Norway is considered a hyper-secularized country, but its biggest bestselling book today is a new translation of the Bible. [Read more...]
Norway is considered a hyper-secularized country, but its biggest bestselling book today is a new translation of the Bible. [Read more...]
There is yet another Bible translation. It’s called The Voice. The publisher is Thomas Nelson, who also publishes its polar opposite, the King James version. Here is a story about The Voice from USA Today
The name Jesus Christ doesn’t appear in The Voice, a new translation of the Bible.
The Voice translation is aimed at people who haven’t read the Bible much before and aren’t familiar with church jargon.
Nor do words such as angel or apostle. Instead, angel is rendered as messenger and apostle as emissary. Jesus Christ is Jesus the Anointed One or the liberating king.
That’s a more accurate translation for modern American readers, says David Capes, lead scholar for The Voice, a complete edition released this month by publishing company Thomas Nelson. Capes says that many people, even those who’ve gone to church for years, don’t realize that the word “Christ” is a title.
“They think that Jesus is his first name and Christ is his last name,” says Capes, who teaches the New Testament at Houston Baptist University in Texas.
Seven years in the making, The Voice is the latest entry into the crowded field of English Bible translations.
Unlike the updated New International Version and the Common English Bible — both released last year — much of The Voice is formatted like a screenplay or novel. Translators cut out the “he said” and “they said” and focused on dialogue.
So in Matthew 15, when Jesus walks on the water, scaring his followers, their reaction is immediate:
Disciple: “It’s a ghost!”
Another Disciple: “A ghost? What will we do?”
Jesus: “Be still. It is I; you have nothing to fear.”
“I hope we get people to see the Bible — not as an ancient text that’s worn out — but as a story that they participate in and find their lives in,” Capes says.
The title for The Voice came from the New Testament book of John and from the Greek word logos. It’s usually translated as “word” in verses such as John 1:1, which reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” in the New International Version, one of the most popular English translations.
In The Voice, that passage reads: “Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God.” Frank Couch, the executive editor and publisher of The Voice, says that translation better captures what logos means.
Does it really? Not in the Greek that I learned.
I don’t think this translation is deliberately unorthodox, but the desire to avoid or recast theological language–thus eliminating concepts such as God’s “Word” and even “Christ”–suggest a brand of Christianity that recognizes no history, no continuity with the past, no Church as a corporate entity that transcends an individual’s personal piety. And yet I’m pretty sure some of the people involved in this project aren’t that way. Go to the website, compare translations, and try to arrive at a fair assessment.
British evangelist J. John has re-formulated the Ten Commandments in an effort to make them more relevant for today. His effort is getting some good press, and some 600 churches in England have bought into the program. This article tells all about it. You do have to, literally, buy into the program, because the commandments are presented, discussed, and taught in a DVD program called Just 10 for Churches (not available, at least yet, in the USA, as far as I can tell).
The article linked above tells about the new commandments but doesn’t give a list of the entire 10. So thanks to the SOWER blog for digging them out, giving the traditional version (with Protestant numbering) followed by the new formulation:
1. You shall have no other gods before Me…“know God”
2 You shall not make for yourself a graven image…… “catch your breath”
3. You shall not use the Lord’s name in vain……..“take God seriously”
4. Remember the Sabbath…………..…“live by priorities”
5. Honor your father and mother……………..…..“keep the peace with your parents”
6. You shall not murder………………… .……..….“manage your anger”
7. You shall not commit adultery………….“affair-proof your relationships”
8. You shall not steal……………………………..“prosper with a clear conscience”
9. You shall not bear false witness……………….….“hold to the truth”
10. You shall not covet…………..“find contentment”
What do you think about this? A dynamic equivalent translation with the virtue of putting the law in positive terms rather than all of those negative “thou shalt not’s,” thereby removing obstacles to evangelism and church growth? Or an attempt to defang God’s Law by turning it into easy to follow self-help principles that turn Christianity into a different religion? Or what?
