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)

Yesterday we began teaching our adult class at church entitled Jesus and the Gospels. One of our first tasks was to investigate what exactly is a “Gospel.” Debate still continues about how to properly define the Gospel genre (that is, the literary form of our four written texts Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). I was very encouraged that our discussion hit on many of the important aspects related to the topic.

Sidney Greidanus, in his work The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, offers a fourfold definition of the Gospel genre: [1]

1. Preaching or proclamation: occasionally referred to as the Greek word kerygma, a Gospel is first the proclamation about Jesus Christ. Naturally, the transition from spoken preaching (e.g. Jesus’ message of the kingdom in Mark 1:15) to our written record of this preaching fits the genre perfectly as both the spoken and the written form are a call to faith.

2. Good news: this comes from the basic meaning of the word “gospel.” The word behind “gospel” can be used as the proclamation of good news concerning a number of things: the king’s entrance to a city, perhaps a birth announcement, etc. Mark (likely the earliest Gospel) capitalizes on this as he applies the word “good news” to the best news we could imagine: the arrival of the Messiah and the fulfillment of God’s reign. “The beginning of the gospel/good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” (Mark 1:1).

3. The centrality of Jesus and God’s kingdom: Greidanus relates this third component of a Gospel to the topic the Gospels center around: the person of Jesus Christ and his mission regarding the kingdom. If you don’t have Jesus, you don’t have a Gospel.

4. Kerygmatic history writing: for the fourth and final aspect of a Gospel, we must balance the Evangelists’ attempts to combine historical accounts with the truth of their theological implications. Although the title of this fourth aspect may be a bit wordy, it is important: the Gospels are not just history and they are more than theological persuadings (proclamation/kerygma). The ill-favored rift of history and theology will not suffice because the Gospels are necessarily both.

So what is a Gospel? Spoken or written, preached or read, it’s good news regarding the revelation of God through (and about) Jesus Christ.

     [1] Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Narrative (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 266–268.

Part 2 of 2

Yesterday we began examining N. T. Wright’s “five matters of linguistic usage” presented in The New Testament and the People of God. Today we look at the last three.

THREE

Wright’s third point is actually a combination of several topics. First, Wright has opted to retain the traditional references of “BC” and “AD” instead of the increasingly popular “BCE” (Before the Common Era) and “CE” (Common Era). Personally, I’m not too concerned.

Second, Wright raises the issue of our designation for what we usually call the “Old Testament.” I do believe that Christians need to ponder this. We have an “Old” Testament because we have a “New” Testament. But a Jew doesn’t have a “New” Testament, they have one set of Holy Scriptures (they call them the “Hebrew Scriptures” or “Hebrew Bible” or the “Tanach.” Don’t be distanced in evangelism because of nomenclature, although “Old Testament” will be appropriate most of the time.

FOUR

Wright raises the question of gender language concerning God. Traditionally, we think of God as “him.” Technically speaking, God is not male or female. So what stops us from freely interchanging “he,” “she,” or even “it?” I line up directly behind Wright on this topic, who feels that we should stay firmly planted in the tradition of referring to the God of the Jews and the later Christians as male. Furthermore, Wright observes that even though some may raise “chauvinist” claims about Christianity, from the time of classical Greeks and Romans to modern Hindus and Muslims, deities have always been designated by gender (some male, some female). Our God has always been designated male, let’s keep it that way.

FIVE

Finally, Wright wrestles with what we call the part of the Middle East which the Gospels depict. Wright notes that if he calls it “Israel” then Palestinian readers might object, and if he calls it “Palestine” this his Jewish readers will object. Wright concludes by being graciously inconsistent as to try and appease both sides. The late Dr. Harold Hoehner preferred Israel, citing “Palestine” was a slur for the land and post-dates the New Testament. I personally think Wright’s solution is acceptable, although I probably say “Israel” more.

Okay, so there you have it: five issues which are good to ponder and keep in the back of your mind. Frivolous? Yes, at times. But the more aware we can be the more effective our witness.

Part 1 of 2

This month I’ve been slowly working my way through N. T. Wright’s book The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). This work is the first in an expected five-volume collection on the New Testament. NTPG gives many of Wright’s underlying premises and initial background for his later works. I must admit, I often find Wright’s work over my head, but I have enjoyed the challenge of reading.

In the preface, Wright offers what he calls “five matters of linguistic usage” that necessitate comment and explanation. For many readers, these five areas will appear unnecessary. However, I contend—and will attempt to demonstrate—why it is important for us all to spend some time pondering. My goal here is awareness of the issues, whether you agree with my conclusions or not.

ONE

Wright normally uses “Jesus,” not “Christ.” Many church-goers are accustomed to simply using the phrase “Jesus Christ” or simply dropping the name “Jesus” for the title “Christ.” In fact, by the time Paul penned his letters, the title of “Christ” had become so synonymous with Jesus that it began to take shape as Jesus’ “last name.” We should think about our usage of “Christ” because—believe it or not—there are those in the world who don’t think Jesus was the Christ. In evangelism, perhaps we risk abruptly alienating ourselves from our audience. You know your audience best; just keep this in mind.

TWO

Wright frequently uses “god” instead of “God.” Now this could no doubt ruffle some feathers. However, I think Wright’s reasoning is worth hearing and it is twofold: (2) “God” confuses us into thinking that everyone who believes in “God” believes in the same God, and (2) “God” confuses us into thinking “God” is a proper name. “God” is a common noun. The God of the Bible’s name is Yahweh. Think this is splitting hairs? I might be inclined to agree because general usage capitalizes God when referring to the God of the Bible. However, God’s revelation to Moses in Exodus 3 was that our God’s name reminds us—not just that God is “I am”—but that our God “is with us.” When Moses needed reassurance, God gave Moses a name which reminded him that his God will be with him to help Moses fulfill God’s purpose. And this same God is with us today.

Three more to follow tomorrow!