How Old is your Bible Language?

No I'm not talking about the age of the biblical languages used in biblical texts. I'm wondering about the 'age' of the kind of language translators use in translations.

In other words I'm interested in discussing: How recent or how ancient does a Bible translation sound? 

One of the reasons I ask is to follow up again (already followed up briefly here) on a postscript from my second blog post where I said:

The question of the first Bible translations in modern speech will of course depend on one's definition of "modern" and "modern language." Suffice to say here (other posts will pick it up) the King James Version (1611) simply consolidated (revised) the earlier 16th century Bibles and avoided modern speech in preference for archaic speech--it was not (contrary to misconceptions) either a completely "new" translation, nor was it a "modern language" version

That is, the King James Version chose to use archaic mid-sixteenth century language (mid 1500s English) rather than contemporary English. One reason was that the translators were attempting to produce a single version out of the many sixteenth century English versions:

Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. 

But in creating a 'single version' by using old-fashioned English, the translators are doing something quite different to what Tyndale did. It's not that they differed much from Tyndale's version at all. But Tyndale's English was more contemporary at the time he translated. So the result of the KJV's use of Tyndalian English would seem to suggest that a Bible translation should sound archaic, right from the very time it comes off  the press.

So how old should a Bible translation sound? 

I have also pondered (from a Christian perspective) whether a translation of the Hebrew scriptures should be made to seem/sound 'older' than the way the Greek New Testament is translated...given that a Christian approach to the Older Testament develops from first century (Christian) readings of OT texts. I cannot fully bring myself to accept that approach. It would be a kind of anachronistic approach (the OT Scriptures were not Christian scriptures prior to the first century). Yet the different Testaments need some kind of coordinated attempt to explain the different approaches to their reading audiences. 

For example, although the NRSV translated the Greek ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου as the formal and stilted 'The Son of Man' the translators went with a less literal mode for OT verses that mention בַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ ('Son of Man' in Aramaic) and בֶּן־אָדָ֔ם ('Son of Man' in Hebrew) and instead translated these as 'Mortal'. It could be that the NRSV translators had particular reasons for this, or that the translation approaches differed between the OT and NT.

A related question is the given perceptions of the source language in relation to how the target translation might/should sound... should something translated from biblical Hebrew sound like it was translated from a more archaic language (more exotic?) than texts translated from Koine Greek? If so, how obvious would the results of such translation need to be?

I would be interested in what other people have to say about these questions.

A new proposal for translating καταλύω and πληρόω in Mt 5:17

Today, rather than discussing theory, I’ll take my own advice and suggest a new translation for Mt 5:17, namely,

Do not think that I came to tear down the law and the prophets; I did not come to tear down but to build up.

UPDATE: I'm also considering 'build on’ in place of ‘build up’, or simply ‘to build’ (I did not come to demolish but to build). 
UPDATE: also considering: I have not come to make [them] void but to make [them] relevant.
As far as I know this these suggested translations is are new.

Now biblical imagery of ‘tearing down’ and ‘building up’ is quite common and the biblical applications are various … but our verb καταλύω (‘tear down’ ‘destroy’) is not usually used for tearing things down in biblical Greek translations (of the OT); the most common Greek verb found in this regard is καθαιρέω along with its opposite οἰκοδομέω. For example (translations are from the New English Translation of the Septuagint):

Ecc 3:3 (‘a time to tear down, and a time to build up’)

καιρὸς τοῦ καθελεῖν καὶ καιρὸς τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι

Likewise πληρόω is not usually translated ‘build' or build up’ or ‘build on’. But bear with me...

Thus for example in Jer 1:10 καταλύω (‘tear down’) does not appear, instead it is ἀπόλλυμι (‘destroy’) that appears opposite ἀνοικοδομεῖν (‘rebuild’) and καταφυτεύειν (‘plant’):

“Behold, today I have appointed you over

nations and over kingdoms,

to uproot and to pull down and to

destroy

and to rebuild and to plant.” (NETS)

ἰδοὺ κατέστακά σε σήμερον ἐπὶ

ἔθνη καὶ βασιλείας

ἐκριζοῦν καὶ κατασκάπτειν καὶ

ἀπολλύειν

καὶ ἀνοικοδομεῖν καὶ καταφυτεύειν

Paul does contrast καταλύω (‘tear down’) with οἰκοδομέω (‘build up’) in Gal 2:18

If what I once tore down I build up again I show that I am a wrongdoer.

εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω

Granted, Mt 5:17-18 is one of the most discussed passages in the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus speaks about his position concerning ‘the law’ (verses 17–20 together seem to provide a fuller ‘thesis’ for framing the so-called ‘antitheses’ of Mt 5:21–48). The evangelist (writer) here pictures Jesus teaching on a mountain to a large crowd (5:1; 7:28). In verse 18 Jesus mentions features of the (Hebrew) scriptures (‘jots and tittles’) and compares them (tiny elements of notation of Scripture) to the largest known elements of existence (heaven and earth) in order to highlight the importance of even the smallest commandments (cf. verses 19–20).

Indeed, the comparing and contrasting of seemingly ‘small’ and ‘great/grand’ is another important Matthean thematic device stretching back to the genealogy and permeating the whole Gospel.

Traditionally the translation and interpretation of Mt 5:17 tends to gravitate around the legitimacy of the Mosaic law and/or the entire Jewish scriptures for Jesus and the early disciples. And fair enough. It does make a difference for historical reconstruction of first century Christianity whether or not ‘the [Old Testament] law’ was being accepted or rejected by the new Christian sect. And it is a credit to the writer quoting Jesus’ position (concerning the law) that it is still possible to read Jesus as both for and against the ongoing validity of the law for his followers! The ambiguity is largely due to the way Jesus is quoted using the word ‘fill / fulfill’ (πληρόω):

Traditionally Mt 5:17 is translated as:

“Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι

My favorite succinct comment regarding verse 17 would have to be from Herbert Basser where he says that “he [Jesus] is not some kind of unfettered apocalyptic preacher who sees that the law is about to be annulled because the final days have come.”

And I do think that on a lexical (word-based) level of translation and interpretation that ‘annul’ is a very good way to render the verb καταλύω in English, and that ‘fulfill’ is quite reasonable for rendering πληρόω.

However, the notion of tearing down and building upon is an overlooked facet of Mt 5:17 deserving further consideration. Especially since from the perspective of the writer (and the readers) of the Gospel of Matthew Jesus’ stance to the ‘law and the prophets’ is inescapably political in that it is kingdom oriented.

Only occasionally is the verb καταλύω used in reference to ‘overthrowing’ an enemy fortification or power, as for example, in Greek Ps 8:3 where the object of the verb καταλύω is the ‘enemy and vengeful foe’:

            Out of mouths of infants and nurslings

you furnished praise

for yourself,

for the sake of your enemies,

to put down enemy and avenger (NETS),

            ἐκ στόματος νηπίων καὶ θηλαζόντων

κατηρτίσω αἶνον

ἕνεκα τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου

τοῦ καταλῦσαι ἐχθρὸν καὶ ἐκδικητήν.

But in Mt 5:17 the kind of dissolution of the verb καταλύω is being made in contrast to πληρόω (‘fill up’) which isn't usually translated ‘build’ or ‘build on’ or ‘build up’.

Yet it is hardly a stretch to take πληρόω here as ‘fill (up) with meaning’ or ‘expand upon’ (being contrasted with ‘make void / annul’). So the novelty is not necessarily in seeing Jesus as ‘expanding on’ or ‘building on’ the Scriptures so much as it looking like a peculiarly novel way of translating (compared to the traditional ‘fulfill’).

Now I’m also wondering whether the semantic ‘frame’ of καταλύω is often war-related and political…

Interestingly the other uses in Matthew are all anti-Temple uses.

The verb καταλύω (occurring 17 times in the whole New Testament) does not always include a verbal object. Of the five occurrences in Matthew two come from verse 17 where the verbal object is ’the law or the prophets’ in the first (the second occurrence might imply the same object but has no object). The remaining three occurrences in Matthew indicate that the Temple is in each case the object of the verb:

Mt 24:2 ‘stones’ [of the Temple] 

            ‘not a stone will be left on a stone that will not be thrown down’

οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται

Mt 26:61 ‘the Temple of God’:

‘this man said "I can tear down the Temple of God then build it again in three days’

Οὗτος ἔφη· Δύναμαι καταλῦσαι τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν οἰκοδομῆσαι.

Mt 27:40 ‘the Temple’:

‘and saying "the person who would tear down the Temple and build it up again within three days, rescue yourself!"

