I just noticed this article posted to the “indepth” section of this web site. I’m afraid I couldn’t help myself, I felt compelled to comment.

In short, I think the article is nonsense. The author argues that we should not seek to replace “biblical language” (by which he means terms like “atonement,” “incarnation,” “licentiousness,” “eschatological” and so on) with more contemporary language (by which he appears to mean language which is more readily understood by those not couched in the jargon of his “biblical language") because “the preacher almost inevitably loses the Christian meanings when he replaces the biblical and traditional language.”

Why is his argument nonsense? Because when he says things like “[t]he attempt to replace the biblical language almost inevitably results in the loss of some and perhaps much of the biblical meaning,” the “biblical language” he refers to is (often archaic) English! He seems completely oblivious to the fact that the “biblical language” to which he refers is a translation of the original languages and so has no more claim to accurately reflecting the biblical meaning than a careful use of contemporary English. Furthermore, if the original text of the Bible was written in the common language of the readers, then the preservation of unfamiliar and archaic terms could be said to misrepresent the biblical language (now using this term referring to the original languages).

OK, my rant has now come to an end.

Where does it end, perhaps we should all be learning Kione Greek?

Somewhat tongue in cheek - perhaps the author has been listening to the Pope (who seems to have a penchant for Latin).

There’s always a difficult juggling act in translation work. For the most part I thought the article was pretty reasonable. However I think maybe the problem is it assumes you can only use one modern word per old word? It also seems to say that the specialist language must always be used to discus the topic, whereas I think there’s a sliding scale of what language we can choose to use. I have to disagree with the last sentence - no one should have to speak a new tongue to be a Christian, but instead as you grow in Christian maturity your existing lexicon will be broadened. Hmm, maybe I don’t think it’s so reasonable after all!

I can see your point Martin, however for many English words, the only meaning surviving is that which we give it based on the Bible’s use of the word. For example ‘propitiation’ now only caries a biblical meaning. If you’re writing a meaty theological book it’s the best word to use. If you’re writing a sermon it probably isn’t, and you’ll have to settle with using a few normal words rather than one to get across the biblical meaning.

Personally I’ve just started wondering whether ‘spirit’ is a horrific translation.

I wasn’t terribly impressed either Martin. The example of “compromise” he gave was a friend who was looking for alternatives to “legalism and licentiousness”. Dear me, what is the point of using language that no-one understands?

Martin, thanks for pointing out that article,
although it did have the undesirable effect of raising my blood pressure!

I am usually very measured in my tone here, but it seems to me that the article is complete tripe and well below the standard I have come to expect from the Sydney Anglican website.

The author appears to have no idea of linguistics and the issues of translation between languages, that need to be addressed in all Bible translation work.

The author’s idea that English from the 1600’s is “the biblical language” is complete nonsense.

The biblical languages are Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek!
So 99.9% of us depend quite rightly on the Bible translators who have laboured throughout history to bring the Bible to people in their own language.

What is also dangerous is the author’s assumption that English word meanings have not changed between the 1600’s and now - in fact they sometimes have changed significantly in meaning and people can misunderstand what 1600’s English is saying, without realising it.

In other cases, words such as licentiousness have virtually disappeared from the current English language, to be replaced by other words or phrases.

So for the vast majority of people today to speak the word licentiousness is to say nothing at all.

For 99%-plus of English speakers the amount of meaning that word conveys from speaker to hearer is zero.

Interestingly, on my KJV Bible search licentious and licentiousness do NOT appear at all. So it is not even a 1600’s Bible translation word,
let alone being “the biblical language”!

There is a worthwhile article to be written on how you deal with concepts such as propitiation and atonement but this article is not it.

Grace & peace,

Terry

Who is this auther “David Mills” ? I followed that Touchstone link and found this :

David Mills lives with his wife and four children outside Pittsburgh, where they attend St. James Catholic Church in Sewickley. His most recent book is Knowing the Real Jesus (Servant/Charis). He is the editor of Touchstone.

Hardly the credentials I would normally expect to see on a Sydney Diocesan Website. Certainly looks like a ‘dumbing down’ of standards to me.

Cheers, Kevin

[quote author="Dannii Willis"]However I think maybe the problem is it assumes you can only use one modern word per old word?

No, I think the problem is that the “old word” is an English word and so there’s no real reason to suppose that it more accurately reflected the original languages than a modern word, and there are good grounds for arguing that the “old word” now less accurately reflects the meaning of the original languages!

