(Editor’s Note: Si Cochran is a 2007 graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and currently serves as the youth pastor of Southern Hills Baptist Church in Sioux City, IA. That would make him my youth pastor! Si blogs at “Holiness, Justice and Grace.”)
As the old Italian proverb goes, “Translation is treason.” The treasonous nature of all translation work consists in the inability to accurately convey the nuance of meaning when moving from the original text to the receptor language. While the translator may be able to convey the bulk of meaning found within a text, he will unlikely communicate every nuance, and may perhaps unintentionally deceive his readers. Thus, translations have their consequences. This is why the historian learns Greek, so that he does not misunderstand Herodotus. In the same way, the New Testament scholar learns Greek, so that he does not misunderstand God.
For Christians dependent upon translations for reading God’s Word, the question becomes, “How treasonous is my translation?” Answering this question should lead to the pursuit of Bible translations that accurately represent (as close as possible) the intended meaning of the biblical autographs (the original manuscripts). Conversely, translations that are more prone to treason should be read less, and perhaps only used as comparison Bibles.
Release of the NIV 2011
Recently, the NIV 2011 was released online, with a publication date set for March of next year. Since the NIV has been the evangelical standard for a number of years (particularly among English dynamic equivalent translations), it is important to asses the accuracy of the translation, and to explore any possible dangers that might be inherent in the text.
The NIV 2011 should be considered the offspring of the TNIV (Today’s NIV), and the grandson of the NIV 1984. The genetic stock shared by all three translations is 18859 verses, which is 60.7% verse similarity. Some genetic traits skip a generation, and this is the case 0.6% of the time, where the NIV 1984 and the NIV 2011 share 171 verses of commonality against the TNIV. But as one would imagine, the child is more similar to the parent, and the TNIV and the NIV 2011 share 31.3% genetic makeup, or 9736 verses. But genetics alone cannot prevent mutations and variation, so the NIV 2011 is unique 7.5% of the time, or 2320 verses of originality. Broken down, this means that the NIV 2011 is 38.8% different than the NIV 1984 and 8% different than the TNIV. (See Robert Slowley. John Dyer has slightly different figures).
Positive Changes in the NIV 2011
From the outset, I want to make it clear that the NIV 2011 has made some positive translation changes from the NIV 1984, and often presents a superior reading in comparison to other English translations. A few examples are in order.
Recently, I was working my way through Matthew 27 in preparation for a sermon, and stumbled upon the textual issues in 27:16-17. Here, we find Pilate offering to release either Barabbas or Jesus to the Jews. In some early manuscripts, we find a reading that attributes the name “Jesus” to Barrabas in verses 16 and 17. So this reading has Pilate offering to the Jews either Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ. I am no text critic, but I have enough knowledge of textual criticism to follow the arguments and make an informed decision regarding the manuscript evidence. It appears that this reading is preferential for a number of reasons. First, it is a harder reading. There is more reason to exclude “Jesus” from Barabbas for reverential issues, than for a scribe to include the name “Jesus” in reference to Barrabbas. This was in fact Origin’s opposition to the inclusion of “Jesus” in these verses (Metzger: Textual Commentary). Second, it seems unlikely that a scribe would make the same mistake twice in vv. 16-17 of referring to Barabbas as “Jesus Barabbas” unless that was in fact his name. Third, Jesus, which is the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua, was a very common name in the first century. Fourth, there seems to be a contrast of one Jesus with another Jesus. So Pilate offers Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus “who is called the Christ.” Pilate would not necessarily need to refer to Jesus as the one “who is called the Christ,” unless he is making a distinction between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Christ. He could have naturally said, “Do you want Barabbas or Jesus.” These reasons tend to persuade me that the proper reading of 27:16-17 should include “Jesus” before Barabbas. This follows the NA27/UBS4, SBLGNT, NET, LEB, NRSV, and TNIV against the ESV, NASB, HCSB, NKJV, and NIV 1984. In my opinion, the NIV 2011 rightly retains the TNIV reading in these two verses. Though two of my favorite translations (ESV & NASB: favored largely due to the accuracy of translation) exclude this reading, it is likely that the NIV 2011 translation of Matthew 27:16-17 is superior.
