Issues in Bible Translation 4 of 10

I’ve said before that “all translation is interpretation.” However, how much interpretation goes into translating is another question all together. I believe it’s fair to say that, in general, “essentially literal” translations prefer to do less interpretation than “dynamic equivalence” translations. Here’s an example of exegetical issues in translation from Ephesians 4:9:

ESV2001: In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?

ESV2007: In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?

The original ESV 2001 text read “lower parts of the earth.” This is a perfectly acceptable translation (with the use of the English word “of”) that reflects a construction where a noun (regions/parts) is used to describe (or limit) another noun (the earth).

The disadvantage to a less-interpretive translation is that certain phrases can be unclear. In Eph 4:9, does Paul mean that Jesus descended to the “lower regions of the earth” as in “hell,” or “Sheol,” or does he mean the earth itself (which is “lower” than the heavens from which Jesus came)?

The advantage to being less-interpretive in your translation is that you allow the reader to make up his own mind about the decision because it’s easier to be aware of the options. The ESV 2001 text leaves the phrase more ambiguous, while the revision in 2007 has done a bit more interpreting to reflect Paul’s message that Jesus descended to the earth from heaven. (The NET translation below clearly makes a similar interpretive decision.)

NET: Now what is the meaning of “he ascended,” except that he also descended to the lower regions, namely, the earth?

The point is, translators must decide how they want to approach this topic, and modern English versions reflect both answers. I believe the 2007 revision of the ESV interprets the passage correctly, but notice, the translation itself is interpreting.

No one translation fits every need, but having thought on this issue for several months, I’ve decided that I prefer for a translation to be less interpretive for two reasons:

1. As a Bible student, I am allowed to recognize where decisions must be made and interpret the passage myself.
2. As a Bible teacher, I am allowed to interpret the text in a way that avoids “correcting” a translation’s interpretation if the situation should arise.

What is the gospel? Is it the message we preach, the biblical books we read, the life we live, or a little of all three? What has the gospel become? In The Naked Gospel: The Truth You May Never Hear in Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), Andrew Farley tells his personal life-long story of wrestling with these questions. Farley’s journey began as a young adult with a driving obsession to share the gospel, but his reasoning for sharing was less a love for the lost and more a compulsion to fulfill “obligations” driven by fear, guilt and pressure. The formative years of his life were molded by the belief that he needed to do something to live the Christian life. What Farley terms as legalism dominated his thinking.

The lesson Farley learned is this: we need Jesus and nothing but Jesus. The law—any law—is not applicable to the believer in Jesus Christ. There is nothing that we do so that we might be. For Farley, this is the “naked gospel:” Jesus plus nothing. It is a gospel message free from the unofficial rules, strict regulations, and artificial demands that Christians often times place on it.

He’s right.

We are who we are not because of what we do but because of what Christ has already done.

Farley spends quite a bit of his book arguing this point from a variety of commendable means including the use of the book of Hebrews, Paul’s lessons on the relationship between the law and grace, and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Much of his discussion is helpful and reminds us that we have been once-for-all forgiven.

What I find interesting is that Farley spends most of the book arguing that the true gospel does not give us anything to do, but he spends occasional time discussing what else a Christian ought to be doing. Instead of dissecting belief in the “gospel” from our behavior, is it fair to ask how the message of the gospel affects every area of our life, including behavior?

We should be doing because of who we are. Christian behavior is important, but it doesn’t earn us anything. Grace is free or it’s not grace. Although it didn’t seem always to come out clearly, this is the message of The Naked Gospel.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a review copy of this book free from Zondervan. I was not required to write a positive review, and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society concluded over a month ago, but it’s been hard to find time (or perhaps motivation) to write about the final day (which was my favorite).

Morning of day three came quickly as we attended the Crossway breakfast and lecture at 6:45 AM. The keynote speaker was D. A. Carson who delivered a wonderful challenge regarding the need for true gospel proclamation. “The gospel is the big thing,” he encouraged. That is, everything we do (teaching, preaching, and all ministry) should center around preaching Christ crucified.

Late in the morning, and after several cups of coffee, I heard Mark Allan Powell give a few remarks about Klyne Snodgrass’ recently released work entitled Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). Although we might quibble over the subtitle “comprehensive,” I believe it is the best work on the parables in print. Powell’s review of the book was witty, humorous, and thoughtful. Powell praised the work, and I left with a smile on my face.

