Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 180:717 (Jan 2023)
Article: From The Doctrine Of Inspiration Toward A Hermeneutic For Bible Translation
Author: Terrance R. Wardlaw, Jr.

BSac 180:717 (January-March 2023) p. 16

From The Doctrine Of Inspiration Toward A Hermeneutic For Bible Translation

Terrance R. Wardlaw Jr.

Terrance R. Wardlaw Jr. is a translation consultant with SIL International (Dallas, Texas) and adjunct professor at Dallas International University.

Abstract

This investigation outlines a hermeneutic for Bible translators in order to determine acceptable renderings from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of Scripture into other languages. Discussion begins with the doctrine of plenary, verbal inspiration as the foundation for developing a tripartite dialectic for evaluating the meaning of words in relation to the author’s intent, the text, and the reader. The approaches of Nida and Gutt are compared and contrasted in a case study translating legal terminology in Leviticus 18:6–23 and 20:9–21.

From the late 1940s through the 1980s as Eugene Nida developed various stages of his theory of dynamic and then functional equivalence for Bible translation, a respect for the very words of Scripture reigned supreme in the conservative evangelical church alongside a preference for literal translation.1 Literal translation resonated well with the consensus doctrine of plenary, verbal inspiration. In contrast, Nida attempted to improve upon what he considered to be problems of understanding in minority language Bible translations. Alongside rigorous exegesis, this emphasis attempted to account for the linguistic skewing between languages and cultures across the globe in order to translate the meaning and function of the biblical text as naturally and

BSac 180:717 (January-March 2023) p. 17

clearly as possible. Major translation organizations adopted Nida’s approach, which evolved into “meaning-based translation” in the works of Callow and Beekman, Larson, and Barnwell.2

First we must define terms. Essentially literal and formal equivalent translations seek to render both the meaning of each word and the key structural features of the source text with the closest linguistic equivalent in the target language, while retaining natural word order and style. Thus, essentially literal translation strives for naturalness and clarity by adapting grammar and lexis to target language forms. For example, the NASB renders Job 38:3, “Now gird up your loins like a man” (similarly, KJV). By contrast, dynamic and functional equivalence translations attempt to render the thoughts or ideas of the original text into the ...