The next positive translation example occurs in Philemon 1:6. This is actually the first verse I turned to (or navigated to, since the text is only available online) when I began my examination of the NIV 2011. The NIV 1984 reads, “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” The problem with this translation is that it can easily mislead the reader into thinking this verse is about evangelism. To “be active in sharing your faith” sounds like Paul is praying in verse 6 that Philemon and the church at Colossae will be evangelistic. In reality, Paul is praying for the fellowship (koinonia in Greek) of believers in the body of Christ. Though koinonia does involve the sharing of the faith in a fellowship sense, this is not at all how we use the phrase “sharing your faith” in the American church. “Sharing your faith” is almost exclusively used to describe Gospel proclamation. Thus, Philemon 1:6 in NIV 1984 is not a mistranslation, but a poor translation (So also ESV, NKJV, NRSV). The NIV 2011 follows the TNIV and translates Philemon 1:6 as follows: “I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ.” This represents an important improvement over the NIV 1984.
Problems with the NIV 2011
While it is clear that the NIV 2011 has bright spots, bright spots alone are not enough to warrant the NIV 2011’s adoption as a reading/study Bible. Are there glaring deficiencies? And if so, are these deficiencies significant enough to relegate the NIV 2011 to a comparison Bible only?
Among the Bibles in my library, one that I would never recommend for reading, study, or comparison would be the New World Translation (except, of course, for apologetics). Why would I make such a bold statement? Because, it is clear that the translation committee (I hesitate to call the NWT’s compilers “translators,” for there is some evidence that they were not proficient in the biblical languages.) approached Bible translation with an agenda. Their agenda consisted of systematically dismantling the deity of Christ in the biblical text. In this vein, John 1:1 was made to say that Jesus was just a god. The translator who employs an agenda upon the text is even more treasonous than the translator who tries his best to communicate the text, but fails at various points. Even though I would never put the NIV 2011 in the same camp as the NWT, I do find disturbing the egalitarianism and gender neutral language imposed upon the text that is manifested in a number of ways. Examples of this imposition will follow.
Problematic Gender-Neutral Language
First, the NIV 2011, following the TNIV, employs gender-neutral language by neutering the masculine pronouns. Gender-neutral language is not illegitimate if the biblical text is speaking generically about human beings (e.g. Acts 17:25), but is suspect if the biblical text is referring to a specific sex. Though gender-neutral language may not be an illegitimate translation practice for generic references of humanity, the translator might obscure the text’s meaning if not employed carefully. This often happens when the translators take a masculine singular pronoun, and translate it as a gender-neutral plural. For example, the NIV 2011 translates John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” In reality, the pronoun translated “them” is actually a singular “him.” The point of the verse is that God calls and regenerates individual people, but the NIV 2011 adds a corporate element by making the pronoun plural. The verse now seems to say that God is calling and drawing a people to Himself, which is true theologically, but not the point of this verse.
Other gender neutral translations in the NIV 2011 are more treasonous, especially when the text contains messianic undertones. The NIV 2011 translates Psalm 8:4 by saying, “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” The phrase “son of man” is translated as “human beings” in this verse. In the Bible, the title “son of man” is often used messianically (see Dan 7:13-14), and Jesus applies the title to himself on numerous occasions (Matt 8:20, 9:6, 10:23, etc.). The author of Hebrews interprets Psalms 8:4 messianically, and quotes the entirety of the verse in Hebrews 2:6. Ironically, the Committee on Bible Translation (hereafter CBT) recognized the messianic nature of Hebrews 2:6 by retaining the “son of man” language and avoiding the gender neutral translation “human beings.” But the gender neutral translation of Psalm 8:4 obscures the clear messianic implications of the text, and the reader will struggle to make the connection of this verse with Jesus. Recognizing this problem, the CBT included a footnote for Psalm 8:4 that says, “Or what is a human being that you are mindful of him, / a son of man that you care for him?” If the CBT understood Psalm 8:4 to have messianic implications, why did they obscure the text with gender-neutral language?