I saved the best for last. The final paper I heard in New Orleans was delivered by Bill Mounce (who wrote my first-year Greek grammar) and was entitled “Can the ESV and the TNIV Co-Exist in the Same Universe?” It was primarily a response to Mark Strauss’ paper from 2008 where Strauss cautioned adoption of the ESV as the “standard English version.”

Mounce answered the question in his title with an emphatic “yes.” More so, the ESV and TNIV (or the revision to the NIV coming in 2011) must co-exist. Mounce argued that a single translation philosophy (e.g. “essentially literal” or “dynamic”) is not enough to connect with the diverse contemporary audiences reading—and wanting to understand—the Bible.

But if these different translations are to co-exist, how should they treat each other? Mounce offered seven principles as to how they can play fair. Briefly, they were:

1. All debate should be beneficial (Eph 4:29)
2. Never question motives
3. Never question competency
4. Respect translation philosophies
5. Keep separate things separate
6. Separate fact from preference
7. Avoid over-simplifying the debate

You can read Mounce’s own comments on his subsequent blog post regarding this paper at Koinonia.

His humble attitude, pastoral heart and desire for excellence were challenging and encouraging. I was especially excited to meet him afterwards!

Me and Bill Mounce

The last two days of ETS in New Orleans were great. Thursday afternoon I heard Walt Kaiser speak on the value of preaching ethics (how we should act) expositionally, as opposed to topically. Kaiser suggested that we use blocks of scripture (at least a paragraph) to preach ethics as opposed to a seemingly random collection of texts stripped from their original contexts. Kaiser suggested four reasons for preaching ethics in this manner:

1. When you preach with a random collection of texts, the layperson leaves the service feeling they will never be qualified or intelligent enough to pull together such a list of texts on their own.
2. A random list is not as memorable as a single teaching unit.
3. When you preach a unit of text you provide context for the ethical teaching.
4. A unit of text has the ability to become a grounding point for the individual in a moment of weakness or doubt.

After Kaiser, Abraham Kuruvilla and Elliott Johnson highlighted the value of preaching that is true to the original meaning of the text (the text’s fidelity) and at the same time new and relevant to a contemporary culture (the text’s novelty).

After Kaiser, I heard Bob Chisholm speak on the ethics involved in Jephthah’s vow in Judges 11. Jephthah tried to bribe God into giving him military victory by vowing to offer a sacrifice. But in a case of supreme and sad irony, to fulfill his vow Jephthah needed to sacrifice his daughter, which he did. Chisholm’s paper demonstrated excellent method and clarity; it was exemplary.

Thursday evening was the annual banquet. Dinner, a few awards, and the keynote address by ETS president Bruce Ware on the humanity of Jesus were the items on the program. Ware’s paper argued that the inability of Jesus’ divine nature to sin was aided by Jesus’ human nature’s reliance upon the Spirit.

The best part of the evening was the table conversation because Willie and I sat with Mark Strauss (who I’ve mentioned before in my series on Bible translation). It was encouraging to share stories and learn from Dr. Strauss and the others at our table.

Myself, Mark Strauss, and Willie Nelson

On Tuesday, my senior pastor Neil Tomba asked me in jest why I call myself an “academic”—albeit even a “closet” one. Neil, here’s my answer: because Tuesday afternoon I drove nine hours to New Orleans Louisiana to rub shoulders with the real academics of the Evangelical world (those with Ph.D. after their name) and to listen to these men and women read—yes read—lengthy papers on the most detailed theological and biblical subjects imaginable. Welcome to the world of the Evangelical Theological Society’s annual meeting.

Willie Nelson and I—yes his name is Willie Nelson; no it’s not that Willie Nelson—arrived in downtown “Nawlins” (as it’s sometimes pronounced and even spelled on one sign I saw) for the conference. Here are yesterday’s highlights:

First, I heard a panel discussion by Andreas Köstenberger, Darrell Bock, Douglas Moo, and Michael Wilkins on the challenges and opportunities of writing a biblical theology of the New Testament.

Next, I went to a paper promoting the “essentially literal” Bible translation philosophy. The author argued that the form of the text is often just as important as the function it plays. Therefore, he argued we should keep the form as stable as possible so that we don’t miss textual connections, cross-references and overall meaning throughout the Bible.