You probably missed the comment on the Islamic-friendly Bibles post last week by David Harriman, who worked for the missionary agency that put out the translation in question. (I continue to be amazed at who all reads this blog.) He offered an insider’s perspective that I wanted all of you to see:
For 18 years I served as director of development/director of advancement for Frontiers, the ministry which produced this Turkish translation of Matthew. While I believe the workers behind this project have good motivations, I also believe they effectively rendered the text compliant with Islam. While the volume in question thankfully included a properly-translated Greek to Turkish Interlinear, the purpose of the contextualized translation–and the related footnotes–is to cast a specific “Muslim friendly” meaning upon the text itself.
This translation, and others produced and advised by Wycliffe, SIL, and Frontiers, have been the subject of a recent petition organized by Biblical Missiology: http://www.change.org/petitions/lost-in-translation-keep-father-son-in-the-bible
The petition Fact Check document (http://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LostInTranslation-FactCheck.pdf) shows how even the footnotes to this Turkish translation fail to properly convey Christ’s ontological Sonship:
“The focus of our concern is the text of the Matthew translation, not the Greek-Turkish interlinear. In the Matthew text, “Son” is rendered as “representative” or “proxy,” and “Father” is translated as “protector” or “guardian.” However, “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God” should be translated literally in the text, with explanation provided in the footnotes—and not the other way around…
“One example will illustrate the problems with the Turkish translation. At the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:17, “Son” is translated as “representative” in the text. In the footnote to this verse, “Son of God” is defined in several ways, such as “God’s representative,” “the king, Messiah,” and “God’s beloved monarch.” The note incorrectly says the term “is synonymous with the title of Messiah.” Jesus is portrayed only in kingly terms, with no recognition of his divinity or actual Sonship. Needless to say, such explanations have the effect of obscuring the full and true meaning of “Son” and “Son of God,” even if the terms are translated correctly in the footnotes.”
To get a sense of how Christian witness to and among Muslims has changed profoundly in recent years, I would encourage all Patrick Henry students to read the following article by former Muslim Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund: http://barnabasfund.org/Recent-Changes-in-Christian-Approaches-to-Islam.html
Patrick Sookhdeo’s piece shows the organic relationship between the ideas and assumptions behind certain interfaith dialogue approaches (such as the Common World and related Yale Response), and “insider movement” approaches to work among Muslim.
In correspondence with me, Mr. Harriman adds this:
I work with a lot of former Muslims and they are outraged by this approach to translation. What you have, actually, is the spectacle of Western translators (actually, only a couple of highly-committed advocates, but who are acting with the support of senior WBT/SIL leadership) attempting to tell native speakers of Arabic, Turkish, and other languages what their languages actually mean.
There are other translations that are actually far worse — one is an Arabic translation of the Gospels and Acts in which Father is not rendered literally, in any instance, and in which Son, Son of God, and Son of Man is redefined by paratext and footnote. Similar to the footnote I noted on your blog, the commentary portion of this volume (advised by SIL, but funded by Frontiers) describes Christ’s Sonship as metaphorical.
An audio “Stories of the Apostles” volume is in fact far worse than this — Son of God is translated “Caliph of God” — Caliph of course referring to religious/political rulers of Islam who defended and promoted Islam by force; “saints” is replaced with “umma”; Islamic honorifics like “upon him be peace” are used after the mention of Christ’s name (an Islamic prayer for the dead). This audio “Bible” produced by WBT/SIL is still online, BTW.
Many missionary groups in Islamic countries are using Bible translations that avoid offending Muslim sensibilities, getting rid of phrases such as “the Son of God” and “God the Father.” All in the name of church growth. And yet Christians in these countries, beleagured as they are, are strenuously objecting to these translations. Mindy Belz of World Magazine reports:
A team of translators with Frontiers helped produce the disputed translation of Matthew in Turkish, and SIL said some of its consultants helped at certain points in the process. Sabeel Media, a partner organization of SIL, published the translation in August 2011, printing it in book form and posting it online. In the Turkish Matthew, the “alternative form” for “Son of God” is something along the lines of “representative of God,” according to Turkish speakers, and “God the Father” has become “great protector.” A footnote explains the alternate terms: “According to the Jews, ‘God’s Son’ means ‘God’s beloved ruler’ and is equivalent with the title ‘Messiah.’”. . .