Agenda-Based Translation
Second, the NIV 2011 includes translations that promote egalitarian positions, even though the biblical text does not warrant such readings. This is found in the translation of 1 Tim 2:12, which reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” In contrast, the NIV 1984 reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” To “have authority” and to “assume authority” carry very different connotations. The former presumes the possession or the exercising of authority, whereas the latter could be interpreted to mean that Paul merely opposes women taking on positions of authority by their own power or volition. Thus, it could be argued from the NIV 2011 translation that women could teach or have authority over men as long as the authority was given to them, and not merely assumed by the woman herself. However, this translation is contrary to Greek text, which is most naturally translated “have authority” or “exercise authority.” Even the egalitarian/gender neutral NRSV translates this verse with “have authority,” which they would unlikely have done if “assume authority” was a valid rendering of the Greek text. The CBT makes their agenda known in their translation notes in response to 1 Tim 2:12: “The exercise of authority that Paul was forbidding was one that women inappropriately assumed, but whether that referred to all forms of authority over men in church or only certain forms in certain contexts is up to the individual interpreter to decide.”
This response makes it clear that the CBT has come down on the side of egalitarianism, and their translation of 1 Tim 2:12 reflects their theological position, not the best grammatical/syntactical reading of the Greek text (See Denny Burk’s post for an assessment of the Greek text. He also provides helpful resources that go in depth on this issue).
The TNIV in NIV Clothing
Third, Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society) has made the egalitarian/gender neutral TNIV the new NIV. In an interesting marketing decision, Biblica has decided to use the NIV moniker for a translation that more closely resembles the TNIV. Not only this, but Biblica will no longer publish the NIV 1984 and the TNIV after the NIV 2011 is released in March. This is unfortunate, considering that evangelicals, primarily due to egalitarian/gender-neutral Bible translation issues, did not embrace the TNIV. It seems that Biblica is forcing NIV users to either embrace egalitarian/gender-neutral Bible translation philosophies or abandon the NIV. Yes, there are millions of 1984 NIVs floating around, and one will be able to find second-hand 1984 NIVs for many years to come. But Biblica just made it more difficult for people to embrace an NIV that is gender specific.
Furthermore, there seems to be a slight deception in Biblica’s tactics. Zondervan president Moe Girkins publicly admitted that the TNIV “divided the evangelical community,” which was primarily over gender neutral/egalitarian issues. Considering Zondervan’s close relationship with Biblica as the primary publisher of the NIV, one can safely assume that Biblica is also aware that gender neutral Bibles lack broad based support and struggle with receptivity in the evangelical world. It is almost like Biblica has passed off the TNIV by covering it in the NIV’s clothing. The NIV is one of the most trusted names in Bible translations, and many will flock to the NIV 2011 because it is presented as a new and improved NIV. It would have been more honest for Biblica to call the NIV 2011 a revised TNIV, but they understood that a revised TNIV would be less successful, if not doomed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is has been seen that the NIV 2011 has many improvements and many regressions over the NIV 1984. While the improvements make the NIV 2011 a valid comparison Bible, the imposed egalitarianism and extreme gender-neutral translations makes this an unhelpful and perhaps misleading reading/study Bible. When released, I will purchase a copy for my Logos Bible Software to compare the NIV 2011 with other Bible translations, but I will unlikely purchase a paper copy for reading. In the end, I cannot recommend this translation, and will actually encourage others to avoid it as a reading/study Bible. While there are many Godly Christians serving on the CBT (as well as some complementarians), the committee as a whole has embraced a translation philosophy that often reflects our culture more than it reflects the biblical text. As stated by the CBT, “The chief goal of every revision to the NIV text is to bring the translation into line both with contemporary biblical scholarship and with shifts in English idiom and usage.” Here, the problem is that our culture despises gender distinctions, and the CBT must mute these distinctions to “bring the translation into line…. with shifts in English idiom and usage.” As seen above, the unintended consequence of gender-neutral translations is an obscuring of the text. If good translators commit treason unintentionally, how much more treasonous are those translators who impose an agenda on their translation work.
I always loved the NIV – not so much as a translation (I go to the Greek for that) but because it was such great literature. No Bible has ever been a mellifluous in public reading as the NIV, in my opinion.
But when the TNIV came out, I became suspicious that the NIV translators were more concerned with agenda than accuracy. Now, I use the ESV and while I still prefer the (old) NIV as literature, I think the ESV is superior as a translation.