The final paper I attended discussed the relationship of the Spirit and the Kingdom of God. I believe I can summarize the argument this way: the Holy Spirit is the present experience (and I would say the guarantee) of the partially future Kingdom. (I’ll admit, this paper was a bit over my head!)

Did I mention the book expo? I loaded up yesterday with books that were all 50–60% off. I love this place.

More tomorrow.

Issues in Bible Translation 3 of 10

So far we’ve discussed how different goals produce different translations. These differing goals in translation can be thought of on a “literal” scale. No translation is 100% literal, but all translators must choose how literal they want to be.

Have you ever read the preface in your Bible? You should. The preface to the ESV says,

The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

We’ll investigate many of the ways this practically plays itself out in coming posts. For now, just keep in mind that the ESV has chosen to be fairly literal in their translation. Following Strauss’ practice, we will use the ESV as one of our “control” texts.

Our other “control” text will be Today’s New International Version (TNIV). [1] A similar note in the preface of the TNIV reads,

The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators [of the TNIV] to go beyond a formal word-for-word rending of the original text [the approach of the ESV translators]. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications of sentence structure.

Notice the TNIV is translating differently than the ESV. The TNIV believes that to communicate accurate meaning, you need to move towards what is often called “dynamic” translation (or sometimes “thought-for-thought”). As I’ve said before, I’m not convinced “accuracy” is the correct word because it can mislead people into thinking their ESV (or even The Message) isn’t accurate.

In conclusion, the ESV translates more literally than the TNIV. This decision produces different translations. Our next step will be addressing several of the issues in which this affects your Bible.

 

          [1] On September 1, 2009, Zondervan announced it would cease to publish the TNIV in the next few years and a new revision to the NIV has begun that will be published in 2011. The TNIV certainly drew considerable criticism in the Evangelical world. Some of it warranted, some not.

          Read Zondervan’s announcement here.  To find out more information on the NIV revision process, see their homepage: www.nivbible2011.com.  To read a fair review of these recent developments, see Al Mohler’s comments here.

Issues in Bible Translation 2 of 10

During my first year in Dallas, I worked for a nationally known Christian bookstore. We sold all those different types of Bibles I mentioned at the beginning of my first post in this series. Many of our customers wanted to know “what’s the difference between all these Bibles?” I loved helping them find this answer.

Let’s begin with a simple line graph that includes the New American Standard Bible on the far left, the New International Version in the middle, and The Message on the far right:

 

Using a mental picture like this, I tried to explain to customers that the differences in translations amounted to the Bible’s degree of accuracy versus its degree of readability. I labeled it this way:

I simply explained to the customers: it’s a decision between accuracy and readability, with any Bible along the spectrum representing a trade-off between the two.

However, I realized much too late that this was a very poor way of thinking about translations! The issue is not that the NASB is more “accurate” and the NIV is more “readable.” (Although, the latter is usually true.) Both translations are accurate. To be “accurate” is to be “true or correct.” Therefore, all translations, no matter how different they may first appear, have the potential to be equally accurate.

So why do the translations differ? The answer lies in the translation philosophy. Perhaps the best way to articulate the distinction between translation philosophy is to think in terms of degree of literalness. Here is a better graph:

All translations have to balance how literal they want to be. Before continuing, remember this: no translation is 100% literal. The “best” translation does not mean it’s the most “literal.”

A great, often-used example is the simple Spanish phrase ¿como te llamas? If you were asked to translate this for a Spanish exam (bad memories of high school anyone?) you would translate the phrase as “what is your name?” However, literally, the phrase reads “how do you call yourself?” But this latter translation sounds clunky in English. The “best” translation is rarely ever the “most literal.”

How does this play out in Bible translation? That’s the topic of our next post.

Issues in Bible Translation 1 of 10

A quick look at the Bibles shelf at your local bookstore is likely to make your head spin. There are study Bibles, reference Bibles, thinline Bibles, compact Bibles, Bibles in several types of leather and dozens of colors, specialty Bibles, children’s Bibles, teen Bibles, and even “green” Bibles. And we haven’t even mentioned the different Bible translations! Multiply the dozens of English translations by all these options and you’re in for a long afternoon.

