When I get a new translation, I read three passages slowly and carefully, with a Greek [Green] NT near at hand, to give me a feel for the translation and the translation theory: I read the Sermon on the Mount, I read Romans 3, and then I read James. Usually I can get a good solid feel for the translation from these three passages.
I did this recently with The Common English Bible (New Testament)
What do you think of modern translations? What is best for public reading?
What do you do? How do you assess a new translation? Do you want something that sounds familiar or something that startles you by change and makes you to think anew about the text? Which translations do you find most useful today?
115 leading Bible scholars participated; ecumenical and mainline; field tested by 77 reading specialists in 13 denominations. It comes out completely in 2011, four hundred years after the KJB. The CEB will be useful and good for personal reading, public reading, and for classroom study. It will have the Apocrypha when completed.
Here are a few big summary thoughts, and I’ve only dabbled in other passages:
First, it sides in general with an NIV or TNIV approach: it aims at accessibility, clarity and avoidance of unnecessary misunderstandings. Thus, it has “brothers and sisters” instead of “brothers” throughout. While some call this “inclusive” there is a solid fact suggesting this isn’t “inclusive” so much as “accurate.” Very often a “brothers” means “everyone” and not just “male Christians.” So that it is not an inclusive view so much as an accurate translation.
It has “human being” and “the Human One” instead of “Son of man,” and whether you like the former or not, the latter is often misunderstood. So, this rendering will push the reader to read more closely.
Second, this translation sometimes adds expressions to make the Bible clear where a more literal translation will prompt some to misunderstand. Some of these clarifications will be disputed, but I’d rather have an attempted clarification followed by discussion than as assumption that we are right when we are dead wrong. Thus, Matthew 5:44 has “those who harass you because of your faith” instead of the Greek’s ending with “harass you.” The “because of your faith” is added in order to clarify that the harassment was generated by faith and following Jesus.
At the end of the same paragraph we have “your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone” instead of just “complete” or, as in most translations, “perfect.” (Be perfect as your Father is perfect.) Here the perfection/completeness is seen, on the basis of solid contextual information, in the Father’s love for all.
Third, there’s a little New Perspective flash at times when it cames to translating “faith of Christ” (often translated “faith in Christ”) and the CEB has “faithfulness of Christ.” Thus, Romans 3:22 has “God’s righteousness comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” and here we see a clear emphasis on the obedience of Christ. In 3:25 we have “a ransom that was paid” for the typical “redemption.” And then we have “the place of sacrifice where mercy is found” and this has been often understood more in terms of propitiation.
James 2:1 has the “faithfulness of our Lord Jesus Christ” — and there again we have a “faith of Christ” taken to refer to Christ’s faithfulness and not our faith in Christ. But in the famous justification passage of James 2:14-26 they translated “showed to be righteous” instead of “justified.” Not all agree, but having a translation like this will yield to fruitful study and inquiry.
Fourth, there is variety: I’m happy to say the translators didn’t get too wooden. Sometimes the word is “righteousness” and other times it is “justice” and I’m not sure the rationale for each, but there’s two sides to the Hebrew term and therefore also to the background for the NT terms and I like this ambivalence and variety.
Fifth, everywhere the sentence structure is clean and clear; they’re doing their dead-level best to translate so that the Bible makes sense. I’m not sure I like “Happy” in the beatitudes, but I think as many will be helped by “Happy” as are led into confusion by “Blessed.”
I can vouch for the translation of 1 Esdras when the CEB apocrypha comes out!
On the Human One translation of Son of Man: it seems to me that translations often try to do the work of a commentary. One thing lost in this rendering is the relationship between Son of God and Son of Man. I’m sure they won’t render Son of God as the God One!
Anyway, it’s not terrible, and I don’t advocate the traditional translation just for tradition’s sake, but I think losing Son of Man is sad. Human One brings its own potentials for misunderstanding (was Yeshua emphasizing his humanity in using this designation? — I think that is inaccurate).
Anybody have advice on how we are to handle texts from non-protestant cannons?
I took a class on the Apocrypha and found it to be a very useful and enlightening set of texts. I was amazed at how many NT references there are to both psuedepigraphical and apocryphal texts. I was also amazed at how much more clear the climate (political and religious) of Jesus’ time period was to understand after reading texts from the inter-testamental period. But how do we approach it as protestants and reformers? Is there any reason to move towards accepting a larger canon? Is there any reason not to?
What is a Green NT?
I hate to lose the phrase “Son of Man”, not because of tradition, but because there is something beautiful about that phrase. It reads much better than the Human One, anyway.
Derek’s comment gives me pause on this translation.
