The Bible Translator: Volume 68, Issue 2

When we render terms for sacrifices and festivals in the Old Testament, it is helpful to look at the very different ways in which translations have dealt with these groups of terms and see which of their translation methods are the most helpful for our own translation and its specific readership. This article considers renderings in the new Tatar translation of 2015 and translations in some major European languages. Translations have often not been consistent as to which translation method has been followed in this area, but it seems advisable to render sacrificial and festival terms succinctly and according to a translation method that is applied consistently and is considered to be the most suitable for the intended audience, so as to show the contrasts between these terms. The article closes with some thoughts on whether some of these methods are more accurate than others and what we mean by accuracy. View Less

According to the Bible, the categorisation of nature is as old as humankind (Gen 2.19-20). The modern binominal nomenclature system was pioneered by Carl Linnaeus and is now universally used. Translators should be encouraged to use these names to identify terms in their receptor languages. However, it is not foolproof, and there is some evidence within the biblical texts of lexical items being identifiable with a plurality of names. It is these examples that are outlined here. View Less

The phrase “Lamb of God” in John 1.29 and 36 has been explained from various Old Testament texts, but it has generally been taken for granted that the words should be understood as sacrificial terminology. Isaiah 53 comes closest because it uses the same term ἀμνός, which could be appropriated by early Christians, perhaps not so much as a reference to Jesus’ sacrificial death, but more as describing Jesus’ obedience and submission to the will of the Father. In the soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, the death of Jesus plays a less prominent role than elsewhere in the New Testament. John’s emphasis is more on the “yes” to Jesus in the encounter with him than on Jesus’ death as saving event. If we acknowledge this specific Johannine soteriology, we may need to rethink the translation of some of the key terms in the Fourth Gospel, such as the singular ἁμαρτία and the expression τίθεναι τὴν ψυχήν ὑπέρ. View Less

It appears possible to point to linguistic structures in John 8.25b and 45a which exhibit similarities. While John 8.25b has seen discussion, the problems of John 8.45a have not been given much attention. This article argues that both passages contain structures which derive from Semitic influence on the Greek. This is important both for translating the sentences and for the question of the author of John’s Gospel and his background. View Less

This paper assumes that Luke, by using the term paradoxa in Luke 5.26, intends to convey a significance to the words and deeds of Jesus in Luke 5.17-26 that could not have been captured equally well by standard Greek expressions, such as “extraordinary” or “strange.” A study of Luke’s placement of 5.17-26 in his narrative and a brief survey of the meaning of paradox in antiquity allows for the assumption that paradoxa could mean different things for the various audiences of this scene: “glorious” things for the believer and “inglorious” things for the unbeliever. View Less

Biblical scholars and translations since John Calvin have generally understood διδακτικός in 1 Tim 3.2 and 2 Tim 2.24 as “skillful in teaching,” with a minority holding to “teachable.” Yet neither view has adequately taken into account either the linguistic evidence or contextual considerations. This article contends that, based on semantic and contextual data, διδακτικός should be translated “characterized by teaching,” that is, focusing on the fact that the would-be overseer and the “servant of the Lord” should both already have experience teaching. View Less