tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post115095121622661803..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Good News for Everyone VII: LatinizationsWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1151167139250931342006-06-24T09:38:00.000-07:002006-06-24T09:38:00.000-07:00Rick, you make a good point about "baptism". This ...Rick, you make a good point about "baptism". This is about the only case in which a new word was borrowed for the Bible into the language that I am working on - borrowed by translators working before me, in the 1980's I think. They did this precisely because any word already in use would have implied specifying the mode of baptism - and because one word already sometimes used had bad connotations of historic forcible conversions. But this is an exceptional case because it is so controversial between churches, and there is no justification for taking the same approach with "propitiation"/"expiation".Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1151157726945288862006-06-24T07:02:00.000-07:002006-06-24T07:02:00.000-07:00If you are translating the Bible into a language t...<I>If you are translating the Bible into a language that has never had the Bible before, you are going to need to find a way to communicate this thought without resorting to borrowings to create new technical terms. You actually have to come to grips with what a word means.</I><BR/><BR/>Would this also apply to a word like βάπτισμα, which from my recollection was simply transliterated into English to avoid controversies regarding proper mode of baptism? Of course maybe a difference is that the word "baptism" is a greater part of the culture's vocabulary at this point than "propitiation." At this stage "John the Immerser" might communicate <I>less</I> than "John the Baptist" (although the latter might sound like denominational affiliation to some).<BR/><BR/>Regarding ἱλαστήριον, I found it interesting that in the 1996 edition of the NLT translators attempted to communicate the meaning of the word propitiation without using the word itself: "For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us..." This rendering is clearly borrowed from the 1971 Living Bible which uses very similar wording. However, in the 2004 revision of the NLT, the translators chose to back off from communicating the meaning of propitiation and simply state, "For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin..." This is an even more simplified translation that "sacrifice of atonement" in the NIV and NRSV.R. Mansfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333586197235312918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1151145355210616782006-06-24T03:35:00.000-07:002006-06-24T03:35:00.000-07:00Anon, thank you for your long comment. At last I a...Anon, thank you for your long comment. At last I am beginning to understand the distinction between propitiation, as something which Jesus (allegedly) does to God, and expiation, as something which God (allegedly) does. I add "(allegedly)" in both cases because I don't want to commit myself on which might be the better explanation of what happened on the cross. In fact probably both are valid but incomplete <A HREF="http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/2006/06/models-of-atonement.html" REL="nofollow">models of the Atonement</A>.<BR/><BR/>But, to get back from theology to Bible translation, we are left in the position that for almost all target audiences (I might except those who are better qualified in theology than I am, and as I have an MA that basically limits the audience to those with doctorates!) neither "propitiation" nor "expiation" is a meaningful word. At least some people would understand "propitiation" as the act of propitiating someone, i.e. of doing something to stop them being angry, but would then be confused at the suggestion that Jesus is a propitiation, for a person cannot be an act!<BR/><BR/>So, it seems to me essential that translators find a wording here which is clearly understood, and which is also as far as possible neutral on the theologically controversial issues. Nida has no doubt lost some people by coming down on one side of the argument with "<I>in 1 John 2:2 it is not the propitiation of sin but the expiation of sin which is spoken of</I>". Perhaps he would have been wiser to write that it is unclear which of these is correct. And then he could have said that it was in order to avoid taking one side or the other on the issue that he had chosen his excellent rendering "<I>Christ himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven</I>".Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1151129437661750172006-06-23T23:10:00.000-07:002006-06-23T23:10:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471792031082544671noreply@blogger.com