Changing brothers to brothers and sisters may be a change to a more accurate translation in our current culture. In fact I think it is simply a more accurate translation.
Dropping Son of Man for Human One strikes me not as accuracy but as a sell-out to political correctness, thereby diminishing the accuracy of the translation in my view. (I also consider the ESV an inaccurate translation bowing to “correctness” of a different sort in the translation of Junia as well known to the apostles rather than well known among the apostles – this goes both ways.)
Does any one have an argument why Human One is more accurate?
I know all translation is interpretation, but the Jews kept a clear and bright line between Torah and midrash.
If the commentary phrases are clearly delineated as uninspired commentary, I think it would be okay. I think it is far more important that people understand what is Scripture and what isn’t.
Scripture, not Scripture plus a particular committee’s theological commentary, is the most trustworthy guide for spiritual formation. When I’m doing lectio, I want to use Scripture, not Scripture+.
I don’t want this to sound like a defense of “Human One”. Instead, it is what I would presume to be the explanation for the translation’s decision.
First, it’s not that bad. It is uncustomary but that isn’t what matters most.
Second, the Aramaic behind “Son of man” is bar enosha and it means “the son of man” in the sense of either “a human” or “a human such as I”. It often functions as the “representative human/person.”
Third, Son of Man and Son of God, however common the repetition, are not terms describing the humanity of Jesus vs. the Deity of Jesus. That’s later theology and a misuse of these terms.
Fourth, many of the NT refs go back to Daniel 7 where Daniel sees “one like a human being.”
Fifth, Son of Man, at least as one of its core senses, means the Representative Human.
Sixth, frankly, “Son of Man” is not English and makes no immediate sense in English. It requires interpretation to make sense, and the instinctive interpretation goes in the direction of the representative human (see Psalm 8).
Also, dropping ‘Son of Man’ for ‘human being’ or ‘human one’ seems to be a definite choice to ignore the clear resonances between the prophetic use of the phrase and Jesus’ decision to take it up as a title for himself. It seems to elevate a particular Trinitarian understanding above Jesus’ own usage of the language.
I’d rather clear up whatever misunderstandings come from ‘Son of Man’ rather than lose the deep sense of identity that Jesus drew from the words of the prophets.
From the publisher’s blog:
“ben adam (Hebrew) or ho huios tou anthropou (Greek) is translated as “human being” (rather than “son of man”) except in cases of vocative address, where we render “Human” (instead of “Son of Man” [KJV] or “Mortal” [NRSV], e.g. Ezek 2:1). For the NT phrase, ho huios tou anthropou (e.g., Matt 9:6) we render “you will know that the Human One has authority on earth to forgive sins.”
“At the exegetical and linguistic level, the Semitic idiom, ben adam, occurs frequently in the Old Testament. (A linguistic analogy is bene yisrael, which means Israelites.) Biblical scholars, in a rare example of consensus, are certain that the Semitic idiom ben adam translates as “human being” or “human” in natural English. If we were creating a literal translation, which we inherit from the Septuagint Greek translation of the Semitic idiom, or more precisely from the KJV tradition for English readers, we would probably render “son of human.” But we aim to avoid “biblish” where possible and translate such Hebrew or Greek constructions into a natural English idiom.”
http://www.commonenglishbible.com/Connect/Blog/ViewBlog/tabid/209/ArticleId/13/From-Son-of-Man-to-Human-One-13.aspx
I always find the ‘son of man’ issue problematic. Why? On one hand the Greek is spot on – son of man. On the other – as a preacher and teacher this is a difficult concept to teach or preach especially when our confession is ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of God’ is also biblically tuned. To add fuel to the “what do we do to this phrase because it is tempting to make is politically correct and it is confusing to the average-pew-Christian to begin with” debate, Dr. Brian Blount in his commentary on Revelation rolls Son of Man to “Child of Humanity.” I have heard him make a good argument for this move. I have also seen “Son of Humanity” and “Son of Humankind” – but I cannot recall where. In this light “Human One” or “Human Being” seems appropriate to the struggle to make the theological spirit of the phrase accessible.
But it isn’t an English anthology! It is a Hebrew-Greek anthology, and there seems to be a bit of cultural snobbery and/or chronocentrism latent in the idea that some Hebrew or Greek constructions devalue or obscure the meaning of the text.
And you may reject “inclusive” for “accurate” all you want, Scot, but let’s be real: how many times during your day do you pass by someone and say, “Hi there, human!” or turn to your wife and say “Hey, did you see what that human being did?” Pretending that human/human being language is Common English usage seems a bit ridiculous.
OK, Nick, I’ll have fun with this one:
I’ve said “Did you see what that human did” for more often than “Did you see what that son of man did”!