I am a big fan of the NIV primarily because of its readability and availability. As dynamic equivalence goes, it always seemed to be fairly faithful to the text. I am at point that I can probably make a change without disrupting the congregation too much. I love the NASB, but we do a lot of congregational reading (10-20 verses in unison a week) and the NASB just does not read well. The ESV reads a little better, but still has a wooden feel to it. I’m leaning that way because it is the Interlinear associated with my Logos software.… Read more »
This post fails to recognize the numerous places where the NIV2011 retained gender-specific terms, against the TNIV, e.g., Psalm 34:20, Proverbs 13:1, Matthew 7:3, Acts 20:30, and 1 Corinthians 15:21. These are important passages, where the TNIV’s gender-neutrality distorted the text but the NIV2011 upholds the gender-specific terms required by the context. I don’t find the “assuming authority” translation to be nearly as problematic as the author states, and it hardly indicates some egalitarian agenda. If there is some egalitarian agenda then Biblica would have not translated Acts 20:30 with gender-specific terms, which they did against the TNIV’s rendering. Bibica… Read more »
While I could have provided a more exhaustive review of the NIV 2011 (with more translation examples), I thought it more beneficial to limit the length of the review for the sake of readability. After all, this is a blog post and not an academic paper. This is why I chose to list a few examples of positive revisions, and few examples of regressions. You are right in saying that the the NIV 2011 has revised some of the gender-neutral translations found in the TNIV, but the fact remains that there are still a number of places where gender-neutral readings… Read more »
Hello Si Cochran, Would you be so kind as to comment on these two quotes, only if you care to, and if you have time? 1. “With respect to the New Testament documents, the goal of study, in a word is not the idea of woman as expressed in the New Testament, but the historical reconstruction of two different situations of woman in the first century: that which was the norm in Jewish and Greco-Roman society, and that which represented the innovation that took shape in the public life of Jesus and in the Pauline churches, where the disciples of… Read more »
Si can jump in if he wants, but here’s the thing from my perspective, Christiane. What we are interested in is not cultural trends or perspective, but the most accurate translation of scripture possible. For biblical Christians, the actual meaning of the text is what matters most – not what the church says about it or what culture thinks of it. We prize the text of scripture as the ONLY perfect revelation of God, so our chief concern is getting the most accurate textual translation. In point 1, the author is essentially saying that she (or he) is ignoring the… Read more »
Perhaps the intention was to show a CONTRAST between A. The role for women established by the “norm in Jewish and Greco-Roman society” as opposed to B. The new teaching in Galatians: ” For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ” I don’t know, David, but if that is what the author(s) intended, then they were looking at the new position of all people (women included)… Read more »
The intention was not to show a contrast of anything. The intention was to make the text mean what she wants it to mean because she doesn’t like it. “Why, that’s just male pigheadedness right there so that can’t POSSIBLY be what God REALLY meant. We’ve evolved since then.” When you get to a point where the Bible CAN’T mean what it clearly says, like you and the folks in Enid believe, you’re on the road to huge theological problems. Or in your case, you’re already there.
Thanks, Si, for the thoughtful response. I still think that the NIV2011, on the whole, is far more favorable to complementarian concerns than your review reveals. Even given the limits of a blog post — as a blogger myself, I am well aware — you could have pointed readers to some of the citations I gave, as important instances where the NIV2011 yielded to the criticisms of the TNIV. If you care, you can go to my blog, scroll down a few posts, and read my review of the new NIV. I share your concerns, Si. We’re both complementarians, and… Read more »
Kevin, I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate your desire to emphasize the improvements that the NIV 2011 has made over the TNIV. You are right; I could have done a better job of showing this in my post. Although, I think we are coming at an assessment of the NIV 2011 in two different ways. You seem to primarily compare the NIV 2011 with the TNIV, and correctly recognize the improvements that the NIV 2011 has made. In your mind, these improvements are significant enough to overlook the NIV 2011’s imperfections. In contrast, my primary comparison is… Read more »
Warning…this is off topic!
Anyone know anyone in Hartford, Connecticut area who knows anything about hooking up a router to a computer? selahV
I know no one in Hartford, but I hope you find someone. There has to be a Best Buy around there. Tell them Dave sent you!