[quote author="Dannii Willis"]I can see your point Martin, however for many English words, the only meaning surviving is that which we give it based on the Bible’s use of the word. For example ‘propitiation’ now only caries a biblical meaning. If you’re writing a meaty theological book it’s the best word to use.

If you’re writing a theological book you’d need to justify why you translate the biblical terms using “propitiate” and then unpack the meaning. Furthermore, I’m not sure why “appease” doesn’t do just as well if that’s the sort of meaning you’re after.

[quote author="Dannii Willis"]Personally I’ve just started wondering whether ‘spirit’ is a horrific translation.

That would all depend on what you think “spirit” means and what you’re translating!

Why is his argument nonsense? Because when he says things like “[t]he attempt to replace the biblical language almost inevitably results in the loss of some and perhaps much of the biblical meaning,” the “biblical language” he refers to is (often archaic) English! He seems completely oblivious to the fact that the “biblical language” to which he refers is a translation of the original languages and so has no more claim to accurately reflecting the biblical meaning than a careful use of contemporary English. Furthermore, if the original text of the Bible was written in the common language of the readers, then the preservation of unfamiliar and archaic terms could be said to misrepresent the biblical language (now using this term referring to the original languages).

Enkidu, I read the same article as you, but I think you’ve misjudged what David Mills is saying.

Am I missing something?  The article doesn’t seem to me to be actually about Bible transation at all.

The article is about preaching - i.e. explaining the Bible to others. He is recommending the use and careful explanation of traditional theological language, rather than attempting to find more commonly-used contemporary expressions to replace them.

He is a Roman Catholic obviously - but were he a protestant, then no doubt he would have drawn attention to the word “propitiation”.  As Dannii points out, it’s a word never used outside academic theology.  I suppose you would say therefore, Enkidu, that it ought therfore to be abandoned and replaced by something else - perhaps now that John Stott is retired, someone can write “The Cross of Christ for Dummies” removing hard words like this.

What Mr MIlls is saying is that it is worth the effort retaining such words, and explaining them, rather than attempt to find parallel expressions of more common contemporary usage - for such alternative expressions will almost always be inadequate and less helpful.

He gives an example about the difference in meaning between licentiousness and permissiveness - the difference in meaning between them is only subtlet.  Legalism and Perfectionism on the other hand are manifestly not the same concepts at all.

It’s really pretty irrelevant whether or not these words are found in any translation of the Bible.

The word “Trinity” isn’t in any translation of the Bible either - so I suppose that means we should get rid of it?  I would say not.  It is valuable precisely because it is almost exclusively used in theology, and not in any other contemporary English expression.  The word “trinity” is is another example of a traditional word or concept which it is worth using and going to the trouble of explaining, rather than abandoning in favour - I dunno - “Three-In-One.”

For my money, I think his central argument is absolutely spot on - it’s better to use and take the trouble to explain traditional theological concepts, than to risk blurring the meaning by coming up with replacement expressions which you think the congregation will more readily understand.

If you’re writing a theological book you’d need to justify why you translate the biblical terms using “propitiate” and then unpack the meaning. Furthermore, I’m not sure why “appease” doesn’t do just as well if that’s the sort of meaning you’re after.

I don’t know enough about the word to say if ‘appease’ can do the job. But would that mean that the top of the Ark of the C should be translated the ‘appeasement’?

That would all depend on what you think “spirit” means and what you’re translating!

Well I’ve come to understand recently that the main meaning of both the Hebrew and Greek is something like ‘breath’. That meaning is pretty rare in English. ‘God’s breath’ is entirely different from ‘God’s spirit’ (to me). Is there a better word that carries a fuller meaning?

Hi Dannii

It is not true that the main meaning of RUACH [Hebrew] or PNEUMA [Greek] is “breath.” The words carry a similar range of meanings, including wind, spirit and breath and it is hard to tell at times which meaning is intended.

Hmmm okay. The English word doesn’t cover such a range however.

I attended a conference in which a respected Australian evangelical preacher said that using big words helps us to grow spiritually. [And I discovered that words that come from Latin make you much more spiritual than words of Anglo Saxon derivation.]

The big focus was on the word propitiation. At the end of the conference he told us we should thank God that we have been propitiated, showing he himself did not know how to use the word.