I think we’ve done our bit now with Son of Man/Human One.
Let’s talk translations, translation theory, and public reading of Scripture.
Oh, I think “son of a…” construction is still quite popular in English discourse. And part of my point is that when Jesus used “Son of Man” it wasn’t just a common phrase, any more than oligopistoi was when He referred to the disciples. They were nicknames, and as such, translators should maintain their integrity.
What about my earlier question, about the clear and bright line between Torah and midrash?
From a layman’s perspective: I know enough greek to read easy passages and have no understanding whatsoever of Hebrew. Due to my lack of specialized knowledge I look for three things. (1) Word for word translations (or as close as possible). I know that all interpreters bring their own bias and I prefer to minimize that to some extent by forcing them to give me a somewhat “wooden” translation. (2) Readability, this is second on the list, but still important and has to be balanced out with the first. This is why I prefer the ESV to the NAS or NASB. (3) Editing staff. Like I said, I know that all people bring biases to their interpretations so I prefer bibles that are put together by people that I trust. If I viewed two translations as equal in every other way (word for word vs dynamic and stylistically) then I would choose the bible that had the editors and translators I trusted the most.
Also, since I grew up catholic, I am running away from any translation that makes the apocrypha appear to be a legitimate part of the canon. If it is somehow separated and differentiated that is one thing, but if it is just in there hanging out with the rest of the OT you can count me out.
As one who is blissfully removed from hot debates about the political correctness of “Son of Man” the idea of “Human One” didn’t strike me as a concession/response to those debates. If Scot’s points in comment 8 are true, then I don’t see any problem with the phrase, especially regarding the Daniel reference. FWIW, I do remember hearing the phrase “Son of Man” as kid and wondering what the heck that meant (to echo Scot’s 6th point). As long as the echo to Daniel is maintained, kudos on the change.
Nick, but “Human One” actually retains its inherent descriptive value and arguably makes the connection to Daniel even more strongly and accurately. “Son of Man” doesn’t inherently communicate “one like a human being” or “representative human being” or any of those kinds of things, the way that “Human One” at least begins to do. And, FWIW, it appears that many of the Jesus’ contemporaries who were familiar with Daniel didn’t immediately catch the reference to Daniel by his use of “Son of Man,” so the connective power of the phrase, even to Jews, wasn’t glaring anyway. It appears Jesus took a descriptive phrase and turned it into a title of sorts, which the translators here seem to respect.
JoeyS,
As to the apocrypha…I tend to view it like any other text. It has information that can be valuable, but it is not scripture, so I would put it on par with Josephus, or the church fathers, or any other ancient text. Useful as a reference, but not part of the sole rule of faith and life.
I think when it comes to the “son of man” debate or even the gender inclusive language, the question is, should readers be presented with the biblical words and force themselves to think according to its particular use of language, or should we change the biblical words so that they are more easily understandable to the modern ear?
I don’t trust people, so I say just give me the original words and let me work it out on my own. ho huios tou anthropou clearly translates as “son of man” and that might be awkward English but it is definitely accurate. Is human being accurate? It rests of the translators interpretation.
I think this debate could be extended to words like propitiation and expiation which are not common at all in the modern world. Should we use the words which are the most accurate, or use more modern phrases that might forego some accuracy but be more palatable to modern readers.
I definitely wants my teachers STUDYING out of the former, but it probably makes little difference for devotional reading.
Scot, any thoughts on Acts 7:56? Most translations, including the CEB put the phrase “Behold, I see the Son of Man AT the right hand of God”. It is the term “at” (or sometimes “on”) that I have trouble with. In the greek the term is “ἐκ” which, I think, means “out of, from, by”. I often wonder whether it is being translated this way to move forward a Trinitarian vantage point, but I don’t see that in this text. Rather, I see the Son of Man as a means through which God is acting…not a seperate being. The same is true of passages like John 1 in which most translations capitolize “the Word” when the greek only capitolizes “God” (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος).
I’m sure I am reading to much into it, but, personally, I would rather have a translation that lets me get as much as I can from the original text.
I grew up with and was educated on the RSV. The NIV NT came out when I was a senior in high school and the entire NIV when I was in college. Both of these great translations have had a profound and shaping influence on me. I suppose I expect other translations to be similar and sound like them.
So when it comes to my preferences I really like translations that are, “as literal as possible and as free as necessary,” as the NRSV translators said about their effort. Because of this I am really drawn to translations like the NRSV, NIV/TNIV, NAB, & NET (the notes are great!).
I still use my trusty RSV, too.