I’m a complementarian and did not use the TNIV because of some of it’s gender-neutral choices. However, the NIV update has significantly improved those instances and I am comfortable with the translation choices that I’ve seen so far, even those listed in the article. One can make a case for not using the NIV, but gender-inclusive language should not be a part of that argument. There is no egalitarian agenda. The use of the generic masculine is on it’s way out in modern English. I don’t like the fact, I think it would be better for us to retain it,… Read more »
I do want to be clear: I’m not against arguing “this verse or that verse should be translated differently.” I’m all for that! I’m just saying there is no overarching egalitarian agenda. It’s just not true and adds unhelpful emotion and rhetoric to the discussion.
I think the NIV Update stands up pretty well on a case-by-case basis. Even those places where I might wish they had translated differently, I can still see the case that could be made for the translation that was chosen (like the Ps. 8:4 example above).
Brent, Correct if I am wrong, but these two statements seem contradictory: “I’m a complementarian and did not use the TNIV because of some of it’s gender-neutral choices.” And “One can make a case for not using the NIV, but gender-inclusive language should not be a part that argument.” Why was it acceptable for you to dismiss the TNIV on the basis of gender-neutral translation issues, and at the same time hold the position that gender-neutral translations issues should not be part of the NIV 2011’s assessment? You also seem to imply that I am critiquing the “vernacular” and seeking… Read more »
I’m not saying that gender-neutrality should be ruled out as a criteria for evaluation of any translation. I am saying the NIV Update is much better than the TNIV in this area and that the wholesale label of “gender-neutral” like the TNIV (probably deservedly) got is not warranted for the NIV. I think it’s terribly overstepping to say that “there are numerous places in the NIV 2011 where gender-neutral language obscures the meaning of the text.” You’ve given a few examples in the article, but in all but one of them I think it’s questionable that the gender-neutral rendering actually… Read more »
Perhaps one can miss seeing the forest because of the trees. The bigger issue is not “when is gender-neutrality” helpful or not helpful. The issue is: when is it ever Biblical? The text is the text and should be given utmost respect. Interpretation is not the same as translation. The bigger issue for me is that the NIV is “culture-driven, not text driven.” That is made clear explicity in the forward, and the whole argument over gender-neutrality (a feminist idea introduced nearly two millennia later) proves they stayed true to their translation philosophy. Two much man in the NIV for… Read more »
That’s “too much” not “two much.”
Just a thought…
If a Greek word references men and women but is translated into English as men the Bible has not been correctly translated. This isn’t a cultural issue but rather a translation issue. Sticking to the generic use of masculine pronouns when English is generally no longer used that way is not commitment to the text but rather a fundamentalist clinging to an old way of speaking similar to some KJV-only advocates.
While I do not accept the perjorative description of a “fundamentalist,” I do hold to a different view than you in regard to what constitutes translation and what constitutes interpretation. What you describe is “dynamic equivalence.” What I prefer is “formal equivalence.” The problem with “dynamic equivalence” is that it becomes harder and harder to tell where translation stops and interpretation begins. I simply prefer for people to learn to do their own interpretation. I don’t think that means I am a “fundamentalist hopelessly clinging to some archaic, outdated, translation.” That’s your perjorative slant. I am not saying any person… Read more »
What I described is not dynamic equivalence. If a Greek word refers to both men and women, to translate it as men would not be an example of formal equivalence. In fact, it would be a mistranslation. It seems reasonable to me that translation involves finding a word or words in the receptor language that accurately reflect(s) the meaning of the word or words in the source text. In my example above, men would not be a good translation as it does not include women, at least in current usage of the word men. Regarding KJV-only, please note the word… Read more »
Any translation is an exercise in interpretation. And I think you’ll find that almost all modern translations use gender neutral renderings in some places… ESV, HCSB, NLT, NET, Original NIV. I don’t know of any in the NASB, but I bet there are some in there if one were to take the time to look.
Any translation is an exercise in interpretation.
Exactly!
