THE CATACOMBS
You are here: Home
> Catacombs > Articles
On translating "sexual immorality"
instead of "fornication"
Thought I'd drop you a line about an issue that perpetually troubles me
about new translations and paraphrases. The older translations (KJV, RSV,
etc.) and some newer ones (NKJV, NASB, NRSV) use the term "fornication,"
translating the Greek
pornea. The
NIV and the ISV translate "sexual immorality," which, while technically
acceptable, is a phrase that has no tangible meaning. Webster's defines the
relative term "immorality" as "that which is traditionally or generally
acknowledged to be not moral." Thus the term is socially relative,
therefore useless. For example, our society in general considers adultery
to be immoral, but not premarital sex. In fact, using the NIV or ISV New
Testament alone, without referring to the Greek, it would be impossible to
prove that premarital sex is wrong! (I challenge you!) At least the old
term "fornication" has a specific dictionary definition; it is useful and
meaningful.
Thank you for your email.
Allow me to answer your questions seriatim.
(1) It is a real challenge
to correctly translate the Greek term
porneia (NOT pornea, as
you spelled it). The use of traditional terminology, as you suggest, is one
option. This is what we have done for the most part with such terms as
justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. Others complain that such
language is archaic ("There is simply no justification for such language," I
often comically bemoan). With porneia
we felt that "fornication" is an obsolete word in English and that "sexual
immorality" covers the bases quite well. (The term porneia was
used frequently in Judeo-Christian literature to refer to premarital or
extramarital intercourse, prostitution, incest, and any other type of sexual
impropriety.)
The Complete Jewish Bible by David Stern translates clearly in the text what
each word means and, though it is paraphrastic, it is quite helpful.
Sometimes, if an English word can't bring out the total meaning of the
Greek, you have to use phrases- the idea is to help the reader, to give
him/her the meaning, isn't it?
Also, why do
you continue to use the term "abide" in John 15, but in 1John, in a context
virtually the same as John 15, you translate the same word as "remain?" Just
seems inconsistent.
(2) The literary and
historical contexts of the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John are
manifestly quite different, though of course we do have the same author.
We'll take another look at this issue in light of your query, however.
Hate to be
so critical. Sorry. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for your
thoughtful questions.
Yours sincerely,
David Alan Black
NT Editor
International Standard Version
|