A random thought: our two children know nothing of the KJV. They’ve used the NIV/TNIV in youth group and have had scripture read in worship from the NRSV, TNIV, or NIV their entire lives. We’ve given them NIV/TNIV bibles in various bindings, colors, etc. for years. They received the NRSV for confirmation.
Public reading: I strongly prefer NRSV or TNIV for this. They use good English and as Scot has said in another post some years ago they do not leave anyone out (they are inclusive in the best way.)
My favorite functional equivalent translation is the NLT. I like the OT narratives & the gospels best; the poetry leaves something to be desired (something like NRSV & TNIV!). This has more to do with personal taste, I think, than anything else.
I’m going to take an even closer look at the CEB. I’ve been reading it some and while I’ve liked certain passages there are others I’ve had a question or two about. I must say that I felt the same about some others when they came out and then adopted them or used them more often after I got used to them. I also want to note that I am excited about this new translation. Any new translation that is done by a team of excellent scholars needs, even demands, our attention. We are so blessed to have so many excellent translations in English.
let’s see to answer the question: i like the hcsb, tniv, and nasb… at rare moments i like the net bible, nlt and esv…
the tniv is familiar as i was brought up with niv, hcsb i just think is a really good translation that gets a lot of things right (but i hate their editorial dots, can you say annoying)…
On translations generally, I tend to think that strong loyalty to one above all is just plain silly. I’m glad we have as many as we do and that they vary in theory and approach.
That said, I just don’t read translations that read like Shakespeare or Yoda. I’m realizing that I’m somewhat passionate about communicating well. Maybe its pastoral or even incarnational impulse; I don’t know. But translations that are hard to read seem to be flawed on that basis. (But if someone digs the KJV or the American Standard, more power to you.) I appreciate, though, when translations indicate, usually with italics, words or phrases that the translators feel are properly implied, but physically absent from the source texts. Give me italics; give me explanation for all translation choices that are remotely hard. As a result of all this, I like the HCSB, the NRSV, the NIV, etc. And because I do think that familiarity breeds contempt or at least deafness, I read the New Living and the Message as well. Sometimes, I even think the Message says things the best, or should be used in Church! Horror!!
Must be my charismatic leanings . . .
JonG at #20,
I don’t care to get into a debate here about the passages about the Deity of Christ.
But Acts 7:55 and 56 both use this expression, and the issue seems to be the Son of Man standing up, from the right side of the Throne, to be the Advocate for Stephen.
I personally like a variety of translations. For narratives and law (like Leviticus) I like translations that are less literal like a TNIV or NLT. Those translations add clarity by making interpretive decisions.
For poetry and prophetic books I tend to prefer a more literal translation like an NRSV because it at least attempts to keep the poetic structure a bit more than something like the NLT does. Granted you really need Hebrew to feel the full force of the poetry, at least a little more literal translation attempts to help keep the feel.
On the epistles I’m a bit ambivalent, I think I prefer the NRSV at times and the TNIV at times.
In the greek the term is “ἐκ” which, I think, means “out of, from, by”
The Greek “Ek” has a much broader meaning than that, from one online lexicon: prep. with gen. from, out from, away from; by, by means of, by reason of, because; for; on, at; of . In the passage at question only ‘at’ makes much sense in English. Greek prepositions often don’t map cleanly to English prepositions, there is some interpretation involved in determining the correct translation.
The same is true of passages like John 1 in which most translations capitolize “the Word” when the greek only capitolizes “God”
Actually all the ancient manuscripts were written entirely in uppercase letters (“Uncials”). The capitalization in the modern Greek bibles is supplied by the textual critics who assembled the text. The original manuscripts had no capitalization or punctuation. Whether or not “the Word” should be capitalized, is, according to the rules of English grammar, a theological decision; is Jesus divine? It is also a mistake to impose the rules of English grammar, where names or references to deity are always capitalized, on a Greek text, where only proper nouns are capitalized.
One thing I look for in new translations is an agenda. I don’t like “agenda-driven” translations. I see a good bit of this in the ESV, which RJS mentioned above. It’s still a pretty good translation and I use it, but I don’t like reading it feeling like I have to “watch out” for pet theological agendas pawned off as translation.
For study, I find that multiple English translations are almost essential. I like having an interlinear and/or the Greek handy as well.
One thing I noted about the CEB is that it seems to handle sarx better than the NIV does. E.g. Romans 7:5, 7:18. 7:25, 8:3-5. They handled Galatians 3:3, using “human effort” as the NIV does instead of “flesh.” That could probably be done better as it would seem that there may be some reference there to the actual foreskin (i.e. flesh) considering the context. But it’s next to impossible to find English words with the same variations in meaning.