And, I agree that all translation contains “some interpretation” (choosing from a range of meanings for any foreign word). My point is “how much is too much?” Also, I am making the point that the NIV2011 is too much influenced by one particular problem in translation — gender. This is not a “textual problem,” in my point of view, but a cultural problem. The issue did not arise because of any “problem” of understanding English, but because of a push by a “radical group” of feminist. That’s a very different matter in regard to translation. What group will get the… Read more »
Frank and Larry, Gender does not involve a problem with the original text. The use of language is certainly influenced by culture including feminist groups. I suspect there are other words that have changed in meaning due to the influence of ungodly movements. For example, if I referred to Frank and Larry as being gay, how would (the vast majority of) modern readers understand that statement? Many words change meaning over time. In the last several decades the biggest change of which I am aware is the use of gender related words. Most pastors I read and hear today, including… Read more »
Stan, the problem I have with your reasoning is that “man” and “woman” pretty much have had the same meaning from the first century to now. Your example of the word, “gay,” is a completely different problem. The “word” itself has changed meaning. Also, your example of when a Greek word means, “men and women.” I’m not aware of a Greek word with such a meaning. For example: “people,” which refers to men and women, still should be translated people, not they. In fact, the whole idea of a singular “they” as used in the NIV and TNIV, causes confusion,… Read more »
PS — Just since Stan brought it up . . . I am a pretty happy fellow, but not “gay.”
(This is a response from Si Cochran to Brent Hobbs. For reasons we can’t figure out, the site will not let Si comment. He suspects that his boss is creating havoc, but I think his boss is a great guy who would never do such a thing! Anyway, here is Si’s response.) Brent, Thank you for your clarification. First, while I understand that you think me to be alarmist concerning the NIV 2011, I am not alone in my assessment. See the CBMW’s review as an example: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/CBMW-Responds-to-New-NIV2011. I know there is not safety in numbers, and just because other… Read more »
I understand the CBMW has chosen not to endorse the NIV Update… I like the CBMW, but I’m slightly suspicious that has as much to do with a preference and desire to advocate for the use of the ESV as it does with translation concerns. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I get the sense sometimes that some people have decided the ESV is THE Bible to use and anything else is to be passed off as second rate. And all this while the ESV has some pretty glaring issues itself that people seem all to willing to ignore. On… Read more »
Thanks for the link to CBMW. It made things a little easier for me. The Bible is such an important part–the important part– of living the Christian life that I am just not comfortable with a revision that retains over 30% of the TNIV. It is NOT a revision of the NIV, but of the TNIV. I think that is a bit deceptive in and of itself. The link referenced above shows clearly that the NIV2011 is “culturally driven” with a gender-agenda. That simply has not gone away and I cannot see any effectiveness in choosing a translation that seems… Read more »
I understand your concern, since it appears there is much love heaped on the ESV, and much disdain for the NIV these days. That being said, I really don’t think the CBMW is driven by a desire to exalt the ESV over the NIV 2011 through attack and critique. I know some of the prominent CBMW members, and that is just not their heart. Though there are likely many CBMW members who prefer the ESV, it does not necessarily follow that this is their motivation for refusing to endorse the NIV 2011. One argument against your assumptions would be the… Read more »
Frank and Larry, there is more I’d like to say than can be helpfully conveyed in a comments section format. A few quick thoughts: 1. Yes the NIV Update is “culturally driven.” Any translation must be. The point is to bring thoughts and ideas and words from one culture (language included) into another. If we were unconcerned with culture, we could just as well have stayed with the King James Version. 2. The only gender-agenda that exists is to reflect the way we actually use the English language today—not how we think it ought to be used or what was… Read more »
No, no, no, my friend! 🙂 You said, “But this is why God provides the Church with pastors and teachers.” The job of a translation is to convey the meaning of words and phrases so that, as much as possible, we DON’T need pastors and teachers to help us read our Bibles. Pastors and teachers for biblical and systematic theology, yes! For understanding the unfolding plan of God throughout biblical history, yes! But not to read. It’s even a little scary for me to think that your translation philosophy says it takes a Bible plus a pastor/teacher (discipleship, you say)… Read more »
My translation philosophy is not “it takes a Bible plus a pastor/teacher (discipleship, you say) to understand the Scriptures.” In context, I am speaking of the need for discipleship in theological refinement and growth in Scriptural understanding. The point that I was making, is that dynamic equivalence translations often limit the reader from pursuing deeper levels of meaning within the text because they do not know the right questions to ask of the text. You say that the “son of man” translation of Psalm 8:4 will be misunderstood or “significantly obscures the human reference.” I concede that individuals might read… Read more »