Binding, colors, and themes aside, why are there so many different translations? Just memorizing the acronyms will make your head hurt: NIV, TNIV, NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NET, RSV, NRSV, NLT, HCSB. After spending hours comparing the differences you’re likely to just say “Get me out of here ASAP.”

Before we answer this question, remember this important truth: as English speakers and readers, we are abundantly blessed with the availability of so many fine translations of the biblical text. Men and women work tirelessly around the world to produce similar resources for people groups far and wide who don’t speak English. Never forget how lucky we are.

We’re blessed to have English translations, but we’re still left asking why so many? The issue of Bible translation is as technical and tedious as it is fascinating. I suggest that we have so many translations because each fulfills a different purpose or goal. Sure, there are technical differences between translations (which we’ll discuss) but there are also differences that arise even before the translators begin their work.

At the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in November 2008, Mark Strauss (of Bethel Seminary) presented a paper entitled “Why the English Standard Version Should Not Become the Standard English Version.” Strauss was attempting to slow the process of the larger Evangelical world anointing the English Standard Version (ESV) as the primary English translation. I will have more to say (mostly positive) about this paper in the future. For now, all I want to do is acknowledge Strauss for raising many of these topics for me.

My goal in this series is to demonstrate some of these issues facing translators in an attempt to help us appreciate the important differences and similarities in English translations. All English translations are helpful, even if we prefer one above another. Among the issues I want to address are: the goals of translation, word-meanings, interpretive issues, and the use of “gender-inclusive” language. Enjoy.

I once heard the trick to pronouncing “Augustine:” before seminary, you pronounce it AW-guh-steen, but after seminary you pronounce it aw-GUHS-tun. As I near the end of my seminary studies, I can say that this is at best only mostly true. (I believe it was just a joke anyways.)

However you pronounce his name, St. Augustine of Hippo has been one of the most influential writers in the history of Christianity. But what do we know about Augustine himself? And what drove his writings and theology? James J. O’Donnell’s book Augustine: A New Biography (New York: Harper Perennial, 2005) attempts to answer these very questions.

Augustine’s famous work titled Confessions is part autobiography, part prayer, and ends around the time of Augustine’s conversion to Christianity in AD 386/387. O’Donnell picks up the story here and through the use of primary sources—including many letters to and from Augustine—and scholarly research constructs a biography that narrates much of Augustine’s post-conversion life. Augustine’s conflicts with Donatism and Pelagius are both highlighted, as well as his influence within the North African communities he pastored.

I must say that I enjoyed O’Donnell’s style, narrative and subtle humor. O’Donnell (professor of classics and Provost at Georgetown University) is fully qualified and his ability and knowledge come through in the writing. If you can get around the ancient names of places and people Augustine interacted with in 5th century Northern Africa, then you’re in for a well-written book.

What makes O’Donnell’s work a “new biography?” It seems like the dominant attitude throughout that only in this book do we capture the “real” Augustine—and this is my main complaint. For O’Donnell, everything you thought you knew was—at least partially—incorrect. He is fond of phrases such as “… but now…” or “… or so we once thought…”

My advice is this: O’Donnell’s book is a tool to help us understand the life of an ancient figure. I doubt we can say this version is the definitive interpretation of his life (O’Donnell himself might not say it is), but the book does give us a picture. O’Donnell’s portrait of Augustine is a politically-minded and socially-conscious individual, and I don’t doubt Augustine had his flaws. Who doesn’t have room to grow spiritually? Augustine—like us all—needed grace. Perhaps after reading you’ll be more encouraged that a man of such faith still had room to grow.

 

There is something magical about the sunrise. No, it’s not the sticky stuff still in your eyes because you just woke up. There’s something new, something fresh. Each day brings with it anticipation of what’s to come. Each day presents a new chance. Yesterday is gone, tomorrow is still a day away. At the onset of a packed schedule ahead, I offer my day to God. Today, I don’t ask for blessings, I ask for help to be faithful with my time and energy. For when tomorrow comes, I desire to have used today for the glory of the one who gave me this sunrise from my window looking east.

The Psalmist says,

Praise the LORD! Praise, O servants of the LORD, praise the name of the LORD!
Blessed be the name of the LORD from this time forth and forevermore!
From the rising of the sun to its setting, the name of the LORD is to be praised!
(Psalm 113:1–3 ESV)