Translation or Interpretation?

Recently, an article I submitted to one of our brotherhood publications was revised by the editor. To support a claim that human life was to be regarded with respect, I cited the English Standard Version's translation of Psalm 8:4-5:

What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

The editor altered the rendering to the King James Version, which reads,

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? for thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour (emphasis added).

First let me say that I believe an editor has every right to revise articles submitted to him for publication. He is the one who will be held responsible for what is printed, and he has to make changes to ensure the credibility of his paper.

That being said, I would like to use this example as a springboard for a discussion of the ethics of translation. When do we consider a translation to be accurate or inaccurate? And what standards must translators use to ensure they are translating the Bible and not interpreting it?

Elohim
Upon comparing the ESV and KJV on Psalm 8, I decided that the decision to change my wording was based on the ESV's choice of the phrase "heavenly beings" over the KJV's "angels." Interestingly enough, the word in question is elohim, the most frequently used title for the true God in the Old Testament. It is curious that, although the word is used numerous times, this is the only place in which the KJV translates it "angels."

Elohim is the plural of eloah, meaning "God" or "god." Usually, however, it is not intended as a true plural when used of Jehovah. Instead, it expresses a "plural of majesty." This is seen in the fact that elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular, making for awkward grammar but fascinating theology (Theological Wordbook of the OT, p. 44). The sentence construction is consistent with what we see in the first chapter of Genesis, where Moses tells us, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'" (Gen. 1:26). This mysterious mixing of plural subjects and singular verbs teaches accurately the doctrine of the Godhead: three persons in one divine essence (cf. Mt. 28:19).

The original wording explains why the ASV and NASB render Psalm 8:5, "Yet thou hast made him a little lower than God..." (emphasis added). Following their lead, the CEV says, "You made us a little lower than you yourself...."

The ESV obviously went with a literal translation. However, not wanting to be as strong as some of the other versions, it stopped short of using the term "God" and went with "heavenly beings," leaving the reader to use the context to decide whether David meant God or the angels. I see nothing wrong with this decision. David had a Hebrew word available to him if he wanted to speak of angels (malak), but he chose to use elohim. It seems to me that we need to respect that.

Hebrews 2:9
There's more to the issue, though, than meets the eye. After the lexicons have been consulted, one must also consider supplemental evidence. This is where it gets tricky.

The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament, produced sometime between the third to the first century BC. For reasons unknown to us, the translators of the Septuagint rendered the Hebrew elohim in Psalm 8:5 angelos, a Greek word specifying "angels."

The writer of Hebrews evidently had a deep respect for the Septuagint, varying from it only rarely for "interpretational purposes" (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. xlix). Thus, he quoted from the Septuagint when he penned Hebrews 2:9, which speaks of salvation through Christ: "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." Such closes a lengthy quotation from Psalm 8, which begins at verse 6 (notice the phrase "it has been testified somewhere").

Undoubtedly the Septuagint or Hebrews 2:9 was responsible for the KJV's choice of the word "angels" in Psalm 8:5. In either case, the translators used supplemental evidence to arrive at their conclusion and did not go with the literal reading. That is not to say this is an inappropriate means of interpreting Scripture. In essence what they did was compare their text with an inspired commentary in order to arrive at a conclusion. But was it the right decision relative to translation?

Observations
1. Because of the evidence provided by Hebrews 2:9, I see nothing especially wrong with the KJV's rendering of Psalm 8:5. Even though its scholars translated elohim "angels" in only this one case, they had the backing of an inspired writer when they did it (Heb. 2:9).

2. But I don't see the problem with the ESV's phrase "heavenly beings." With it you get the best of both worlds. It shows respect for the Hebrews citation, because angels are included in "heavenly beings," but it is also a literal translation of elohim, which, literally speaking, is the plural form of "God."

3. When editors solicit articles from other authors, they ought to give the submissions the benefit of the doubt. While they have every right to revise articles appearing in their publications, they ought to do so only when it is absolutely necessary.

4. When editors do feel it necessary to change an author's work, they ought to have the goal of clarity in mind. Altering my work to include a translation with words like "art," "visitest," "hast," and "honour" in it only made it more difficult to read.

5. Some preachers and teachers harbor undue suspicion towards all modern translations. But a Bible doesn't have to bear the name "King James" in order to be an accurate translation of the original Greek. I don't agree with every decision made by the translators of the ESV (cf. Mal. 2:16; Rom. 10:10), but for the most part it is an excellent translation. Considering the way the English language has evolved, it is far riskier to use the KJV in writing and teaching.

6. Finally, when comparing two translations the question ought to be, "Which is closer to a translation, and which reads more like an interpretation?" The ESV, being more literal, comes closer to being a translation.

It's good to talk about experiences like mind, for they demonstrate the process of translation and the principles that ought to govern it. More discussions like this will help to inform Christians about the Bibles they use for study and reflection upon God's will.

Or maybe it's just sour grapes.