Thank you Larry #26 for addressing my concern. This is something I genuinely struggle with…I wasn’t trying to pick a fight. I don’t agree that “at” is the only one that makes sense, but I appreciate your take on the subject.
I blogged on the “Human One: translation a few weeks back (http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2010/08/jesus-human-one_23.html). I can’t say that I hate it or disagree with it. I guess it seems to be an attempt to push more of Jesus’ human identity than divine and I am not sure it helps
But I wonder about the way the translators have made Adam “the human” in Genesis 2-3. This seems a bit over formal (http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2010/08/gender-inclusiveness-in-bible.html).
What did you mean by Green NT, Scot?
Sorry, I couldn’t figure out what that “Green” was about… mistake. I meant “Greek.” I changed it. Tried “strikethrough” and it didn’t work.
I’ve just finished reading Peterson’s “Eat this Book”. What stuck with me was the idea of how God communicates through our language and we need to take care to neither degrade it nor elevate it. He believe that we have often erred on the elevate side. I like a wide variety of translations. I bought my ESV study bible for the pictures but almost returned it what i realized one of it’s agenda’s. I did keep it. I have a little TNIV/Message paralle bible and I find it extremely useful in the Bible studies I attend.
Back to Peterson’s premise: What language does God speak? To me he speaks the English of the late 20th century and early 21st Century. However, I think he also speaks in hundreds of other languages. Why are we so picky about certain English words?
I’m slightly bewildered by the number of people posting that slam the ESV for having an “agenda” but think that gender inclusive language, removing “the son of man”, and abandoning word for word translation in favor of dynamic equivalence doesn’t represent an agenda. Do people really have such big blinders that they think only one side of the Christian movement has biases that color their work?
The first thought I had after reading Scot’s post was that I would stay as far away from the CEB as possible due to their gender-inclusive, dynamic equivalence, liberal, ecumenical, and mainline agenda. I much prefer my ESV with its complementarian, conservative, neo-calvinistic agenda. And forget the NRSV with its high church, apocrypha loving agenda.
Robin at 33 and 34,
I don’t know if you are being a bit tongue-in-cheek or not, but let me just pushback slightly: we all have agendas, and yours is apparent before you decide which translation to read.
Thus, if it is Mainline, it’s out; if it is gender-inclusive, it’s out; if it has Apocrypha, it’s out; if it has “Human One,” it’s out; if it is “dynamic,” it’s out.
I would assume you see these as conclusions you’ve reached, about which you are confident enough to think “why bother with the opposite?” etc..
Isn’t it wiser to judge a translation on the basis of its capacity to render into English what is now in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, regardless of who is doing the translating?
One of the translation changes I would like to see is someway to blow out the different words for love in the bible. It seems to me that something is lost with only using love for all.
Thank you for finally spelling out what the agenda of the NEV is – I’ve been unable to confidently nail it down. That wouldn’t cause me to reject it, but it’s nice to know to whom you’re listening. I think that the idea put forth by Robin that every translation has an agenda at some level (is that fair of me, Robin?) is important for any student to understand. It’s in the nature of language, communication and, particularly, translation. May I ask if there’s a point-of-view or agenda in the translators of the HCSB? I like the way that it reads, understand their philosophy of translation the way that they describe it, and really appreciate the brackets that show which parts are not found in the source materials, but have been added for clarification. Thanks.
Some of the issues with the HCSB are the same as those with the ESV. The translators of the HCSB translate the Greek adelphoi as “brothers” regardless of whether there might be a mixed group of males and females being addressed. The Colorado Springs Guidelines allow for adelphoi to be translated as “brothers and sisters” where the context calls for it. It’s hard not to see a patriarchal bias there.
They also translate glossai as “languages” instead of tongues. There may be good reasons for this, but it’s hard to imagine the fact that most SBC folks are “cessationists” not to have influenced that decision.
Overall, the HCSB isn’t too bad though. It’s not as agenda driven as the ESV, imo. Or at least its translators and proponents are not so strident as some of the ESV translators and proponents. There are a lot of things I like about it. It consistently translates sarx as “flesh” which I find to be as good of a translation as is probably possible.
But in the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of a SBC church. Maybe others can find more issues with the HCSB (Hard Core Southern Baptist) version.
