Eddie Arthur picks up and criticises a ridiculous misstatement about Bible translation. The idea that word-for-word translation is in any sense more accurate than any other (indeed that in any pure form it actually exists!) is a linguistic fallacy.
Indeed, I could make a case that for any theologian who believes in mission participating in the pattern of God’s mission revealed in the incarnation, it also represents a theological fallacy.
But by coincidence, I was on the receiving end of a bible-study this morning which included this verse:
David said, "The LORD, who saved me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, will save me from the hand of this Philistine." So Saul said to David, "Go, and may the LORD be with you!" (1Sa 17:37 NRSV)
Now, I’ve checked a number of translations, including those word-for-word ones “conservatives” seem to prefer like Holman Christian Standard, English Standard and of course King James versions. All of those also speak of the “paws” of bear and lion and the “hand” of the Philistine.
However, a word-for-word translation would speak of either the hand of bear and lion as well as Philistine, or the paw of Philistine as well as bear and lion. It is the same word “yad”.
A word-for-word translation simply doesn’t work in English, which has no word for “bottom part of the forelimb” which is common to both human and animal. Sadly for Wayne Grudem and his linguistically deluded fellows / followers, there are numerous other examples which prove word-for-word is not merely inaccurate, but dysfunctional.
A curious example – why not use paw for all three? It puts more sarcasm into the English reading. The te-amim show ornaments on each of lion and bear – but the Philistine has none.
Good example, Doug. An even clearer one on the same lines is presented by God’s length of nose in Exodus 34:6, which no one translates literally for obvious reasons.
But I might suggest dropping “paw” and “hand” completely in 1 Samuel 17:37. The real danger to David was not the lion’s paw or Goliath’s hand, but the lion’s teeth and Goliath’s sword. So “hand/paw” is a metaphor. Thus a more meaning-based translation might use something like “power” instead of both “paw” and “hand”. And in fact that is exactly what CEB does (and I only found this out after typing the last sentence). Now arguably it is more vivid language to keep the metaphor of “paw/hand”, if this is understood by the audience in the target language. But if the metaphor is to be ruined by the shift from “paw” to “hand”, I would suggest there is little point in keeping it. Indeed perhaps I would keep “hand” even for the animals to make it very obvious that this is a metaphor.
Yes, I nearly cited CEB, then removed the reference to keep the post short. The other possibility, would be to find a word which might just work for both in English despite not meaning paw / hand.
Perhaps “The LORD, who saved me from the claws of the lion and from the claws of the bear, will save me from the claws of this Philistine.” Claws is almost a dead metaphor for a human opponent’s grasp and might work in this case.