καὶ λέγοντες· Ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναὸν καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις οἰκοδομῶν, σῶσον σεαυτόν·

Notice also in the five Matthean uses what the verb’s opposite is

1. πληρόω - ‘fill / fill up / make complete’ (verbal object=Scripture)
2. πληρόω - ‘fill / fill up / make complete’ (verbal object= implied)
3. ἀφίημι + ὧδε (ἀφεθῇ ὧδε) – ‘leave here / leave intact’ (verbal object=stones of the Temple)
4. οἰκοδομέω - ‘build / rebuild / build up’ (verbal object=the Temple)
5. οἰκοδομέω - ‘build / rebuild / build up’ (verbal object=the Temple)

So whilst ‘tearing down’ (the Temple) is a natural comparison to make lexically (including the antonym ‘rebuild’ / ‘build up’) as a verbal object within Matthew, for some reason it has not influenced the translation and interpretation of Mt 5:17.

The main reason is because of a widespread attachment to the English word ‘fulfill’ and indeed ‘fulfillment’ is such a dominant Matthean theme from the beginning of Matthew (even the birth of Jesus fulfills a fourteen-based genealogy pattern and the notion of fulfillment is made explicit in Mt 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 13:35, 48; 21:4; 23:32; 26:54, 56; 27:9). The majority of these verses concern events that correspond to the scriptures that are now being ‘fulfilled’, that is, they are filled with new significance in the life of Jesus by being demonstrably in line with God’s way of doing things—past, present, and future begin to converge in Jesus’ vocation to bring the reign of heaven closer.

What I still find intriguing is that the theme of ‘tear down’ and ‘build up / make complete / build on’ remains unexplored in English Bible translations.

Naturally good teachers teach by ‘building up’ (note καταλύω in 2 Cor 13:10) and by ‘building on’ a solidly made foundation (compare the conclusion to Jesus speech in Mt 7:24–27).

So the notion of ‘building up God’s kingdom’ by ‘building on’ the law and the prophets is arguably quite relevant to Mt 5:17, especially for a people needing to understand Jesus’ relation to the Jewish Scriptures and his interpretation of it for them. Jesus comes to bring life by his teachings that are based on the essential life-giving spiritual guidance of the Scriptures. The readers of Matthew needed, and still need, to know how God in Jesus teaches people what righteousness really is. Matthew throughout testifies with the law and the prophets about a ‘greater righteousness’. (Note also Mt 23:23 concerning justice, mercy and faith).

And the teachings of Jesus, according to Matthew, do 'build' and ‘build on’ the foundational elements of Scripture (the law and the prophets) and Jesus proceeds particularly to do so in verse 21 onwards. Upon such Jesus’ followers then find dependable interpretations of God’s life-giving will for people to ‘enter the kingdom’.

What Counts as Foreign (Identifying Verbal Valency)

In my previous post I asserted that no matter what the translation philosophy underlying an English Bible translation is (whether it seeks a ‘domesticating’ approach or a ‘foreignizing’ approach) the translator must identify what counts as a foreign element in the first place.

Let me explain. When I mark the exercise sheets given out to the students enrolled in NT Greek I occasionally need to remind them to use acceptable English so that they demonstrate that they understand not only what each individual Greek word is but understand how the words together make grammatical sense. It is not enough to identify individual words. They need also to identify grammatical constructions. A very simple example is that Koine participles (‘-ing’ verbs e.g. ‘baptizing’ and ‘believing’) change from simple participles when preceded by a definite article (‘the’) so as to imply personal pronouns (‘the person who baptizes’; ‘the person who believes’).

This is why we ask that they use good, acceptable English (“Translate into Good Idiomatic English”) because pronouns and definite articles in Koine affect the grammar, and students need to show that they are learning the grammar, not just the words.

But the opposite is also true: literal translations can be misleading...

Interestingly, the more that a grammatical construction in Hebrew or Greek appears to be relatively easy to transfer into English the more I think we should be suspicious that we have correctly identified the foreign elements in the first place. Ιt is easier to slow down and debate how best to translate a difficult grammatical construction. Less so when the construction appears straight forward.

A biblical example: דבר על לב (‘speak concerning the heart’)

What does the biblical expression ‘speak concerning the heart’ mean? It is a question posed by Carolyn Leeb, “Translating the Hebrew Body into English Metaphor,” in The Social Sciences and Biblical Translation (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 109–125. Leeb finds only nine passages where the exact expression is used, which does not include similar expressions. The 9 occurrences are: Gen 34:3; Gen 50:21; Judg 19:13; 2 Sam 19:8; Hos 2:16; Isa 40:2; Ruth 2:13; 2 Chron 30:22; 2 Chron 32:6.

