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.

The Feigned Ignorance of the Existence of Other Translations

In my previous post I mentioned a correlation between the lack of variety in available Bible translation approaches and the fact that most Bibles are intended to stand alone (as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ style, that is, as producing Bibles to be used for both study and liturgy, by a wide audience). This is especially true of large committee Bible translation projects where the goal tends to be the out-dated idea of providing a new ‘standard’ translation that would monopolize the market of readers.

This means a missed opportunity for new Bibles to pursue the variety of translation methods (since they are all competing for the ‘word group’ and ‘clause’ level translation method, see previous post).

Today I’m following up the discussion of the implied correlation between the lack of variety and the ever-increasing number of new Bible translations.

It is no secret that the number of Bible versions created in the English language is vast—the number is in the hundreds (or thousands if one counts different editions). So it is strange that new Bible translations appearing in English usually overlook the obvious fact that many of their intended readers will own and read more than one translation.

Many Bibles appearing in English are produced as though they were intended to be read in ignorance of other translations/versions. I suppose it is partly a consequence of marketing (compare how TV networks rarely like to acknowledge the existence of other TV networks in their broadcasts). Such ‘ignorance’ is obviously pretend.

In the real world many readers (especially Bible college students, pastors, religious educators, and Bible study groups) are not so ignorant and so they do not forego reading their Bibles in various English translations. Granted many readers do gravitate to one Bible to use as as their primary Bible for practical reasons, but this does not obviate comparative use of more than one version at various times.

So what difference does this ‘feigned ignorance’ make for Bible readers? I suggest that it not only reproduces an ignorant reading experience (leaving it to the more inquisitive readers to go search out for themselves alternative translations) but that it is partly responsible for the never-ending over-production of new Bible translations in English.

We have already noted that multiple translations are a necessary phenomenon due to the nature of translation. This should be clear from the previous blog post. Here’s how Julio Trebolle Barrera stated it (italics added):

The biblical text is loaded with such richness of meaning in its smallest details that any translation can offer no more that [sic] a few of the many aspects which philological, historical and theological study find in the text. In effect, it is really always necessary to provide several alternative translations. This is one of the reasons why the student of the Bible cannot forego study of the original languages.

The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (Trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden; New York; Koln: Brill, 1997), 126.

Here we will focus on the necessity for English readers of having access to multiple translations.

The point is widely acknowledged by those who study translations (and taken for granted by students of translation studies). For example, Tommy Wasserman concludes that

multiple translations that complement each other are necessary. There is certainly a great need for translations with different levels of language and with varying degree of interpretation, aimed at different addressees and purposes; the translation for the experienced reader should not necessarily be the same as for the first time reader; likewise, those who read the Bible to prepare sermons could need another kind of translation than those who read it as a book for culture. . . . The ideal would be a broad range of translations that could, so to speak, build a bridge into the world of the Biblical authors. . . . idiomatic translation . . . needs to be complemented with the literal translation, not least in order to enrich and amplify the target language and bridge the gaps between our modern world and the Biblical one.

“Theoretical Orientations In Bible Translation: AComparative Analysis of Two English-language Bible Versions” (2001)

Similarly, Philip Sumpter (in his article “English BibleTranslations: An Overview of Current Versions”) found that “None of the authors [translation theorists] cited in this article, each involved in translation projects themselves, claim that only one translation or translation type is sufficient.” (italics added)

So it is refreshing when a translation stops behaving like a TV network and acknowledges the mutual existence of other contemporary translations. This was a welcome feature of the NETBible when it appeared (online 1996; in print 2005) which does occasionally make reference to other versions in the footnotes when discussing an ambiguous passage. The most extreme endeavour in this vein would probably be the Comprehensive New Testament (2008) which provides references to twenty other commonly used English versions for every New Testament verse!

Whilst we should not expect that every new version can or should go to such extremes (and the CNT has its own agenda in doing so), we might at least expect that more Bibles are translated with the knowledge that their translations exist in mutual dialogue with other translations, and to make this fact more transparent to readers.

The myth that a newer Bible will be the version to end all versions (or the one and only Bible translation to be read by its faithful readers) in reality does little to reduce the outpouring number of new versions. In fact it would seem to hinder the proliferation of new Bibles because it fails to properly address the need for necessary complementary translation types that theorists have identified. This in turn is reflected in the production of Bible versions which inherently aim to supplant and compete with rather than supplement and complement.

Ultimately, there remains an ongoing need for newer Bible translations. What is needed, however, is for such translations to improve their awareness of what they are and how exactly they might be achieving what they are setting out to achieve in relation to other translation efforts, by paying attention to what translation theorists and other experts have known and studied about the translation enterprise.

I will follow up the matter with some examples soon.