Because of my recognized
passion for and facility in the biblical languages I have often been asked this
impossible question: “What is the best English Bible translation?” It is impossible because
all translations differ from others and even from themselves occasionally.
The questioner is really asking, “Which translation consistently and accurately
reflects the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text?” The answer to this
question is easy! Without apology—None! Languages communicate differently and
there are nuances of meaning in the original that cannot be duplicated or even
recognized in English—The definite article presence and absence, data tied to word
order, figures of speech, poetics, and much more. In this article I probe this
question by focusing on “fidelity” in translation.
Fidelity — “1. strict observance of promises,
duties, etc. 4. adherence to fact or detail; 5. accuracy; exactness” (Webster’s
College Dictionary). In chapter two of Translating the Word of God,
Beekman and Callow ask “What is Fidelity in Translation?” They answer with
these excerpts . . .
“It seems axiomatic, therefore, to conclude that a definition of fidelity will focus on the meaning of the original text.
“The linguistic form of the original was natural and meaningful. It did not represent a grammatical or lexical structure that was impossible or discouragingly difficult to understand but one that was already in use by the people in everyday conversation.
“The message [of a faithful translation] is not distorted or changed; it has neither unnecessarily gained nor lost information. . . . On the other hand . . . the writers were not penning abstract theses or obscure philosophies but had a very practical aim in view; they wrote to be understood.”
Based on these comments, this article questions the fidelity of
the following popular translations at 1 Peter 1:1-2:
New International Version (2010 and earlier editions), NIV
International Standard Version, ISV
NET Bible, NET
New American Standard Bible, NASB
New King James Version, NKJV
King James Version, KJV
Amplified Bible, AB
“to the elect [ἐκλεκτοῖς] strangers of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia according to the foreknowledge of God the Father [κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς] in sanctification by the Spirit [ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος] unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ [εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ]”
The adjective “elect” [ἐκλεκτοῖς] serves either as a noun substitute or
modifies the following word “strangers.” A natural translation of these two
words would be “elect strangers,” or as A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition,
translates, “chosen sojourners.” The above-listed translations displace “elect”
from “strangers” and connect it to the prepositional phrases that begin verse
two. This change not only alters the wording but also changes Peter’s focus in
the entire book.
Separating “elect” from “strangers” follows two patterns: (1)
The NIV places a comma (punctuation was not part of the Greek text) after
“elect” and again after Bithynia effectively making the adjective a substantive
and connecting it with verse two —“To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout
the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,”. Then, (2)
apparently to reinforce this interpretation, it inserts an English participle
to the beginning of verse two. This addition, either as a substantive,
“chosen,” or as a participle, “who have been chosen,” can be seen in the
following versions: NIV, ISV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, AB. The NET
Bible follows this pattern, however, it does add a footnote: “Or ‘to the
chosen sojourners.’” This note not only identifies the issue facing the
translators—to what do the three prepositional phrases connect—but also cracks
open the door to a different meaning for the 1 Peter. Bigg’s comment on this
passage alludes to the reason for changing the text (St. Peter and St. Jude,
91):
“The general and preferable arrangement is to take [the prepositional phrases] with ἐκλεκτοῖς [“elect”]—‘Elect according to foreknowledge,’ etc.; this gives perfectly good sense; the only difficulty is that we should have expected ἐκλεκτοῖς [“elect”] to be placed after Βιθυνίας [Bithynia].”
“To establish a reading [interpretation] as probable it is first
necessary to show, with reference to the norms of language, that it is
possible. This is the criterion of legitimacy: the reading must be
permissible within the public norms of the langue [language
possibilities] in which the text was composed. The second criterion is that
of correspondence: the reading must account for each linguistic
component in the text. Whenever a reading arbitrarily ignores linguistic
components or inadequately accounts for them, the reading may be considered
improbable. The third criterion is that of generic appropriateness.