The translators emphasize their desire to promote evangelism. Bob Blincoe, the U.S. director of Frontiers, cited in an email lack of growth as one reason for the translation: “The big problem is that church planting among the tens of millions of religious Muslims in Turkey has not been successful; it has not even begun.” Turkey is 99.8 percent Muslim, according to the CIA World Factbook. Turks estimate that their country has about 5,000 Christians now, but when Bocek became a Christian in 1988, he was one of a total of 80 Protestants in the country. “One significant barrier may be the existing translation of the Bible,” Blincoe wrote in an email: “These are paraphrases that help a conservative Sunni Muslim audience know what the Bible really says.” . . .
Thomas Cosmades, a Turkish Christian who translated the New Testament into Turkish from the original Greek, mailed a letter to Frontiers at the end of 2007 after he saw a copy of the Turkish Matthew. (Several hundred were printed before the official publication in 2011). Cosmades died in 2010, at age 86, just after he published a new edition of his New Testament. In his letter he wrote that he was “highly disquieted” by the paraphrased Matthew and proceeded to analyze the debatable phrases in detail.
“This translation is not seeking to emphasize the value of the incarnation,” he wrote. “Should the trend continue, who knows where it will lead the coming generation? If Athanasius of old would have encountered such departure from biblical Christology he would have placed these redactors far below the Arians.” . . .
The Pakistan church at large may not know about the debate, but the Pakistan Bible Society (PBS) does. After 20 years of work together, the Bible society and SIL are parting ways over the issue, which is a blow to SIL because now it must operate without the imprimatur of the premier local publisher. SIL said in a statement that the decision not to work together on one project was mutual, the result of “translation style differences,” not just the debate on divine familial terms.
But the general secretary of the Pakistan Bible Society, Anthony Lamuel, wrote in a letter on Jan. 26 that the issue of altering terms for target audiences was central in the decision, and added that such translations have resulted in the “water downing” of Christian concepts: “We the Pakistan Bible Society will not promote experiments with the translation at the cost of hurting the church.”
A woman working on another translation project in Central Asia, who asked for anonymity for the sake of her work, said the debate on the “Son of God” issue in her translation team has deadlocked their project and stirred confusion among local believers who don’t have a Bible in their own language as a reference: “It has eroded their faith in the authority of the Word of God and in us as foreigners who are supposed to be the ‘teachers’ but can’t seem to agree on some basic truths of who Christ said he was. … Sadly it raises doubts and endless discussion, wasting a lot of time.”
Anwar Hussain, the head of the Bangladesh Bible Society, has been at the forefront of efforts in his country the last few years to repel Bible translations from various groups that change divine familial terms. Hussain grew up Muslim, and when he professed Christ as a young man, his family cut ties with him. Edward Ayub, another Christian of Muslim background, is the moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Bangladesh and—alongside Hussain—has vigorously opposed the translations. “I want to die for the Bible,” not a misleading translation, Ayub said. “The harm they are doing now for the church will be long-lasting.”
via WORLDmag.com | Translation battle | Emily Belz | Feb 25, 12. (Subscription required to read full text.
What connections do you see between this particular tactic on the mission field and the church growth movement here?
My long-time friend Leland Ryken has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal on the King James translation of the Bible, which marks its 400th anniversary this year. After telling about how the new king of England granted only one of the Puritans’ requests–to make a new English translation of the Bible–and how 47 scholars completed the project in only 6 years, Lee discusses its impact:
The King James Version was not an original translation. It was a revision—technically of the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, but actually of an entire century of English Bible translations starting with William Tyndale. This history lies behind a famous statement in the preface to the King James Version: “Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.”
The King James Bible is familiarly called the Authorized Version, but the king who lent his name to the translation never officially authorized it, even though he hoped that the new translation would help to unify a politically and religiously divided kingdom (a kingdom that would erupt into civil war not long after his death in 1625). Nor did church officials authorize the new translation. The King James Version in reality was authorized by the people, who chose it over others. For three and a half centuries, when English-speaking people spoke of “the Bible,” they meant the King James Version.
The King James translators believed their task was to take readers as close as possible to what the original text says, and in doing so they created a great work of literature. Its style is part of its magic. Yet that style is hard to define.