Oddly enough, we had one of our members call the church this morning because she was really confused why a passage she read called Jesus the “Son of Man” when he is actually the “Son of God.” I can’t decide if “Human One” would have caused less or more questions, if any difference at all…
But, with all of the good that this translation may have… they made a TERRIBLE decision in the marketing area with the “exit interview” video on their website… it was so obviously scripted and acted that it makes me doubt the validity of those who made this translation at all… if they had to hire someone to talk about how great the translation is, then its probably not all that great…
That has nothing to do really, with the quality of the translation, but it does show the power of good or, in this case, bad marketing…
In sermon and lesson preparation, I compare translations (usually NIV, TNIV, NASB, and NRSV, with a glance at The Message), both to get ideas on the best way to render a text in light of the original and to be ready for person who says, “But my translation says…” In sermons I usually go with the NIV, unless there is good reason not to do so, because I think it is the one most in my congregation use (though it is hard to tell anymore). I try not to correct translations too often in sermons and lessons (1) because I usually respect a committee’s exerptise with languages over my personal reading; (2) I don’t want to undermine people’s confidence in their Bibles. I prefer the inclusive nature of the TNIV and NRSV, but in my congregation inclusive language is not a big deal (most still use “man” for humanity and understand it means male and female). With my students at the university and seminary, however, I go with the TNIV or NRSV.
Robin–although I do see an agenda (different from mine) in the ESV–I did buy it, keep it, do refer to it, and it’s on my desk next to the NIV, TNIV, Message, and JB Phillips
etc,. They seem to all get along together in my study. No “slamming” involved.
Is there really a “word for word” translation?
Scot,
I appreciate the push-back and I feel I need to elaborate some more. I do not approach this, as you do, fluent in the original languages. I can do basic greek translation and that is it. So I know that adelphoi, literally translated is brothers, uiou is the genitive of son, and so forth.
Since I am not fluent in greek and hebrew I depend on translators and editors to a greater extent than academics. Because of that, I want as much of the “pure text” as possible. If a literal translation is “brothers”, I don’t want “brothers and sisters” because that implies that the translators have already made an interpretive decision beyond what the text REQUIRES. Give me the literal, wooden translation, and a commentary that explains that brothers in this particular instance might mean brothers and sisters. Let me make those discoveries/decisions, along with helpful commentary. I don’t want to be led to believe that the greek/hebrew actually say one thing, when it was only inferred by the translator.
I feel the same way about dynamic equivalence translations, but find them completely acceptable for bible reading or use in the service, I just prefer a more literal translation for study. You wouldn’t want greek and hebrew texts that had been intentionally altered to reflect current idioms and I don’t want that in my English translations.
I take the apocrypha a bit too personally. It isn’t canon, it isn’t sacred, it does not have equal weight compared to the synoptics or epistles or torah. If the bible pretends that it does…I stay away. Period. On the other hand, NIV Study Bible notes aren’t sacred, or ESV Study Bible notes, or Women of Color study bible notes, or introductory remarks or maps…so if the Apocrypha is treated as distinct from the rest of the canon I would be more open. I spent 20 years thinking Bel and the Dragon and 1 and 2 Maccabbees were the divinely inspired word of God and I don’t look friendly at translations that pretend that is true.
As to the agendas (mainline, gender-inclusive, dynamic, etc.) Like I said before, I depend on translators more than you so I want a nice, clean, literal translation (and a good commentary) so that the translators have fewer opportunities to pull the wool over my eyes. But even with that precaution, wool-pulling is still possible. That is why I care who pulls the wool. I know it is going to get pulled on some texts, I know they are, even with a wooden translation, going to have editorial flexibility. I don’t have the requisite knowledge to accurately compare the various renderings of Leviticus and determine whether the CEB, TNIV, or ESV is more accurate, so I have to trust my translators (On newer translations). I just don’t trust liberal, ecumenical, or mainline translators. I understand their agenda. I understand that even though they try to be faithful translators some texts will (even unintentionally) be translated through their worldview, and I prefer to stay with people I trust.
I know Tom Schreiner will do the same thing, intentionally and unintentionally, I just trust him more to take me to the appropriate destination.
One caveat: If there was a bible translation compiled my mainliners, catholics, heck muslims (I don’t really care) that the universal Christian church all acknowledged as being the most literal, accurate, and free of bias translation ever produced…I would obviously switch to it without reservation. But until then, due to my lack of greek and hebrew expertise, I have to stick to my three rules…literal, readable style, and trusted translators.
@ Robin – have you ever lived and learned to speak, for an extended period of time, in another country with a primary language which isn’t English? Translation that is verbatim from one language to another is often wooden, frequently misunderstood, and too often conveys something other than what is meant. When I was living in Italy, I realized that listening is the primary vehicle toward learning speech, not books, not lexicons, and not class work. The idiomatic elements in each language, culture and historical period prevent clear word-to-word correspondence. Furthermore, the semantic range of one word in one language do not carry into other languages, either. As Scot noted above, the meanings of the Greek δικαιοσύνη translated diversely as “righteousness” or “justice” show more cultural dependence on the Hebrew relational understanding than they do on our western tallying & weighing of comparative sins. ISTM that the best translators are those who have learned to “live” within the text with the writers. Our natural temptation is often to argue with the writers as we translate, rather than to connect with them. According to that Hebrew relational understanding of righteousness, we’d then be much more apt to mistake their intent and meaning!