Leeb is particularly concerned with the first occurrence, Gen 34:3 concerning how Shechem speaks to the girl he has just raped (Dinah).

They way I read Leeb’s overall conclusions is that she is interested in how the speaker in each instance may be using his powerful position to persuade the addressee to do what the speaker thinks is best. She argues that every example involves a powerful male speaker and a powerless hearer (p.114). So in the case of Gen 34:3 Shechem tries to convince her or ‘reason with her’ speaking from a more powerful position (not necessarily: ‘speak tenderly to her’, the Greek OT has ἐλάλησεν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν 'he spoke according to the mind [of the unmarried girl]'). Shechem wanted to keep Dinah (the preceding phrase clause is 'he loved the girl').

In reviewing Leeb’s chapter Fika van Rensburg (RBL 12/2009) summarised it as:

A social-scientific examination of the ancient Israelite understanding of the body reveals that in their world the heart was understood to be the seat of reasoning, not feeling. Accordingly, the phrase “speak to the heart” should be rendered with “argued with” or “reasoned with.”

Actually this is only half correct, Leeb actually argued: “In my model, the heart is part of the interior of a human being, a locus of both reason and feeling.” (p.121)

Still, it looks like the various English Bibles have mistranslated these passages. And it’s not just those translations that have tried to 'domesticate' the expression into something like ‘he spoke loving/comforting words’ or ‘he spoke tenderly’. Even the translations that have tried to keep the construction foreign and ‘literal’ (‘he spoke to the heart’) also fail to identify what is foreign about the Hebrew expression since English already has this expression but it means something different—the English expression ‘speak to the heart’ identifies a speaker who speaks from a soft/tender place of consideration for what is soft/tender in the addressee with no necessary connection with power asymmetry (a speaker more powerful than the addressee who is of much lower rank and highly vulnerable to exploitation).

So translators have failed to identify that the construction concerns power of persuasive speech by a speaker more powerful than the addressee. Consequently they have overlooked the confrontational nature of the construction (the context of the personal asymmetry of power; the particle על ‘concerning’ ‘against’ following ‘speak’ and preceding לב (‘heart’); and the reasoning/intentional/intellectual quality of the body part ‘heart’).

This has huge ramifications for how we present our English translations as translations, since what counts as foreign needs to be constantly under review. At the extreme we should not presume that a simple biblical expression, for example one that appears to say ‘he went into the house’ necessarily means what it means in English! We would first need to see if there are particular grammatical constructions or patterns associated with a particular type of verbal object ('house') and particular type of subject ('person') who might be expected (socially) to ‘go into’ the house! All this might seem a little too extreme but I feel it makes the point well.

In fact, within biblical studies, there is a whole new field of grammatical investigation being currently developed called ‘verbal valency’ which studies the grammatical patterns associated with particular biblical verbs. I say ‘new field’ because so far it has attracted studies that have been relatively linguistic rather than include the social-scientific background that Leeb brought to bear. I am very excited to see what other studies might reveal about verbal valency.

I recognise that it is more difficult to achieve clear results with biblical verbs than it is with verbs in current languages, since many biblical constructions only occur a few times, which is often not enough to detect clear patterns.

I hope to discuss more examples in future.

What Should Translation Look Like? To Surmise a Summary

Today I jump head first into theory and then next post get straight to the practice. I won’t get bogged down in jargon. I’ll try here to simplify everything. I will begin with one of the most important questions: Should a translation look like a translation?

It is a key question within Translation Studies, namely how much a translation should or should not appear to be a translation. In other words should a translation read like it is a translation? This question penetrates to the core of what it means to translate, and how one answers the question tends to align with one of the two sides of the paradox of translation itself (its possibility/impossibility).

At one extreme, is the view that a translation should aim to appear as if it were not a translation at all – it should instead appear to be an origin composition. So if we are thinking in terms of an English Bible translation the question from this extreme basically says: if Paul had written to the saints in Rome in English how then might he have put his whole letter ‘To the Romans’ in English? (if the Romans were English?) The obvious problem with this approach is the fact that Paul did not speak English because English did not yet exist and consequently neither did many of the cultural aspects that make a language a cultural phenomenon. Is there really a way to know how someone unfamiliar with a particular culture might speak if they had been familiar with that culture? To some degree the question is unanswerable. But the ramifications are significant. Do we expect that someone can understand a foreign text (and a foreign culture) without learning the language? (And yet this would be expected, to varying degrees, of an English reader reading a biblical text in English).