Si, again I appreciate the comments and think this is very illustrative of different translation philosophies. (I hope this comment ends up in the right place, the threaded replies have come to an end, but it’s in response to Dec. 3 at 2:32 AM.) The Ps 8 passage is a perfect illustration of a no-win situation for translators. I think our discussion so far has borne that out. Either choice means that one of the two important components is going to be marginalized or eliminated. It still makes me uncomfortable that your preference is to give a translation that is… Read more »
Brent, Thank you for your continual dialogue. I would like to provide some points of clarity on my position, as well as explore the implications of your position. I disagree with your statement, “The Ps 8 passage is a perfect illustration of a no-win situation for translators. I think our discussion so far has borne that out. Either choice means that one of the two important components is going to be marginalized or eliminated.” In fact, there is a win-win situation: a translation of Psalm 8:4 that conveys both the human and messianic element. You do not have to chose… Read more »
We may be at am impasse on Ps 8:4. I absolutely do not believe that anyone reading English today would interpret the singular “the son of man” to mean ‘all of mankind’ or ‘humanity’. In Old English, yes. In the Chronicles of Narnia, yes. Modern readers? Not without a footnote or explanatory comment. I think I understand the point you’re making with the value of formal equivalence—I just don’t think it reflects the reality of the situation. Sounds good in theory, but it really is not an either/or question when it comes down to actual practice. Any translation is going… Read more »
The Bible itself records an incident where Scripture is translated from one language to another: One of the earliest known ‘translations’ of Holy Scripture is found in the Bible: where Nehemiah ‘translates’ orally to the people, as he reads from the Book of the Law written in Hebrew, and translates it for them orally into the Aramaic language, so they could understand it’s meaning. Why did Nehemiah need to translate? Some of the Jews present did not know Hebrew (Neh 13:24), having grown up in Babylon and elsewhere — away from Jews who were fluent in the Hebrew language. So… Read more »
Nehemiah 13:24 says nothing about translating the scripture. In that passage, Nehemiah confronts Jews who have intermarried with Canaanites. In verse 25, we see this, “And I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.” Nehemiah was not translating scriptures into anyone’s language. He cursed the people who had intermarried and pulled out their hair. No mention of translating into Aramaic there.… Read more »
Hi DAVID, Source was Wesley’s Notes on Nehemiah. I have also read about this in other studies, so it apparently is not something specific to Wesley. (?) “8:7 Understand – As well the words, which being Hebrew, now needed to be translated into the Chaldee or Syriack language, now, the common language of that people, who together with their religion, had also in a great part lost their language; as also the meaning of them: they expounded the mind and will of God in what they read, and applied it to the peoples present condition. Place – That is, In… Read more »
I also read the footnote here, DAVID:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah+8&version=NIV#en-NIV-12509
what you are seeing in the footnote there is a potential alternate translation of the phrase. “Making it clear’ could mean translating.
But that is a far cry from any kind of formal translation process.
I think whoever wrote for EWTN above is trying to impose a point on scripture rather than simply interpreting scripture.
Actually, the article comes from the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Commission. EWTN is just a television station with a library of Vatican resources. “THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH” by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and was published in 1994 and in its introduction, this: “The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence… Read more »
He most certainly did NOT translate orally. There is nothing in the text to indicate that.
WESLEY’S EXPLANATORY NOTES:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/nehemiah/nehemiah-8.html
“8:8 They – Ezra and his companions successively.
Sense – The meaning of the Hebrew words, which they expounded in the common language.
Thy gave – So they gave them both a translation of the Hebrew words into the Chaldee, and an exposition of the things contained in them.”
Joe, ‘Chaldee’ is the same dialect as Aramaic
I read it below. Wow, that certainly settles it, huh? I mean, it’s not like they couldn’t have known Hebrew as a primary or second language. That just isn’t possible. L’s has spoken.
By the way, I’m not sure if you can tell, but the above was me mocking you. Having sources is not the same thing as proving something.
Here’s an interesting site, JOE:
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Yehud_Medinata?qsrc=3044
scroll down to this section: Literature and language
“One of the more important developments of the Persian period was the rise of Aramaic as the predominant language of Yehud and of the Jewish Diaspora. Originally spoken by the Aramaeans, it was adopted by the Persians as the lingua franca of the empire, and already in the time of Ezra it was necessary to have the Torah-readings translated into Aramaic to be understand by Jews.”
JOE, don’t you like to debate and dialogue about a topic ?