Modern readers are too quick to conclude that with its now-archaic language and grammar, the Bible’s style is embellished and formal. But thee and thou pronouns and verb endings like walkest and sayeth were a feature of everyday speech in the early 17th century.
However imitated or parodied, the language is dignified, beautiful, sonorous and elegant. “Godliness with contentment is great gain”—six words and unforgettable. “Give us this day our daily bread.” “The Lord is my light and my salvation.” The King James style is a paradox: It is usually simple in vocabulary while majestic and elevating in effect. . . .
For more than three centuries, the King James Bible provided the central frame of reference for the English-speaking world. Former Yale University Prof. George Lindbeck well claims that until recently “Christendom dwelt imaginatively in the biblical world.” During the years of its dominance, the King James Bible was the omnipresent force in any cultural sphere that we can name—education (especially childhood education), religion, family and home, the courtroom, political discourse, language and literacy, choral music and hymns, art and literature. For more than two centuries children in England and America learned to read by way of the Bible. . . .
The influence of the King James Bible is perhaps most profound in the realm of literature. From Milton’s “Paradise Lost” to Toni Morrison’s “Paradise,” it is a presence quite apart from the author’s religious stance. In his book “The Bible as Literature,” British literary scholar T. R. Henn said it best: “The Authorized Version of 1611 . . . achieves as we read a strange authority and power as a work of literature. It becomes one with the Western tradition, because it is its single greatest source.”
Rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated. It is consistently, year after year, either second or third on the list of current Bible sales in the United States. Furthermore, the King James Version lives on in two modern translations that perpetuate the translation philosophy and style of the King James Version while updating its scholarship and language. They are the New King James Version and the English Standard Version.
A new Bible translation is now available, the Common English Bible. Check out the website, which includes this comparison of passages from the new CEB and other translations: Common English Bible – Compare Translations.
What agendas are evident in this translation? What theology is at work in the word choices? What can you say about the literary quality of the CEB?
The Washington Post has an article about two new Bible translations. We’ve already blogged about the new gender-adjusted NIV that will take the place of the NIV beloved by many evangelicals. There is also a new translation of the New American Bible, the version approved for Roman Catholics.
The new Catholic Bible retools only the Old Testament. The first new version since 1970, it is meant to sound more poetic and more contemporary, with “spoils” replacing “booty” and “burnt offering” supplanting “Holocaust.”
It could stir controversy, however, with decisions such as the one meant to be truer to the Hebrew – translating Isaiah 7:14 to say a “young woman” shall conceive, and bear a son, instead of a “virgin,” which is how the previous Catholic Old Testament and most evangelical Bibles read. …
Some experts predict that the radical fragmentation in the marketplace will kill the contemporary notion that the Bible is a fixed text meant to be read literally.
Timothy Beal, a religion professor at Case Western University who just came out with a book called “The Rise and Fall of the Bible,” compared the flurry of versions to “a distressed crop. When a tree is about to die and puts out tons of seeds.”
The Bible, Beal said, “is not a book of answers but a library of questions. It doesn’t speak in one voice. It doesn’t take one perspective. This frantic, desperate effort to resolve contradictions is going against the grain of the Bible, which seems to embrace contradictions.”
One problem with today’s Roman Catholicism is its embrace of liberal Protestantism! Liberal Bible critics have been pushing for the “young woman” translation of Isaiah’s prophecy ever since the RSV. Never mind that when the New Testament quotes the passage it cites the Septuagint, which is clearly “virgin,” a prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ. Scripture is not allowed to interpret Scripture, as in classical Protestant hermeneutics. But now Roman Catholics are going down that line. Will they now pray to the Young Woman Mary?
And what do you think of the Bible scholar’s comments?
Do you agree that so many translations is diluting the sense that the Bible has a fixed authoritative meaning?
In my earlier post about the even newer New International Version of the Bible, I complained about how that line of translations is indifferent to metaphor, poetry, and beauty of language. I cited as an example how the new NIV renders “the valley of the shadow of death” as “the dark valley.”