For example if a text follows the conventions of a scientific essay, it would
be inappropriate to use the words found in casual conversation. The genre must
not be consciously or unconsciously varied. When these preliminary criteria
have been satisfied, there remains a fourth criterion which gives significance
to all the rest, the criterion of plausibility or coherence.
The three preliminary norms usually permit several readings, and this occurs
when a text is problematical. Faced with alternatives, the interpreter chooses
the reading which best meets the criterion of coherence. Indeed, even when the
text is not problematical, coherence remains the decisive criterion, since the
meaning is “obvious” only because it “makes sense.”
Considering the
above-mentioned translations, classifying the adjective as a substantive,
“elect ones,” and rearranging the location of that word in the text, are
possible within the norms of the Greek language. Therefore, these changes found
in the NIV and other translations meet the criterion of legitimacy even
though Peter could have but chose not to write his text in this manner.
The criterion
of correspondence, where every detail of the text including word
order is taken into account, appears to be disregarded by many translators.
Perhaps
Hirsch’s third criterion may be able to establish legitimacy for the
translations that altered Peter’s wording. Generic appropriateness means
that the text fits the nature of the overall writing. The prepositional phrases
are theological in nature and these are identifiable in other parts of 1 Peter.
But is 1 Peter a theological treatise centered around these ideas thereby
establishing its theological nature? Or does 1 Peter partake of a different focus
that supports Peter’s original wording? If it does, a legitimate interpretation
must give Peter’s wording “first priority” unless it can be unequivocally shown
to be inadequate and not “making sense.”
Finally, coherence connects
directly with the previous criterion. Does Peter’s word arrangements make sense
or must they be changed to make sense? Apparently for many translators Peter
did not make good sense. However, a competing hypothesis necessarily interposes
itself: Peter said what he wanted to say in the way he wanted to say
it, and he made perfectly good sense in doing so. This, too, needs
validation.
Summerizing,
Peter’s own wording clearly meets the criterion of legitimacy. The
criterion of correspondence is validated because no detail of
the text is shunted to the side including the all-important detail of word
order. Generic appropriateness exists because 1 Peter as a whole
represents a pastoral epistle more than a theological treatise. An exegesis of
the book confirms this criterion and clearly demonstrates coherence.
The text as written makes sense!
Numerous
scholars support the pastoral aspects of 1 Peter. Raymer writes (The Bible
Knowledge Commentary, 837):
“First Peter was written to Christians who were experiencing
various forms of persecution, men and women whose stand for Jesus Christ made
them aliens and strangers in the midst of a pagan society. Peter exhorted these
Christians to steadfast endurance and exemplary behavior. The warmth of his
expressions combined with his practical instructions make this epistle a unique
source of encouragement for all believers who live in conflict with their
culture.”
“The keynote of the letter is hope and Peter wishes to exhort these Christians to live in accordance with the hope they have received through Christ. He gives practical guidance to assist in their human relationships and particularly exhorts them to endure suffering in a joyful manner for Christ's sake. His main purpose is, therefore, hortatory, but not infrequently he introduces theological considerations which press home the ethical injunctions.”
Peter’s
motivation for writing 1 Peter was primarily pastoral
and secondarily theological. This means that the wording of the text
should not be “distorted or changed,” to use the Beekman and Callow
terminology. It also means that the theological term “elect” and the
theologically-oriented prepositional phrases have direct bearing on the
pastoral concern of the writer and provide the initial encouragement for the
suffering believers of Asia Minor. Peter’s letter sent to “elect strangers”
points to three truths much-needed then and now:
(1) that God not only elected them but did so in the contexts of a specific time and place, “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1:1-2; cp. Acts 17:26).
(2) that their difficult life situations are the arena of their “sanctification by the Spirit” (1:6-7; 1:13-17; 2:11-12; 3:13-16; 4:1-19).
(3) that they have a divinely-appointed purpose as witnesses to those around them, “unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (2:9-11 and 3:15-17).
