We began a series, which will have new posts sporadically rather than consistently, not long ago about Translation and the tribalism that we now experience with translations.
One of our points is that the authoritative text is not the translation but the original languages. (This is not denying the authority of God or the Holy Spirit, but instead the smaller point: when translating, we don't pronounce the translation the authority but always defer to the original. Always.)
Another point being made in the recent dustup about the TNIV and the NIV (and the NIVI) has to do with "translation theory." I hear it like this all the time: I prefer "dynamic equivalence" (functional equivalence) or I prefer "formal equivalence." Sometimes it gets expressed by such words as "paraphrase" or "literal" and sometimes by "bad" and "good." Or "loose" and "tight."
I'd like to contend today that
most words are translated
in all Bible translations with formal equivalence and that
some words are translated more or less in a dynamic, or functional way. In other words, there isn't really a radical commitment to dynamic equivalence -- as if one can find some better way in English to the original languages "and" or "but" or "the" or "God." Or a radical commitment to "formal equivalence," as if the Greek word order can be maintained in English and make sense, though at times the NASB gave that a try (much to the consternation of English readers). No one translates "God's nostrils got bigger" (formal equivalence) but we translate "God became angry." There are some expressions that can't be translated woodenly unless one prefers not to be understood. (See
Dan Wallace.)
The result of this is that all translations are on a spectrum of more or less formal and more ore less dynamic. Now one more complication: each translation will vary for individual words or phrases or clauses.
Translations are now officially and unofficially connected to tribes, and it is not a little bit humorous and also at times quite sad.
Sometimes it sounds like culture wars, and that is sad. Today I want to make one point, draw a sweeping conclusion, and then offer a good illustration.
Here's my point: the authority is the original text, not the translation. The original texts are in Hebrew and Aramaic (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). The authoritative text is not in English, regardless of how accurate the translation. No matter which translation you prefer, it is not the authoritative text for determining which translation is best. Yes, we need more to devote more time to study of the original languages.
The sweeping conclusion is this: unless you can read the original languages, you should avoid making public pronouncements about which translation is best. Instead, here's my suggestion: if you don't know the languages and can't read them well enough to translate accurately on your own but you want to tell your congregation or your listeners which translate is best, you need to admit it by saying something like this: "On the basis of people I trust to make this decision, the ESV or the TNIV or the NRSV or the NLT is a reliable translation."
I am very confident about the prospects of the
new NIV (2011). I know those translators and know they are devout and they are accurate translators. I hope you are praying for them, and I hope you listen carefully to what Doug Moo, the chair of the Committee on Bible Translation, has said about philosophy.
But what depresses me about Bible translation debates today is tribalism. Some have raised the bar of this conversation to such heights that variation is tantamount to heresy. I want to do a few posts on translation next week, but today let's have a little fun with the tribalism that does exist, that seems almost inevitable, that does sometimes lead to uncharitable divisiveness, but that can lead us to see ourselves in humorous tones at times. Translations can also be a window to our heart and theology and preferences. So here goes with a sketch of tribalist translation tendencies. Each of these is partially true but not wholly true, so let's not reify but have a little fun...
NRSV for liberals and Shane Claiborne lovers;
ESV for Reformed complementarian Baptists;
HCSB for LifeWay store buying Southern Baptists;
NIV for complementarian evangelicals;
TNIV for egalitarians;
NASB for those who want straight Bible, forget the English;
NLT for generic brand evangelicals;
Amplified for folks who have no idea what translation is but know that if you try enough words one of them will hit pay dirt;
NKJV and KJV for Byzantine manuscript-tree huggers;
The Message for evangelicals looking for a breath of fresh air and seeker sensitive, never-read-a-commentary evangelists who find Peterson's prose so catchy.
If you have not heard, here's the basic scoop: Yesterday Christianity Today wrote a piece, a bit on the sensational side, to say the TNIV was being put to rest because of mistakes. Well, as the story developed yesterday, it became a bit clearer that something else was going on. The TNIV, in fact, is being revised and it will be the NIV 2011.
For those of you who are TNIV and NIV readers and users, please speak up now because the editors and translating folks are busy at work making changes. Speak up for what you like, what you'd like see changed, etc.. Here's the official link for suggestions: NIV Bible, but you can speak up right here and I can pass on your comments.Here's how I see it:
1. Zondervan published the best-selling NIV in the 1970s. I remember the days.
2. Zondervan constantly updated the NIV.
3. Zondervan worked on an inclusive version called NIVi but it was only published in the UK. There was much opposition to the NIVi before it came out and the folks most upset produced and now support the ESV.