I would argue that sensitivity to literary qualities is necessary in an accurate translation. Metaphors are not just ornaments. They express meaning and are essential in expressing complex, multi-leveled, rich meanings that go beyond simple prosaic statements.
Consider these translations of Genesis 4:1:
The historic English Bible, from the KJV through the ESV, keeps the Hebrew metaphor: “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived.”
The 1984 NIV thinks it has to explain what the metaphor means: “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant.”
The 2010 NIV is more romantic: “Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant.”
The original Hebrew uses a profound metaphor that communicates important meaning about marital sexuality in God’s design: They “knew” each other.
Ironically, the other readings are just as metaphorical and even more euphemistic. “Lay with” is ugly and strangely old-fashioned, a version of “sleep with.” “Make love,” not too long ago, meant courting or flirting, not having sex (so that many contemporary readers of 19th century novels think they are much more racy than they are).
At any rate, “Adam knew Eve” is how the original language reads. If God inspired the words, He surely inspired the metaphors.
tODD, a long-time reader and commenter on this blog, told me that he was using Bible Gateway, that extremely useful site that allows you to find Bible passages from a wide array of translations, when he noticed that an NIV passage he was finding was different from the same NIV passage he learned as a child. He dug into the matter, and it turns out there is a new version of the NIV, with many quite different translations, that will replace the NIV of 1984.
On November 1, the new translation was put up on Bible Gateway. In March, 2011, it will be published as the New International Version, with both the controversial Today’s New International Version (TNIV) (with all of the gender-neutral and other non-conservative language) AND the original New International Version (that had become the dominant evangelical version) going out of print.
These plans were announced some time ago, but I suspect many people do not realize that this change is underway. The Wikipedia article on the TNIV says this:
“On September 1, 2009, it was announced that development of a new revision of the NIV is in progress, and that once it is released both the TNIV and the 1984 NIV would be discontinued. Keith Danby, president and chief executive officer of Biblica, once known as the International Bible Society said they erred in presenting past updates, failed to convince people revisions were needed and “underestimated” readers’ loyalty to the 1984 NIV. The update NIV will be issued in 2011.”
The Wikipedia article on the NIV gives the updated details: “A major revision was announced on September 1, 2009 and was published online on November 1, 2010 at http://www.biblegateway.com and http://www.biblica.com. The first printed editions will be published in March 2011.”
The revised NIV will not use inclusive language for God, but it will use inclusive language in other places. Grammatical purists like me will be annoyed that the plural pronoun “they” will be used for singulars of unspecified gender. See Translation Notes, which lists other new readings. I’ll let tODD report the ones that caught his eye:
1 Peter 5:9
(NIV 1984) Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
(NIV 2011) Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
James 5:7-9 (partial)
(NIV 1984) Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord’s coming. … Don’t grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
(NIV 2011) Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. … Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
* ‟Saints” often becomes ‟God’s people,” ‟the Lord’s people,” ‟the Lord’s holy people” and the
like (as in Romans 8:27)
* Certain uses of ‟Christ” are now ‟Messiah.”
* Some occurrences of ‟Jews,” especially in John, have become ‟Jewish leaders” or something
* Most occurrences of ‟sinful nature” have become ‟flesh.”
Perhaps the most-changed verse, that I could find, was Malachi 2:16:
(NIV 1984) “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself[a]with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
(NIV 2011) “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.
There are some good changes, in my opinion, such as translating some passages that are ambiguous in the original languages so that they are still ambiguous in English, leaving room for various interpretations, instead of the translator taking a position and making it look like that is what the Bible says! (That, to me, is the bane of many modern translations.) But still there remains lots of interpretations for the sake of modern readers in place of simply rendering what these non-modern texts literally say, this being part of the translating philosophy of the NIV. Here too is that tendency in American evangelicalism to cut itself off from the church of the past (eliminating “saints”?). Not to mention the presumption of correcting the Bible’s “sexist” language.
It also looks like the new NIV will continue and maybe even intensify what most annoyed me about the old NIV: the utter tone-deaf resistance to metaphor, poetry, and beauty of language:
Psalm 23: 4: (NIV 1984) “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death. . . ”
(NIV 2011) “Even though I walk through the darkest valley. . .”