Robin, fair enough. I value your way of proceeding and wish more would take enough care to consider how it is that they choose a translation.
Barb,
I don’t think any translation is “word for word” but I think the NAS is closer than the TNIV which is closer than the NLT. At least when I read my greek new testament it is very easy to check my translations with an NAS and almost impossible to do so with NIV or looser translations. It doesn’t mean I think they don’t have a place in the church, I just prefer the more literal translations for study.
Also, if I were a pastor (as it seems most people here are) I would definitely consult multiple translations. All of my comments above refer to me choosing one translation to trust day in and day out for my personal study.
Robin,
Ah … NAS is my preferred translation. But many here find that kind of strange.
Re: Addressing a new translation. I try to read like you do, Scot: although with much less experience!
I like read Mark 1. I am always fascinated by the translator’s decisions regarding 1:1 and 1:2. Verses 14 and 15 also get my attention: I want to know how they structure that as well as render metanoeite.
Re: Galatians 2:20. I don’t recall how I landed on the genitive, except that it is a minority reading, and it made sense to me at the time within Galatians. It still does, and it was only in the last year or so, that I learned this was one of the contended passages between NPP folk and the traditional Reformed crowd. (My apologies for the labels: not sure if I’ve represented either well…)
Re: Joel 2:14 and Jonah 3:9. Here again, I usually make some discoveries about the translators. In more contemporary translations, e.g., NAS and NRSV, you find the verb “relent”. Hmm…back to the good ol” KJV, and you get the Hebrew and the Greek rendered correctly: “repent.”
I don’t have any theological axes to grind, but the kind of changes like I cited above create different meanings for the ordinary reader of the Bible: and consequently add to an under-informed doctrine of God. It’s hard to resist some guess as to why such translations are made: the translators don’t want people to ever think that God has to “repent.” And they do so because they are aware that repentance has been misunderstood as only “turning away from sin.”
I probably read some other passages as well, but I usually attend to the above first. I’ll learn to add Romans 3!
I’m a bit late to this one, but I honestly feel that this discussion might best be served by its own post anyway.
I’m very intrigued by the “faith of Christ” vs. “faith in Christ” interpretation. Although I’ve heard the former, on occasion, I don’t really know the intricacies of Greek enough to understand whether or not it is “just as viable” a translation as the (more commonly used) “in Christ” translation. That is to say, if we were somehow able to leave our preconceptions aside, would we really be just about as likely to use one translation or the other? (Is that even a question that makes sense, given the fact that all translation is interpretation, and no interpreter is without bias?)
Anyway, I’d love to see more discussion on that point.
This discussion reminds me of how extremely privileged we English speakers are to have access to
- whole Bibles
- various translations written by numbers of academics working in a team
I reside in the heart of Australia and have been in relationship with Bible translators for 30 years now, party to their discussions, and sometimes strident disagreements, about whether or not dynamic equivalence is the way to go in a translation project.
Some translators have produced Bibles with extensive notes, whereas others have gone with dynamic equivalence. Interestingly, some of those most personally adamant about literal interpretations of Scripture have produced Bible translations that are enormous because they chose dynamic equivalence as their style – translations and commentary blended together. While that may be consistent with their personal worldview it removes some of the interpretation information for the readers.
I hope that we appreciate the choice of English translations that we have on even the most humble of book shelves.
The King James Bible would be much more readable had it been written in the contemporary English at the time instead of the more troublesome archaic English that was used. Also the Bible was written written to be flowing and poetic, rather than plain English, which is less troublesome to read and makes far more sense. I’d like to see what they do with an earlier part of the Old Testament where there were four different writers involved in one area. They are so intertwined haphazardly that to read the area from front to back is rather confusing. When you separate the passages by each author they read just fine, plus make sense.
So, any clarification which makes it clearer what God means to us, and what we mean to God, is a Godsend.
Thanks, Scot. First I’ve heard of this. I tried valiantly for a long time, years back to hold to a more literal translation (actually the NASB which RJS means, NAS is the American Roman Catholic translation). Try as I may, I wanted the best English possible of a faithful translation.
My guess is that this new translation may well become my second Bible behind the NIV (its revision of 2011 coming, so that the TNIV will be gone). Then NRSV might be my third choice, perhaps NLT, etc. We are blessed with so many faithful translations.
Having the apocrypha is a big plus for me. Wish the NIV would do that, but I don’t see it as on the same par as the 66 books.
