Should Archaic Language Be Used In Modern Translations?
I was motivated to write this after reading Mark Strauss’ utter contempt and blasting of the ESV. At one point he condemns the ESV for using archaic language. On the whole, I agree that I would like to see archaic terms removed. However, I do not think that all archaic terms can be removed. Matthew 1:18 is one such instance.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18; ESV)
Strauss blasts the ESV for using the term “betrothed.” But does anyone really have a better word to use instead of “betrothed?” The HCSB, NRSV, and NLT use the word “engaged.” But I do not think this is an appropriate word to use. In fact, “engaged” is terribly misleading. Joseph and Mary were not engaged. In the modern mind engagement suggests a serious relationship that can be broken off at any time without consequence. Joseph and Mary were not in that situation. They were legally bound together and only a putting away (divorce) could end this. The word “engaged” is not a strong enough word to reflect the situation Joseph and Mary were in. The NIV and TNIV use the word “pledged.” I suppose this word is fine. But I believe “pledged” requires just as much explanation as the word “betrothed.” What does it mean that they were “pledged to be married.” I don’t believe the (T)NIV offers any greater clarity. We still have to explain that this is a pledge that could not be broken without putting the other away.
The point is that there are some things that took place in ancient times that do not have a modern counterpart or parallel. In such cases, it is difficult to use modern terms to explain ancient practices. Another good example of this is the “casting of lots.” Should we come up with a modern phrase instead of the “archaic” phrase “casting of lots?” Sure, if you can come up with one. The NLT occasionally uses “throwing dice.” But we are not exactly sure that this is how lots were cast. Further, throwing dice carries a modern sound of gambling, which is certainly not what happened when lots were cast to select Matthias as a replacement apostle for Judas (Acts 1:26). (To the NLT’s credit, it reads “cast lots” in reference to Matthias’ selection and not “threw dice”).
So, what should we do? Most translations have decided to leave it as it is. Leave “casting of lots” in the text and we will just have to do our best to explain it. Leave “betrothed” and we will have to do our best to explain it. Archaic terms are not a sign of shoddy translation work. Sometimes there just is not a better way to render the ancient term.
Don't forget to browse Biblical Studies or The Bible or Translations.
Your Thoughts
4 Comments so far4 Responses to “Should Archaic Language Be Used In Modern Translations?”
By submitting a comment here you grant Christian Monthly Standard a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at our discretion.
Mike
November 26, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Excellent point about “betrothed.” I hadn’t thought about it that way.
I don’t remember Strauss saying we should remove casting lots though, I thought he had said the ESV shouldn’t use, “the lot fell on Mathaias” or something like that…
In minority language translations, where there are places where cultural issues that are difficult to translate like these, translators often insert footnotes explaining the problem. That might be helpful for translations such as “casting lots,” or “betrothed.” Typically, unless its a study Bible in English, we don’t see much of that.
Ray McCalla
November 26, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I agree with you. I read Mark’s paper, and his criticisms were generally accurate; the ESV could be improved in a number of places. He assumes, however, that his translation philosophy (to bring the ancient text into the contemporary world) is the only right one. But this is just a difference in perspective; the ESV attempts to do just the opposite: to take the reader back into the ancient world.
Brent Kercheville
November 26, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Mike:
I did not mean to imply that Strauss wrote about casting lots. I was just using the casting of lots as another example of archaic language that I think we must keep until we can come up with something clearer.
Wendyl Leslie
November 27, 2008 at 7:51 am
This argument is just a classic example of what happens when folks start trying to change the text from what was originally written. When I hear folks complaining about not understanding what the original ancient language meant and thinking it’s wrong as a result, my thinking is that they’re too lazy to find out what it means.
Brent is absolutely correct regarding the usage of the word “betrothed.” It’s the only way to accurately convey what was meant by the author of the text. And oftentimes, this is the case whenever archaic terms are used. There are just no modern counterparts that can adequately express the original writer’s intent. And when we think we know better than what the original author meant then we’re really messing around with the “God-breathed” words of God.
And, that my friends, is not a very good idea!