Skip to main content

A Plea Regarding Footnotes in Bible Translation

Recently I was giving input to a team who had worked on Psalms. I noticed that in several places they had included footnotes referring to the New Testament use of those Psalms. One example was a footnote in Ps 34:20 'not one of [his bones] will be broken' that referred to John 19:32, 33, 36 where this prophecy is fulfilled.

Now, obviously this is a useful link for readers, but it is better to put it in John's gospel referring back to Psalms. Why? Because the New Testament is (to some extent) a commentary on the Hebrew Bible, whereas the reverse is not true (the Hebrew Bible never refers to the New Testament). There are often two possible ways of reading a Psalm:

  1. In its original context, and 
  2. As interpreted by the New Testament writers.
This is quite important, as the Hebrew Bible belongs to two faith communities, the Jews and the Christians. (Muslims too, to some extent, though they refer to the Torah and the Psalms only). If we translate the Bible in such a way that it only helps Christians, we are showing disrespect towards the Jews. 

It also shows that we understand that the Bible was written by many human authors over a long time period, and that, far from being revealed from heaven in one set of revelations (as the Qur'an is thought to be by Muslims), it took millennia for the Bible to come into its present form.

A very good model for a study Bible is the one produced by NIV. If you look through the book of Psalms it frequently refers to other parts of the Hebrew Bible in its footnotes, but rarely to the NT. (There are some cross references that do, in the centre column, but that is different). Actually, here in Ps 34:20 it says, 'Perhaps John's Gospel applies this word to Jesus (see NIV text note on Jn 19:36) - as the one above all others who could be a called a "righteous man" (v. 19).' Why does it preface the statement with the word 'perhaps'? Because this is a point of view. Most translations do not have study Bible footnotes, however, so this kind of footnote would not normally be included. Study Bibles are often produced later, with the idea of helping one particular faith community.

The other thing we try to avoid in footnotes is preaching. Often translators get inspired as they translate, and suddenly see something that they believe really applies to the people group they belong to. Great! That thought can be used in Scripture engagement, but should not be included in the Bible translation itself. The preaching and application of the Bible to the community is something that happens when believers gather together, and is a further step. It is very important that it happens, but trying to achieve everything all at once in a translation of the Holy Scriptures is not advisable, even if there are few believers amongst the community.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...
Post a Comment
Read more