Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Andy Naselli

Reproduce the Meaning

by

That’s the goal of Bible translation. If you speak more than one language, then you can easily think of more examples like the ones below.

Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 25.

There is a common perception among many Bible readers that the most accurate Bible translation is a “literal” one. By literal they usually mean one that is “word-for-word,” that is, one that reproduces the form of the original Greek or Hebrew text as closely as possible. Yet anyone who has ever studied a foreign language soon learns that this is mistaken. Take, for example, the Spanish sentence, ¿Como se llama? A literal (word-for-word) translation would be, “How yourself call?” Yet any first-year Spanish student knows that is a poor translation. The sentence means (in good idiomatic English) “What’s your name?” The form must be changed to express the meaning.

Consider another example. The German sentence Ich habe Hunger means, literally, “I have hunger.” [Read more…] about Reproduce the Meaning

How to Disagree about Bible Translation Philosophy

by

This is a follow-up to my post yesterday about Bible translation.

I’m grateful for different Bible translations on the spectrum from the more formal equivalent (like the NASB) to the more functional equivalent (like the NLT). While a mediating translation like the NIV may be optimal overall, I respect the other translation philosophies and benefit immensely from their translations.

Fee and Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, p. 28

I have a lot of friends who advocate a more formal equivalent philosophy and who prefer the ESV as the all-around optimal translation. I respect that. (The last two churches I’ve been a member of use primarily the ESV, and the one before that uses primarily the NASB.)

This is what I emailed one of those friends yesterday (slightly edited): [Read more…] about How to Disagree about Bible Translation Philosophy

The Best All-Around Book on Bible Translation

by

Next month I’m planning to teach a class called “Greek Reading” at Faith Bible Seminary, and they asked me to devote a half-day to the topic of Bible translation.

I’ve spent a good deal of time studying New Testament Greek. For example:

  • I’ve read the Greek New Testament almost daily since 1998.
  • I took ten semesters of Greek in college and seminary (not including many other courses that built on that foundation), finishing with Don Carson’s “Advanced Greek Grammar.”
  • I passed Greek proficiency exams at two seminaries.
  • I graded Greek proficiency exams at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
  • I passed the comprehensive exams that Don Carson wrote for my PhD in NT at Trinity, which requires the student to sight-read the Greek NT.
  • I’ve taught nearly twenty introductory and intermediate semester-long Greek courses on the college and seminary level.
  • I’ve written papers and publications that deal largely with Greek exegesis.

But my knowledge of NT Greek is merely novice-level compared to the best NT professors and Bible translators. Further, I had never thoroughly studied the topic of Bible translation.

This class has given me the opportunity to read over 100 books and articles in my library on Bible translation. As with just about any subject, the more you study it, the more you realize how much you don’t know. (That’s one reason I’m planning to interview Craig Blomberg during class next month.)

I recommend other helpful resources at the end of this post, but one book stands out as the best all-around resource on Bible translation that I’m aware of:

Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

It has at least seven strengths: [Read more…] about The Best All-Around Book on Bible Translation

The Worst Thing about Idols

by

“The worst thing about idols, as the Hebrew scriptures so tirelessly point out, is that they are utterly useless when you need them most (Jer. 2:28).”

—Christopher J. H. Wright, “Editorial: ‘All Our Gods Have Failed,’” Themelios 18, no. 3 (1993): 3:

One-Issue Organizations

by

I still remember one of my theology professors taking our class to a room with a piano in it. He sat down at the piano and presented a “Middle C concert” to us. He just kept hitting Middle C over and over.

His point was that that’s a bad way to do theology because truth is truth proportionally.

And that’s a danger for one-issue organizations—whether they are advocating a particular view of worship, creation, gender roles, revival, or whatever—because they tend to overemphasize the importance of their one issue:

[I]t often seems to be the case that organizations with such narrow focus and which have been formed for the conscious purpose of advocating that position in opposition to a position viewed as biblically flawed . . . tend to over-speak their case.

—Rodney J. Decker, “The English Standard Version: A Review Article,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 8, no. 2 (2004): 11n17.

I’m not opposed to one-issue organizations in principle; I happily support some and thank God for them. I’m merely pointing out a common weakness.

Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with the Bible

by

Wayne Grudem, “Foreword,” in Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Biblical and Scientific Responses (ed. Norman C. Nevin; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2011), 9–10:

This is a highly significant book because it persuasively argues that Christians cannot accept modern evolutionary theory without also compromising essential teachings of the Bible.

It may at first seem easy to say ‘God simply used evolution to bring about the results he desired’, as some are proposing today. That view is called ‘theistic evolution’. However, the contributors to this volume, both scientists and biblical scholars, show that adopting theistic evolution leads to many positions contrary to the teaching of the Bible, such as these: [Read more…] about Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with the Bible

Sympathetic Evangelicalism

by

Fred Sanders, The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 15–19 (numbering added):

[Th]e most strategic decision we ever make is the decision of what to emphasize.

Evangelicalism has always been concerned to underline certain elements of the Christian message.

  1. We have a lot to say about God’s revelation, but we emphasize the business end of it, where God’s voice is heard normatively: the Bible.
  2. We know that everything Jesus did has power for salvation in it, but we emphasize the one event that is literally crucial: the cross.
  3. We know that God is at work on his people through the full journey of their lives, from the earliest glimmers of awareness to the ups and downs of the spiritual life, but we emphasize the hinge of all spiritual experience: conversion.
  4. We know there are countless benefits that flow from being joined to Christ, but we emphasize the big one: heaven.

Bible, cross, conversion, heaven. These are the right things to emphasize. But in order to emphasize anything, you must presuppose a larger body of truth to select from. . . . [Read more…] about Sympathetic Evangelicalism

Why Drawing Lines Is Utterly Crucial

by

D. A. Carson, “On Drawing Lines, When Drawing Lines Is Rude,” ch. 8 in The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 347–67 (numbering added):

[The point of this chapter is] to ponder briefly some of the reasons why drawing lines is utterly crucial at the moment.

  1. Truth demands it.
  2. The distinction between orthodoxy and heresy models it.
  3. The plurality of errors calls for it.
  4. The entailments of the gospel confront our culture—and must be lived out.