Therefore we come to the other extreme viewpoint, that is, what a translator should ideally be doing is to try to avoid eliminating the foreign aspects of the text, in other words, try not to make it appear to be an original composition (in our case, not make it resemble a composition made in English). From this perspective, it is considered dishonest or deceptive to make a translation that doesn’t look like a translation.

However, how can translators always detect when they are accidentally ‘domesticating’ the foreign text and eliminating essential elements that should not be eliminated? But if all foreign elements are left intact (and the text remains in its foreign language) then translation has not even occurred!

So the question about how much a translation should appear to be a translation brings us to the heart of the paradox of translation: translation remains impossible but remains possible. In other words: (complete) translation is not possible but (some) translation is obviously possible (it has been occurring for millennia!).

I want now to point out two things. What I notice about the nature of both sides is that each position is basically self-fulfilling. That is, the view that translation is by nature impossible or the view that believes translation should not eliminate the foreign by nature makes sure that the foreign remains foreign. Conversely, the view that believes translation is possible (and seeks to replace the foreign with what’s not foreign) is naturally destined to replace everything that is foreign.

At this point I notice something of further interest, namely that each extreme position is united in its purpose of having to work hard to determining when something is or is not foreign. Let me explain.

The hard work within the ‘domesticating’ perspective is working to detect every single element from the foreign language that can or should be translated (and then deciding how successful it has been in putting this into practice within its ‘replacement’ text). Conversely, for the view that the foreign should not be eliminated, the hard work there is in working to detect any kind of domestication of the foreign altogether (then working out how successful it has been in putting this into practice within its resulting ‘foreignizing’ text).

Notice that the work of both positions actually depends on the same goal: successful identification of what counts as a foreign element in the first place. Further to this goal is the fact that they both then have to work out to what degree the desired result (practice) has been achieved in the new text (translation).

In the next post I will discuss a Bible example. The example suggests that neither the domesticating approach nor the foreignizing approach are yet proficient at determining what counts as foreign.

Translation Theory in Translation Studies

Most of my year this year has involved house-moving related tasks ... But I have not forgotten this blog ...
I am still interested in presenting some more examples involving the issue of utilising up-to-date resources for Bible translation. Last post I mentioned the issue of using the recent BDAG lexicon (dictionary) over its older 1979 edition (BAGD). Another kind of up-to-date 'resource' I wish to discuss is that of translation theory.
I have recently started reading widely on translation theory within the broader field of translation studies. Whenever I do this, I am shocked at how poor is the field of Bible translation (in regard to theory) when compared with the variety of translation theory discussed within Translation Studies.
If and when I can, I would like to discuss some examples of such differences along with any practical translation points arising.
I have previously noted how modern Bible Prefaces are not a good source of up-to-date information concerning translation theory or the history of Bible translation. For example, the kind of English used in the Bibles of Tyndale (1526) and the Geneva Bible (1560) is evidently much more contemporary to the spoken English of their times than that used in the 1611 King James Version, by which time English had continued to evolve, yet the choice was made not to use up-to-date contemporary language in the KJV but rather to use language that sounded decades older, as

we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one ... (from the 1611 KJV preface). 

Yet many Bible prefaces instead portray the KJV as though it were a modern-language translation in its time. For some examples of contemporary language avoidance see, Alistair McGrath,“The Story of the King James Bible,” in D. G. Burke (eds), Translation that Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible. (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 3-20. This picks up a note from my earlier post http://bibletranslationtheory.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/first-english-bibles-in-modern-speech.html.
Likewise the information given in Bible prefaces is demonstrably not up with the wider discipline of Translation Studies (though Bible translators themselves are evidently not ignorant of many of the same kinds of translation issues).
In coming weeks I would like to discuss further Translation Theory within Translation Studies.

Using Updated Bible Lexicons (the word ἕξις in Heb 5:14)

One relatively simple way that new Bible translations can be considered to be “based on the best scholarly research available” (to quote the preface of the Lexham English Bible) is to consult the most up-to-date lexicons for Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) words. Thus the LEB preface goes on to claim that the LEB is

designed from the beginning to make extensive use of the most up-to-date lexical reference works available. For the Old Testament this is primarily The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), and for New Testament this is primarily the third edition of Walter Bauer’s A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). [The Lexham English Bible (ed. W. Hall Harris, III et al.; 4th edition; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013).]