I did a quick straw poll afterwards and found no one any the wiser as to the meaning of the word. Not a very spiritual bunch at that conference.

We must convey the gospel in contemporary language which does not dumb down the meaning of the message. I think that people sometimes do change the message by sloppy use of language, or by having a sloppy theology in the first place. But use of archaic words is not at all a desirable method of communication.

Evangelicals are so squeamish about using current language, they cling to their NIVs when there is a superior updated version of it easily accessible. Or they resort to a lightly revised RSV [which, of course, includes the word propitiation.

[quote author="Alan Dungey"]Am I missing something?  The article doesn’t seem to me to be actually about Bible transation at all.

And that is the problem, because he speaks about “biblical language” and fails to note that none of the language he is speaking about is biblical because there are no English words in the original biblical texts. He is already referring to changed words, so the entire premise for his argument is immediately false.

[quote author="Alan Dungey"]The article is about preaching - i.e. explaining the Bible to others. He is recommending the use and careful explanation of traditional theological language, rather than attempting to find more commonly-used contemporary expressions to replace them.

I don’t think that’s entirely correct, because he keeps referring to “biblical language” and uses this to refer to words used in older translations of the Bible.

[quote author="Alan Dungey"]He is a Roman Catholic obviously - but were he a protestant, then no doubt he would have drawn attention to the word “propitiation”.  As Dannii points out, it’s a word never used outside academic theology.  I suppose you would say therefore, Enkidu, that it ought therfore to be abandoned and replaced by something else - perhaps now that John Stott is retired, someone can write “The Cross of Christ for Dummies” removing hard words like this.

If a word falls out of common usage or changes meaning in common usage, and another term has essentially the same meaning (such as “appease” in this case), then I see no reason not to change it. Updating language will result in a better transfer of meaning from the preacher to the audience.

[quote author="Alan Dungey"]It’s really pretty irrelevant whether or not these words are found in any translation of the Bible.

I don’t think that’s the case, or else he’s expressed himself very poorly (particularly because he seems to pride himself on his writing ability). He repeatedly refers to “biblical language.” For example, he writes, “The attempt to replace the biblical language almost inevitably results in the loss of some and perhaps much of the biblical meaning.” He’s not talking about Greek or Hebrew, however, he’s talking about English. So he’s already failed to acknowledge that, strictly speaking, all the “biblical language” has already been lost!

I have to agree with your Enkidu, his use of the expression “biblical language” to describe what he is defending is quite misleading, and unhelpful to his argument.

I’m not so sure that “appease” is a good word to use instead of “propitiate”.  Unfortunately appeasement is almost ineradicably associated with the discredited policy pursued by Britian and France concerning Nazi Germany in the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the Second World War.

It is simply no longer possible to use the word appeasement without conjuring up this memory.  When for instance in 2006 Australia appeared to be about to reject the application of West Papuan asylum-seekers for refugee status last year, the Commonwealth Govt was accused of “appeasing” Indonesia. 
The very use of this word excluded all sensible discussion of the bilateral relationship between us and the Indonesians, in favour of an emotive evocation of a notorious example of craven capitulation to evil.

Better stick to propitiate, I’d have thought.

David said :

We must convey the gospel in contemporary language which does not dumb down the meaning of the message. I think that people sometimes do change the message by sloppy use of language, or by having a sloppy theology in the first place. But use of archaic words is not at all a desirable method of communication.

Evangelicals are so squeamish about using current language, they cling to their NIVs when there is a superior updated version of it easily accessible.

There was a recent thread where the use of words we used at church was discussed. If a lot of language we use to communicate is ‘middle class or tertiary’ - then a lot of folk who left school before their HSC - or in some cases - before even Year 10 - will fall into the language ‘gap’ if they pop up at church.  Do we try and ‘educate’ them to use our lofty words - or do we look at our ‘churchy’ language - and seek to translate them into better understood ones ?

David, Which Bible version are you recommending ? Would it be more suitable for non-tertiary readers ?

Cheers, Kevin

I will just say that I have been on these forums for 3 years and never seen Enkers start a rant. So the author of the article is to be congratulated for that!

That said, what you said is spot on, Enkers. I couldn’t believe that there was no reference to the original languages in his argument, even if only to address the obvious objection. And, oddly given his point, it made pretty turgid reading.

I do like the word propitiation, though, and it’s one of the words I would try to educate people about given its signficance for our understanding of the cross.