But just looking at Matthew now, makes me think that this is both a highly readable and highly accurate translation.
I will say that if the NIV comes out with what I believe to be gender inaccurate renderings, abandoning needed changes that the TNIV made, I will be tempted to consider a new translation, and this may indeed fit the bill.
But that is not likely to happen wholesale, and besides, I value good English so highly that from what I’ve seen so far, the NIV is still the best in my book.
Right Ted, thanks – NASB was what I meant.
Actually, RJS, I’m a bit off myself, and your NAS is after all, okay.
NAB is New American Bible, the American Catholic one. I’m used to NASB. ha.
On the issue of gender inclusiveness, I think that Christians need to be very careful with regard to what it is we are defending. The goal, as Scot ably has said, is to “to render into English what is now in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.” You may love or hate the trend in English toward gender inclusive discourse, but that isn’t the same thing as defending the accuracy and integrity of the Bible or a translation of the Bible. Confusion here leads to complaints about someone “selling-out” to political correctness as though this were tantamount to apostasy or an imagined surrender of Biblical revelation. This doesn’t help the conversation much. Rather, it merely substitutes a reactionary politics for an alleged progressive politics. Languages aren’t static, but develop naturally with usage. A translation strategy that seeks to retard a language’s natural development on ideological or economic grounds is just as bad as a translation that may seek to actively direct or advance that development along the same grounds.
The NRSV has been a mixed blessing as far as gender inclusiveness goes. While “brothers and sisters” is simply more accurate as a rendering–especially where the goal is suitability for oral performance in public worship–the stylistic editors had a too-heavy hand and sometimes led to changes in number as well as gender (Ps. 1.1 is a prime example). The NIV tended to be overly-free and I often found myself having to explain and disagree with a translation decision when it was used for lections in our church in Chicago.
This leads finally to the importance of use in translation theory. If the goal is personal study, a literal translation is preferable for the way it makes the original language transparent. For oral performance, however, a freer, smoother, and more refined translation into the receptor language becomes necessary. The dangers are there and no one gets it perfect.
Scot,
I suggest you do a separate post on the phrase “Son of Man” through both the OT & NT. I must confess that I don’t really know what this means, and have always heard it taught as though it was Jesus claiming his humanity (while “Son of God” would therefore claim his divinity). You seem to be saying it’s a Messianic phrase describing representation (i.e. “The representative Human”). The human who represents God? The human who represents the entire race as in a second Adam type of role? I’d like to see a post on it personally.
I should add that for the balance of formality/register, readability, and accuracy, I’ve found it difficult to improve on the RSV for use in our Anglican parish. The ESV is a good near-sibling, but our lectionary includes deuterocanonical/apocryphal readings, so I’m eager to see the new ESV with the 2009 apocrypha (though the limits of the single, hardback edition are pretty well known).
One quick comment re: Fr. Michael’s comment:
“While “brothers and sisters” is simply more accurate as a rendering–especially where the goal is suitability for oral performance in public worship–the stylistic editors had a too-heavy hand and sometimes led to changes in number as well as gender (Ps. 1.1 is a prime example).”
Just because a number is change may not be an inaccuracy in the way this sentence presupposes, but merely another reflection of how English has changed. “They” is often used in a singular sense today, which was not true a mere few decades ago. If, by using “they” in such a singular sense, a translation is more accurate in regard to gender (that is, an exclusionary factor not present in the original text is not introduced), I’m all for it.
For preaching, I use the NIV, because most use it and it is very readable. For teaching, I use the NASB, because passage for passage, it through the years seems best in rendering the original languages into english, albeit it is not as readable and is sometimes downright awkward.
For personal study I use the greek or hebrew with NASB and a parallel bible text. for NT study I use the Precise Parallel New Testament. With seven translations, one quickly gets a clear view of the translation issues and choices each passage presents.
For devotional reading, I use the Message, jusr to shake and rattle things up and think about passages in a new way.
Mark,
I don’t disagree with regard to how English usage has changed, but in Ps. 1 particularly the dynamic of the Psalm is that of a solitary righteous person (ha’ish) in a sea of unrighteous persons. I think that “they” obscures this dynamic and muddies the Davidic-Christological theological intentions of the editors of the Psalter. The gender inclusivity issue could be easily resolved by translating “blessed is the one.”
This is why the translators ought to always have veto power over stylistic editions in a translation project.
I’ve long felt that blessed is off the mark when translated happy, for several reasons, most of which have to do with the temporal, emotional aspects of happiness, when compared to “the joy of the Lord,” as an example.
A quick word study shows a lot of support for “spiritually prosperous,” or other similar ideas. That fits far better for me.