Actually, the “most up-to-date lexical reference works available” would not be these (HALOT & BDAG) but will be those such studies in recently published peer reviewed journals and books. Such research eventually ends up in the newer lexicons. Nevertheless these two lexicons (BDAG and HALOT) are a good starting place. Not many Bible translations actually say which lexicons their translations are based on, but BDAG and HALOT are fairly standard reference works.

However, I recently discovered that many of my favourite Bible translations have not always been successful in checking the updated ‘BDAG’ (2000) over the 1979 edition (‘BAGD’).

To be fair, some Bible versions published after 2000 were begun long prior to 2000 and the transition to a newer lexicon is not always thoroughly achieved. The NETBible for example, which first began in 1995 says:

Another significant change to the translators’ notes (tn) in the Second Beta Edition was the updating of all citations of BAGD to BDAG, thus keeping the NET Bible current with the most up-to-date reference materials. (With footnote: BAGD and BDAG are abbreviations which refer to the second and third editions respectively of the standard Greek-English lexicon used in New Testament studies. The third edition appeared in print after the text and notes of the NET Bible New Testament were largely completed.)

Apparently the Greek word ἕξις [hexis] (Heb 5:14) has slipped through unchecked in virtually all the recent versions which continue to translate it as "(through) practice". It is fascinating that the longstanding error for the word ἕξις [hexis] (Heb 5:14) has gone completely uncorrected even though Fred Danker updated the entry in 2000 to reflect the corrected meaning “(mature) state”:

The 2000 edition (BDAG) says that ἕξις [hexis] occurs in various literature with various meanings, namely having a physical/mental state, proficiency, or skill. It only occurs once in the New Testament, whereby

it refers to a state of maturity, maturity (compare ‘characteristic’ Philo, Legum allegoriae. 1, 10, 3).

So according to BDAG Heb 5:14 should read: solid food is for adults who because of their mature state have their senses trained to distinguish between good and bad.

Though the overall meaning of the verse is hardly affected (having an advanced/mature state with trained senses) I was still quite surprised to find that so many recent versions have failed to check the meaning of hexis in BDAG. It is easy to see why an advanced ‘state’ or ‘condition’ could be confused with what caused such a state of maturity to develop (namely, the habitual practices which result in a proficient mature state). But I expected to find at least a few post-2000 Bibles that had consulted BDAG’s lexicon.

So far I have not found any recent Bible versions that have updated their translations to reflect the meaning in BDAG! So far I have looked up NET, ESV, ISV, NIV 2011, NLT, Green’s KJ3, CNT, Voice, TLV, CEB, and SNT. The Source New Testament (SNT) appears to translate hexis with a combined sense by having “a result of practice” with a footnote: ἕξις exis, “skill as the result of practice.” This appears to provide a compromise between ‘state of proficiency’ and the older presumed meaning (‘practice’). HCSB (2004) is perhaps even closer to BDAG by choosing to completely omit the phrase ‘because of their maturity’, seeing it as redundant (as it would come immediately after the phrase ‘the mature’).

Though it is possible that all the other recent translations are actively disagreeing with BDAG (2000) and choosing to favour BAGD (1979) my guess is that this example is not deliberate and has slipped through unnoticed, largely because the overall meaning of the verse remains the same. Still this is a little sloppy for versions like LEB which claim to be based on BDAG and HALOT.

To summarise: The earlier 1979 Bauer-Danker lexicon (BAGD) had incorrectly given the meaning for ἕξις [hexis] as “practice” which was corrected to “maturity” in the updated 2000 edition.[For the history of how the earlier erroneous meaning for ἕξις [hexis] developed see John Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 279–95. Lee shows that the error came about because lexicons were simply copying a presumed meaning from older Bible translations, rather than researching the meaning afresh.]]

Yet none of the 21st century Bible translations I have looked up include the meaning as given in the lexicon of BDAG (‘maturity’), besides possibly HCSB which omits the word altogether due to the perceived redundancy with ‘the mature’. The remaining versions provide further evidence that for certain words (like hexis in Heb 5:14) the description ‘up-to-date research’ is barely apt for the state of newer Bible versions if out-dated lexical meanings from 1979 are still going unchecked in the 21st century.