’s hand was six long cubits, each being a cubit and a handbreadth in length; so he measured the thickness of the wall, one reed; and the height, one reed."

The differences in these renderings illustrate how dynamic equivalence Bibles differ from functional equivalence translations: the NLT gives the measurements in feet whereas the RSV provides the units in cubits. Contra dynamic equivalence translations, formal equivalence Bibles attempt to stick to the form of the source language: they are called "literal" translations as we see with the RSV. The formal/functional translating of Hebrew and Greek applies not just to individual words but to the way sentences are constructed too (i.e., syntax).

Going back to 2 Kings 8:26, which way should translators handle the verse? Should they render the Hebrew word, bat, as "daughter" (KJV) or "
granddaughter" (NWT, et al.). One way seems more "literal" than the other but could be misleading since the Hebrew word in this context refers to a granddaughter. Another option is to do like NWT/NET and translate "granddaughter," but then add notes explaining the choice. Conversely, if one chooses "daughter," a note could also be supplied. I'm glad to know that Athaliah was the granddaughter of King Omri, not his daughter. It is interesting how Hebrew used this term as a reference to a daughter or granddaughter.

The NABRE translates bat in this case as "daughter," but includes the following note:

Note for 2 Kings 8:26: It is unclear whether Athaliah was Omri’s daughter (v. 26) or his granddaughter (v. 18). Perhaps “daughter” here is being used loosely for “female descendant.”

12 comments:

Duncan said...

I suppose this leads on to another point regarding the difference between description and title. When the NT calls Jesus the son of David, should there be a foot note stating, great, great, great (etc.) grandson of David?

aservantofJEHOVAH said...

Romans1:3NIV"regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,"

Duncan said...

The NIV is interpretation, not translation.

https://biblehub.com/text/romans/1-3.htm

https://biblehub.com/text/romans/4-1.htm

https://biblehub.com/text/romans/8-1.htm

Duncan said...

Life after "the flesh" - https://www.esv.org/verses/Romans%206%3A1%E2%80%9314/

aservantofJEHOVAH said...

Well translations are the products of imperfect men so there is no perfect translation. We'll have to wait till the Millennium for that.

Duncan said...

Will perfect minds even need translations, interesting to think about.

Edgar Foster said...

Food for thought with translation and the NIV: https://youtu.be/SDORzbwdDWk

Bill Mounce

Duncan said...

NIV for Romans 1:3 does have a footnote - Or who according to the flesh.

But that is the translation and the main body of text is clearly interpretation, should have been the other way around with a question mark. The NIV is full of this liberty taking.

Duncan said...

As for Bill Mounce, all he is demonstrating is the danger of removing context and reframing phrases by the addition of verse numbers. Reading the actual "all" in the complete sentence, it is quite clear as to the intent of V34.

Duncan said...

Sorry, "V24".

Duncan said...

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/

❦ Romans 3:21–26 — The NIV engages in some theological trickery here. It changes “righteousness of God” to “righteousness from God” in v. 21, eliminates the mention of God from v. 22, and changes “righteousness” in vv. 25 and 26 (the same Greek word as in vv. 21 and 22) to “justice” in order to imply that this passage is talking about the righteousness of believers rather than the righteousness of God. (Note: the error in v. 21 was fixed in the 2005 TNIV, and vv. 25 and 26 were fixed in the 2011 revision of the NIV. The omission in v. 22 remains.)

Edgar Foster said...

I like some of the NIV and have defended some parts of it, in the past. The criticisms you list try to impute ill motives to the NIV with the "theological trickery" charge. Maybe that's true in some cases, but other times, the issue is different translation principles.

The criticism for Romans 3:21 is fair enough: TNIV changed it, so I'm not going to dwell on it. Taking out "God" in verse 22 is curious; I would like to know the rationale for that decision.

I think the Greek word in Romans 3 translated "righteousness" is diakaiosune, which also can be rendered "justice." Although TNIV changed it, I'm not sure that their motive was to talk about the righteousness of believers rather than God.