I hesitate to attempt an answer to the OP question since it, pardon me, drips with translation philosophy presuppositions. Whoever tagged with ‘translation-philosophy’ nailed it. So, I’ll offer one characteristic that should be a criterion for a good translation philosophy. And, while not a complete answer, it seeks to directly answer your “Why do some translations...” question.
The scriptural basis for my answer is 1 Cor. 14:19 (and the entire chapter, actually):
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding,
that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in
an unknown tongue. (KJV)
or more modern translation
nevertheless, in church I prefer to speak five words with my mind so
that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a
tongue. (NASB20)
or less literal
But in a church meeting I would rather speak five understandable words
to help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language. (NLT)
The Greek dative phrase, translated as “with my understanding/mind,” τῷ νοΐ μου, is very close to the meaning signaled by a single English word, ‘intelligible’1. A word associated with ‘intelligent’ and yet it connects with semantic components related to speech and writing, which is exactly what Paul is talking about. He’s saying, “I would rather speak five intelligible words in order to inform others...” And that’s how I would translate this text. The dative means that the speaking is relative to the mind.
No matter how one understands γλῶσσα (tongue/language), Paul’s point is clearly that communication that is related to the Bible and which is within a community of believers is to be clear. It’s to be intelligible. It’s to communicate.
Now, there are three components of this clarity that should be noted:
- The main component is the element of clarity itself. Somewhat ironic when one considers the venue of my answer. A venue filled with questions, rightfully so (it’s StackExchange!!), that reflect, “What does X mean?” The irony strongly suggests that translation is difficult, and that achieving clarity forever requires a near Herculean effort. And yet Paul is clear about being clear. The bugler must make a clarion call (verse 8).
- It’s to be rational. Paul mentioned “the mind”. When ‘clarity’ and ‘rational’ are combined, ‘intelligibility’ is generated. So, accuracy of translation is quite important2. The meaning of the five words in Paul’s mind must be accurately reproduced in order for Paul’s mind to be productive. But, to convey what is accurate requires clarity which is achieved by the use of the linguistic components naturally provided by the language. Accuracy, clarity, and naturalness are tied together to produce intelligibility. By ‘naturally’, see next.
- It’s in reference to a group of people. So, it’s inherently associated with the linguistic conventions of a community (I’m referring to naturalness, again). This communal nature of the communication is brought out several times in 1 Cor. 14. It’s a very important point for Paul. And by the expression “linguistic conventions” I’m referring to all that stuff you, I, others on this list, a waiter/waitress, a co-worker, etc, have tacitly agreed to. Things like the word ‘nature’ conveys a certain set of senses, a preposition functions a certain way, the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence is semantically relevant, and even that little dot at the end of a sentence conveys meaning. And these conventions are different with different languages. Some languages don’t have prepositions, a Central American language has something like 20% whistles, some languages don’t code time into their syntax, some languages have no word for ‘brother’ or ‘sister’, etc. In order to communicate to and within a group of people, you have to use the language of that people. Communication is always group oriented (as much as I like to talk to myself).
So, why did they translate ἰδοὺ the way they did? Out of obedience to Scripture so that Scripture itself is clear to as many in the intended audience as possible. Is translating ἰδοὺ as ‘behold’ more correct? Perhaps for Joshua B. But, given the linguistic conventions of the English language, it’s not more correct for the vast majority of people. Some wouldn’t even know what ‘behold’ could mean. Sadly, for many, ‘behold’ would convey a sense of some irrelevant time in the distant past or a Star Trek, other-world, fantasy civilization. That is, the meaning would be that the Bible is irrelevant. There’s more than just lexical semantics going on in the use of a word. There’s also Pragmatic (aka contextual) meaning.
My answer then is: So that the meaning is clearly conveyed to the intended community.
Since your question is heavily translation-philosophy oriented, I’d like to pose a question back to you. Obviously, you won’t have the opportunity to answer here. So, my purpose then, if I may, is to get you to think, at least a little, along a different translation-philosophy pathway.
If words in one language can easily be represented by words in a
different language, then would God’s action at the Tower of Babel have
brought about His intention to end the construction? Would separating
people into different language groups have permanently succeeded?
There’s a very interesting corollary to that question based on Acts 2 where construction of the Church is started.
1 Notice I said, ‘it signals’ and not ‘it means’. Words signal meaning, they do not contain meaning. From a cognitive linguistic or even neurological viewpoint it is better to think of the physical word as “turning on meaning.”
2 My Epistemological assumption is that rationality implies that truth is coherent, I’m far from a Post-modernist.