4. Zondervan decided to suspend updating the NIV and produced the TNIV, which was really only a significant revision to the NIV and could have been called an NIV.
5. This week Zondervan announces it is ending the TNIV line and producing the NIV 2011.
But, let's look at this closely. The NIV 2011 will be a TNIV revised and will be called, and bring it back in line with the original process, the NIV (2011). I hope they call it "NIV."
The CT piece yesterday wounded me but after reading the fuller comments throughout the evening, I became convinced the CT piece overdid the emphasis on "mistake."
From
Christianity Today .... [Added: I'm confident, as I look over the CT piece now that it has been expanded, that the NIV Committee for Bible Translation will not squash the TNIV into history but will improve the NIV in light of gains from the TNIV. I have every reason to think the new NIV will be the Bible I carry to class for years. Added Two: Did CT perhaps sensationalize this story a bit? See comments below.]
In announcing a major revision of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible ... CEO Keith Danby said decisions surrounding the release of the NIV inclusive language edition and the 2002's revision, Today's New International Version (TNIV), were mistakes."
In 1997, IBS announced that it was forgoing all plans to publish an updated NIV following criticism of the NIV inclusive language edition (NIVi) published in the United Kingdom. Quite frankly, some of the criticism was justified and we need to be brutally honest about the mistakes that were made," Danby said. "We failed to make the case for revisions and we made some important errors in the way we brought the translation to publication. We also underestimated the scale of the public affection for the NIV and failed to communicate the rationale for change in a manner that reflected that affection."
Danby said it was also a mistake to stop revisions on the NIV. "We shackled the NIV to the language and scholarship of a quarter century ago, thus limiting its value as a tool for ongoing outreach throughout the world," he said.
"Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community," said Zondervan president Moe Girkins. "So as we launch this new NIV [in 2011], we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV."
"We are correcting the mistakes in the past," Girkins said. "Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board was made in the last 10 days." She said the transparency is part of an effort to overhaul the NIV "in a way that unifies evangelicalism."
"The first mistake was the NIVi," Danby said. "The second was freezing the NIV. The third was the process of handling the TNIV."
There are better books on the King James Version, there are better books on the rise of English Bibles, and there are better books on the technique of translation, but there is no better book that tells the behind-the-scenes story...
The post recently about the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, along with the poll, took me a bit by surprise. What I'm wondering is if you would purchase and read a TNIV (or NIV) that decided to include the...
I am baffled by our translations of the Lord's Prayer passage in Luke, and maybe you join me here. Luke 11:2, in the NIV, RSV, NRSV, and many others: "When you pray, say." Even the ESV, which prides itself on...
I am a friend of Wayne Grudem (and Stan Gundry), but I find the recent radio interview in which Wayne Grudem sallied forth against the TNIV to be indiscriminately unfair and would like to throw my hat in with Stan...
The first poll is now complete. The final results for my blog readers on translations are: NIV (23.6) ESV (23.4) RSV/NRSV (13.5) NLT (12.9) TNIV (12.4) NASB (9.3) Other (4.9) If one were inclined to add the NIV and the...
Psalm 55:17 (18 in Hebrew): "Evening, morning, and noon." Notice how the English translations translate. NRSV: "Evening, morning, and noon." TNIV: "Evening, morning, and noon." NLT: "Morning, noon, and night." The NLT thinks the original order (evening begins the day...
I've offered a mild case for inclusive translation in a previous post, and here I will use Kevin Vanhoozer's section on what "contextual theology is not" and apply his four criteria to "what dynamic equivalency is not." Some are suggesting...
Yesterday's post discussed inclusive translation for public readings, but raised the question of what translation is all about. What are we doing, or trying to do, when we translate? I will begin with James 1:20 again. Here is the original...
In general, I believe most translations are fine -- I can read the KJV and ASV and the NASB and NIV and the NLT and the NRSV and the ESV and even something as paraphrastic as The Message and say...
There is no reason here to get involved in all the discussions that linguists and translation theorists get into today. Here are some thoughts we need to consider when we talk about why there are translations. First, the context of...
I got a request from an e-mailer to blog on translations. This is the first one of such posts.There are a number of good translations available, and there are advocates for each one, and they use a variety of reasons...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
