Lost in Translation*

034

“Read the fine print,” the lawyers tell us. They’re usually talking about contracts, but the warning also applies to the fine-print footnotes in some editions of the Bible—such as those for the New Testament in the Oxford edition of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV),^a which will serve as our examples. These footnotes reveal some of the difficult textual and interpretive decisions made by modern editors and translators.

Take the first verse in Mark’s Gospel: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” A footnote at the end of this verse tells us: “Other ancient authorities lack the Son of God.” The phrase “Other ancient authorities” customarily signals the existence of ancient manuscript copies that have a different reading from the one printed in the text.

From earliest times, biblical manuscripts were transmitted by handmade copies. In fact, the word manuscript derives from the Latin words for hand and writing.

The earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament date to around 200 C.E., and most of our manuscript evidence comes from the fourth century and 036later. No original biblical documents, such as Paul’s letters, have survived. (This is also true of the Hebrew Bible.) All we have are copies of copies of copies, and so forth. Because of mistakes in copying, later elaborations and even intentional alterations, surviving manuscripts contain numerous discrepancies, or, as scholars call them, textual variants. The textual critic must examine ancient evidence to determine the most authentic, or original, reading.

In Mark 1:1, a number of important ancient manuscripts do not include the verse’s last four words—“the Son of God.” The NRSV translators have decided to include the phrase “the Son of God” as if it were originally part of the text, but they supply a footnote to inform readers that not all of the evidence supports this inclusion.

In fact, a strong case can be made that the reading without the title “Son of God” was original. It seems unlikely that a scribe would delete that title from the text. On the other hand, if the original text did not include “the Son of God,” a later scribe might easily add these words as a way of honoring Jesus. Moreover, Mark uses the phrase “Son of God” very carefully. No earthly character in his Gospel calls Jesus “Son of God” until after Jesus dies (Mark 15:39). The addition of “Son of God” looks like a textual variant, in which a scribe tried to improve or elaborate on the text being copied.

Other examples involve larger selections that are added or deleted in some manuscripts. For example, ancient manuscripts provide evidence of four quite different endings to Mark’s Gospel. The shortest—and most likely original—version ends with Mark 16:8: After the three women find the empty tomb in which Jesus’ body was placed and are told by the young man sitting there that Jesus has risen, they flee: “They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”

Apparently some early scribes felt this ending was too abrupt or incomplete. Perhaps they felt it failed to tell the whole story, or the entire conclusion of the story. The sidebar to this article provides the longer endings of the 037Gospel of Mark found in different ancient manuscripts.

After establishing the appropriate ancient text, the modern Bible editor must then translate it into English. Sometimes a word or phrase can be translated in more than one way. Where the original language is ambiguous, a footnote may provide another reading signaled by the word “or,” followed by an alternative translation.

Again the first verse of Mark’s Gospel provides an example. In the NRSV, the words “good news” are followed by a footnote stating “or gospel.” The Greek word is euangelion, which has traditionally been translated by the familiar term “gospel.” The NRSV translators have chosen to use the more literal meaning “good news,” but they retain the alternative “gospel” in the notes.

Euangelion was used in the Greco-Roman world to announce major events. A decree in Greek announcing the accession of a new emperor might begin with the word euangelion. Translating this term in Mark as “good news,” rather than as “gospel,” gives the modern reader access to the broader context of the word.

The Greek word christos also appears in Mark 1:1, where it is translated as “Christ.” Occasionally, the NRSV translates christos as “Messiah,” from the Hebrew word for “anointed one” (mashiach). When the NRSV translators adopt “Messiah” as the translation, as in Matthew 16:16, they drop a footnote with the variant translation: “or the Christ.”

In another example, an important variation in meaning is provided by two footnotes at critical places in Galatians 2:16—which contains a central concept in Paul’s theology. The first part of Galatians 2:16 reads, “[Y]et we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” The first footnote explains that the word “justified” can also be translated as “reckoned as righteous,” an older translation more familiar to many readers.

The second—and more interesting—footnote glosses the phrase “faith in Jesus Christ,” which is the traditional translation. But a significant number of experts, especially in the United States, contend that this phrase should be translated as “faith of Jesus Christ” rather than as “faith in Jesus Christ.” According to this view, believers should not only consider Jesus an object of faith, but should also look to him as an example of faith; for Paul, the “faith of Jesus” was so strong that he was willing to endure death by crucifixion.

The issue is an important one theologically. The phrase appears frequently in Paul’s writings—in the elaboration of this same idea in the remainder of Galatians 2:16, in Galatians 2:20 and 3:22; in Romans 3:22, 26; and in Philippians 3:9.

Some modern scholars are reluctant to recognize “faith of Christ” as a legitimate alternative reading because “faith in Christ” plays such a significant part in Christian, especially Protestant, theology. Any change in the standard construction of justification by faith is likely to be viewed with suspicion.

Recognizing an ambiguity of meaning here—or even accepting “faith of Christ” as the correct reading—does not eliminate the idea of “faith in Christ” from the scriptural record. Indeed, Paul emphasizes the need to believe in Christ and identifies members of the churches as believers (for example, Galatians 2:16 and 1 Thessalonians 1:7). Even if we accept the idea that the “faith of Christ” is what Paul intended, we cannot eliminate or minimize the possibility that he also meant to underscore the concept of belief “in Christ.” Rather, the variant reading only broadens our understanding of the way in which Paul conceived of Christ’s role—as the shining example of faith.

