Should we hold Biblish as sacred? More importantly, do we hold Biblish as sacred? Over at He is Sufficient ElShaddai Edwards takes up this question in response to Kevin P. Edgecomb’s who argued the following in response to John Hobbins talking about the nature of the English used in the CEV and NLT.
Edgecomb argues that “it is the responsibility of the keepers of the tradition of the text” to explain through good exegesis those expressions and phrases that make little sense in the new culture the text finds itself. As such, it is incumbent on translators to keep such phrases as “way of all the earth”, “gathered to his fathers”, and “pearls before swine” in their translations and for pastors and teachers to explain these idioms to the laity.
It is Edwards’ contention that this is foolhardy because it sacrifices the meaning of the text for the artificial divinity of the Hebrew (and I would add the Graeco-Roman) culture. He argues that if the Bible is meant for all nations and all peoples, then why should we translate it “in “sacred language”, set apart from the normal linguistic rules of a receiver’s language?” Edwards concludes his post by claiming the following.
Yet translating the text within the intracultural context of the receiver language doesn’t seem “a dereliction of duty” to me; indeed, it seems an even more sacred presentation of God’s Word that allows the Holy Spirit even more intimacy within those who hear and understand the call and claims of the Cross.
I am inclined to agree with him – and I would include highly theologized terms such as propitiation. The NT was not written in high Greek but instead was written in the common vernacular and should be translated as such.