I think it’s fun. Maybe we disagree, but that’s okay, too.
Seems to me to be an awful lot of negative ‘mocking’ and ‘put downs’ lately. Maybe the holidays get to people, Joe. But it could be so much better if people did dialogue respectfully and debate issues using sources and share ideas.
Joe, that ‘mocking’ thing and all that ‘negative’ is kind of boring and immature. It’s just not ‘interesting’.
Hi DAVID,
That’s an interesting article you posted on sbcIMPACT site.
Is anyone having trouble getting their comments to register here? Email me at pastordave@cableone.net if you are. I’m not sure what the deal is, but I need to know if it is widespread.
Let us see. Will my comment post?
I see it!!!
Some people’s comments here have never registered….
Brent, in regard to your post above (#32). I totally understand they problem with some of the NKJV language. I also see great value in the ESV tradition. I need to explore the ESV a little more. This thread has been helpful in that I am currently getting to the point of leaving the NIV, but I’m not sure where I’m headed. Personally, I work from the Greek New Testament and struggle through the BHS OT. So, my issue is not with my personal Bible but with what I recommend to others. Again, thanks for your insight. Duly noted and… Read more »
I think you’ll be pleased with the ESV. It reads pretty well, complaints to the contrary notwithstanding. It’s been my primary Bible for a year or so.
Frank, I understand where you’re coming from, as I can work in the languages and use tools to help me understand without being tied to any one translation. I think we’re coming from the same perspective there. It comes down to what do I preach from and recommend to others like you. I really like the ’84 NIV and my ideal would have been for them to update it while leaving the gender issue completely alone. Most of the other changes are excellent. I think you would be happy with the ESV. It would probably be my second choice but… Read more »
One of the most famous (and controversial) incidents in the history of the translation of the Holy Scriptures, at the time of the Reformation, revolves around Martin Luther’s addition of the German word ‘allein’ (alone) to his German translation in the Book of Romans. Here is some back-up on this incident: from ‘An Open Letter on Translating By Martin Luther, 1530’, this: “But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so.” (in German, it reads:… Read more »
One is justified by faith apart from (or without) the deeds of the law.
Thus, faith alone is appropriate.
Related to the post, note that the ESV translated ?????????? as one, a gender-neutral (or accurate) pronoun. They changed what had been translated as man in the KJV and NIV (1984).
I’m just saying… 😉
?????????? should have been some fancy Greek characters. Transliterated: anthro?pos.
Ugh.
It is written:
” the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you . . “
…from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:2)
The point of that passage is not just that Christ provides freedom, but that he provides freedom from the condemnation our sin brings when we seek him apart from the works of the law.
Context is crucial.
“the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus”
a beautiful phrase
There is a certain saying of my faith:
“”The one who has hope lives differently;
the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life.”
My point is simple, Christiane. When you deal with scripture, it is important to put the snippet you use in the context. When you pull part of a verse out of the whole, it can give a false idea of the intent of the passage.
I think the way you used part of a verse above was in danger of missing the true meaning and import of the passage.
Next, you will be finding scriptures that teach that kittens are not evil.
The point of the passage you referenced is that hope and freedom only come through the blood shed on the cross.
God loves kittens, DAVID. 🙂
The Book of Romans always makes me think of St. Augustine’s words:
“‘Christ died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for Him, who for their sake died’
To live for Him means allowing oneself to be drawn into His Being for others.
“God loves kittens”
Heresy!
No DAVID, not heresy. God loves all creatures great and small.
I give you Psalm 104, a great song of praise to Our Creator.
Nothing lives but that God wills it and gives it life, and sustains that life.
On one level, the Spirit (or wind) of God is the fall and winter rains that provide food for all creatures. On another, it is the Breath (or Spirit) of God that makes beings live.
A kitten is loved. Like dear JOE says, ‘deal with it’. 🙂
I don’t know where to begin! I understand the importance of correctly translating the scriptures, but I believe we are being a little to picky here. Your reference to John 6:44, for example, and the word “them” just doesn’t measure up. The 2011 verse is worded exactly how we as people speak today! The verse is speaking in third person, so the word “them” is 100% appropriate. You seem to insinuate that people are really dumb by thinking that they will think “them”, in this particular sentence, refers to a group of people instead of the singular “them” – the… Read more »