The truth is out there

"Truth in translation" by Professor Jason David BeDuhn is undoubtedly one of the most interesting books I read. But is it true? Last year [2007], I posted a relatively positive review of this book, but after some further reading, I now believe that BeDuhn's book is problematic and some of his conclusions plain wrong. Still, I give the book four stars, not because I necessarily agree with its contents, but because the author raises interesting points and presents a well-argued case.

BeDuhn analyzes the most popular American Bible translations, including the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV) and the New American Bible (NAB). He reaches the conclusion that all New Testament translations are seriously biased by the theological preconceptions of their translators. For instance, in Romans 16:7, the apostle Paul greets another apostle named Junia. In Greek, Junia is a woman's name, hence Paul is actually greeting a woman apostle! This is too theologically controversial for some Christians, so in many Bibles the name "Junia" is changed into the masculine "Junias", a name otherwise unknown outside the New Testament. Ironically, even the patriarchal Church Fathers accepted that Junia was a woman, so many modern Bibles are actually more biased than the ancients!

It is not Junia, however, that is BeDuhn's main objection to most modern translations. Rather, BeDuhn believes that the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines of later church councils have been projected onto the original text of the New Testament by biased translators. For instance, the NT often uses the Greek word "proskuneo", which means "prostration". In the ancient world, people of low social rank were expected to prostrate themselves before those of higher rank. In particular, subjects prostrated themselves before kings. Usually, "proskuneo" is therefore translated "did him homage", "fell on his knees before him", "did obesience to him", etc. However, when the disciples prostrates before Jesus, exactly the same word is translated "worship" by many Bibles, implying religious worship of Jesus as God. While the word could be translated that way as well, BeDuhn believes that this is unwarranted by the immidiate context, and that Jesus therefore wasn't worshipped as a god by his disciples.

BeDuhn also analyzes several other oft-debated Bible passages: Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15-20, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8 and John 1:1-2. All these passages can be read in a Trinitarian manner, as if Jesus was very God of very God. BeDuhn argues that they might just as well be read in a non-Trinitarian manner, and that these readings are more probable. Thus, the modern translators have projected Trinitarianism onto texts that may actually be non-Trinitarian.

Many modern Bibles *do* propose alternative translations of many of the passages analyzed by BeDuhn, so what makes "Truth in translation" controversial is not really this. Rather, it is that the author interprets these translations as non-Trinitarian, thereby suggesting that Paul and the Gospel writers considered Jesus to be something less than God. He also reaches the stunning conclusion that the best American translation available today is...wait for it....the New World Translation, published by the Watchtower Society a.k.a. the Jehovahs Witnesses! Of course, such a claim is *very* contentious, to say the least. BeDuhn even argues that the NW translation of the Johannine Prologue is correct: "In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god". Frankly, I almost fell from my chair reading that... :-)

BeDuhn's explanation for why the NW translation is the best available, is that the Witnesses approached the original Greek text with a kind of innocence, since their purpose was to restore ancient Christianity, whatever that might be. In my opinion, this explanation is somewhat naive. One can just as well claim that the Watchtower translation committe had biases of their own, namely anti-Trinitarian biases. This would be true even if we assume that the Trinitarian passages can be given a more plausible, non-Trinitarian translation. Indeed, BeDuhn criticizes the NW version on several other points, including the aforementioned woman apostle Junia, whom the NW too morphs into a male. This, obviously, is due to patriarchal gender bias. Critics of the Witnesses also believe that the NW is consciously mistranslated on many other points, in both the OT and NT, so it seems somewhat premature to declare the NW to be the best available translation without also tackling these other issues.

Another problem with BeDuhn seems to be, that he somehow believes that translation and interpretation can and must be kept strictly apart. The Bible passages under discussion may or may not mean that Jesus was divine, but they can and should be translated literally, period. But is this really possible? After all, the word "proskuneo" can mean both "homage" and "worship", which obviously means that the translation will be dependent on the interpretation! If the New Testament as a whole seems to imply that Jesus was indeed worshipped as God, then "worship" is the natural translation. If not, then "homage" it is. Thus, it's difficult to avoid theology when translating the Bible, whether you like it or not.

Personally, I think overall context shows that Jesus was seen as divine in *some* sense by all New Testament writers. If this was the original idea of Jesus himself is another matter. But Paul and the Gospel writers surely saw Jesus as divine, and Paul often identifies him with YHWH (or Jehovah, if you like). While it's true that the elaborate dogma of the Trinity wasn't formulated until much later - and in several different versions, to boot - this could be seen as a natural development, rather than a complete novelty from out of the blue. After all, if you identify a human with YHWH, while still claiming that The Father is somewhere up there, and throw in a baptism in the name of a Holy Ghost for good measure, it's difficult to see what doctrine other than the Trinity could possibly "explain" this, especially if you insist on still being a monotheist!

Still, I give the book four stars and recommend it for fearless seekers as the best defense of the anti-Trinitarian position out there.