Although no scholarly consensus yet exists regarding the correct translation, some contemporary scholars have suggested that Paul meant the phrase to include both meanings. The translators of the NRSV, however, were not sufficiently convinced of the authenticity of the variant reading to use “faith of Christ” in the text. But by including it in the footnotes, they do at least acknowledge the complexity 038of the argument.

Another kind of footnote recognizes that at times the text is so obscure that we simply cannot have confidence in any translation—because the text just doesn’t seem to make sense. In short, the translators are admitting that due to difficulties in understanding the original text, they have been forced to make an educated guess at the meaning. The NRSV signals this situation with the footnote: “Meaning of Greek [or Hebrew] uncertain.” For example, in Mark 7:3 we read that the Pharisees “do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands,” but in a footnote the translators admit that their translation is somewhat of a guess, or, more elegantly, “Meaning of Gk uncertain.” Such footnotes are relatively rare in translations of the New Testament, but are quite frequent in Hebrew Bible translations.

Finally, footnotes are used to indicate that the translation is paraphrastic rather than literal. A literal English translation of a word or phrase often fails to communicate the idea expressed in the original language. The translator must then decide whether to stick with a literal translation, or to give a paraphrase to make the meaning “clear.” In most instances where a paraphrase is used, the translator mentions it in a note that gives the literal translation. For example, Matthew 5:18 reads: “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota…will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” Most readers don’t know that an iota is the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet, so the NRSV translators decided to say “not one letter…will pass from the law…” A footnote gives the literal translation: “Gk. one iota.”

This kind of non-literal translation, while very helpful to general readers, can also be dangerous if it obscures a text’s meaning. The NRSV translators try to avoid gender-specific terminology, but this means that readers must look carefully to catch subtleties of meaning.

The following passages illustrate this difficulty. Mark 13:26 predicts the second coming of Christ: “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory.” In this verse, Mark is citing the Book of Daniel 7:13. But the NRSV renders the verse in Daniel as “one like a human being coming with the clouds…” The NRSV translators of Daniel chose not to use “son of man,” a literal translation of the Aramaic in which this portion of Daniel was written, because they wanted to avoid gender-specific language. Reasoning that in this passage and others in the Hebrew Bible “son of man” refers to a human being, the translators felt free to give it a genderless paraphrastic translation—“human being” instead of “son of man.” Moreover, they opt for this paraphrase wherever the phrase occurs in the Hebrew Bible, alerting us with a footnote that the more literal translation is “son of man.”

In the New Testament, however, the term “Son of Man” refers to Jesus. Indeed, it is the most frequently used title for Jesus, except for that of “Christ.” The exact meaning of the term “son of man” is much debated by scholars; and it has been interpreted differently at various times in the past. But one thing is clear: Mark is alluding to Daniel 7:13, even if he is at the same time extending the meaning of “son of man.” This important connection is lost in the NRSV, however, unless the reader consults the footnote in Daniel. Even armed with a concordance to the NRSV, the reader will not find the parallel without reading the fine print. The connection between the Daniel passage and its later appearance in Mark is lost to the casual reader.

A final example of an interpretive paraphrase takes us to 1 Thessalonians, considered by many scholars to be the earliest of Paul’s letters. Paul is discussing the eschaton, the end of time, and the Second Coming of Christ. What will happen to those believers who are no longer with us? They will be raised, Paul says, to be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:13–17). Paul calls the faithful dead “those who have fallen asleep” (4:13, 15), referring to believers who die without witnessing the second coming of the Lord. To emphasize the temporariness of their condition, Paul uses the analogy of sleep. The NRSV translators, however, want to be more direct; to avoid any misunderstanding, they translate the original phrase as “those who have died,” and they add a footnote stating that the text really says “fallen asleep.”

Yes, they are dead, Paul implies, but given the imminent return of the Lord, it is as if they are only sleeping. That is why Paul doesn’t say they died. The promise of seeing them again is part of the encouragement he offers to the Thessalonians.

I have often used this passage in the original RSV in class to illustrate the importance of interpreting symbolic language in the Bible. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do that with the NRSV, because the translators have decided to interpret for the reader: They have usurped the reader’s opportunity to struggle with and learn from the text. The interpretive paraphrase goes beyond the scope of helpful translation, and the reader must again consult the footnotes to catch the nuances of Paul’s language.

So read the small print. The footnotes may make reading the text more complicated, but it will also open up a new, more human world of textual variations, translation options, and an awareness that every translation is also an interpretation. As Thomas Aquinas said of the Bible, “All is from God, all is from human authors.”

“Read the fine print,” the lawyers tell us. They’re usually talking about contracts, but the warning also applies to the fine-print footnotes in some editions of the Bible—such as those for the New Testament in the Oxford edition of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV),a which will serve as our examples. These footnotes reveal some of the difficult textual and interpretive decisions made by modern editors and translators. Take the first verse in Mark’s Gospel: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” A footnote at the end of this verse tells us: “Other […]