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.
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):
*******
I have never noticed anything you’ve said on Bible translation to be distasteful. Thanks for your good spirit about the issue. I have no problem with people handling the issue like you do. For example, I recall you very humbling telling me something like this back in 2007: “I think that Dr. Carson may be on the wrong side on this one.” I have no problem with someone taking that position on at least four conditions:
- They understand the opposing position, which involves learning the best arguments for that position, often by careful reading.
- They respectfully and accurately portray the opposing position, and they can articulate its objections to their own position. (Cf. Tim Keller’s effective apologetic method: “Articulate their objections to Christian living and belief better than they can do it themselves.”)
- They don’t blow the issue out of proportion.
- They don’t despise or slander the opposing position or people who hold it.
Unfortunately, some people (not limited to advocates of any one translation philosophy) haven’t sufficiently done 1–3, and that may result in other people (with good motives) being guilty of all four (e.g., watch the recent SBC Resolution against the updated NIV; cf. CBT’s response).
*******
Related:
- How Not to Argue about Which Bible Translation Is Best
- The Best All-Around Book on Bible Translation
- Reproduce the Meaning
- Thank God for Good Bible Translators and Translations
Update on 3/31/2017: In my latest attempt to explain how to interpret and apply the Bible, I include a chapter on Bible translation (pp. 50–81).
Share: Themes for further reading: *Featured, English Standard Version (ESV), Pastoral […]
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).
I know it’s very popular to talk about Bible translation in these terms — pitting formal against functional — but I think it’s misleading. In my experience, using that terminology masks some of the real issues and makes the conversation harder. I think it can also perpetuate a misunderstanding of the role of form in translation.
-Joel
Thanks, Joel.
I agree that translation is extraordinarily complex. That’s one reason I use the words “spectrum” and “more” (to indicate degrees on the spectrum), and that’s why Fee and Strauss nuance the issue further in their book. They don’t “pit” them against each other; they recognize considerable overlap within translations they’ve included on the above spectrum. This formal-to-functional spectrum isn’t the only way to analyze translations, but I think it’s a helpful one.
Andy,
I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about the NIV 2011? I have little quarrel with the translation choices, but I do find that some of the literary elegance was lost in striving for gender neutrality. Take Psalm 1:3, for example. “That person is like a tree planted by streams of water . . . .” The problem I have is that, while such a rendering may be accurate, it is no longer poetry. Rather, it’s bland propositional prose. So I guess my question is, where does style come into the translation equation? Do Fee and Strauss speak to that in the book? Or is it just about conveying the text’s meaning?
Thanks.
Good questions, Craig.
1. Translation is extremely complicated because there are so many factors involved and because no translation can exactly duplicate the original. Translators have to make trade-offs and compromises.
2. “Literary elegance” is not entirely objective. E.g., would you argue that “he is like a tree” is poetry while “that person is like a tree” is not poetry? Further complicating matters is that Hebrew poetry, unlike most English poetry, is rhyme of thought, not rhyme of sound.
3. Since many people who speak modern English might misunderstand “he” to be masculine rather than generic, the CBT decided that “that person” is the most gender-accurate translation of Ps 1:3. Even if that’s not the translation you prefer, their decision is at least responsible and respectable.
4. Yes, Fee and Strauss talk about these sorts of issues throughout their book.
Andy,
Thanks for the reply. And please don’t misunderstand me: I agree completely that the translation is both accurate and responsible (whereas many others would not). My only quibble is that, due to the lack of a gender-neutral equivalent in English, accuracy sometimes comes with a price—in this case (and others), a very clinical rendering (IMHO). It’s unavoidable, I know. But regrettable nonetheless.
Blessings,
Craig
I appreciate your final 4 points. Well said. I may quote you… :)
Rod
Note that the antecedent of the each “They” in those four points is the singular “someone.” (I noticed that after I wrote it.)
Andy,
Just a quick note to express my appreciation for your recent series of posts on translation philosophies. I especially appreciated this post and the helpful guidelines on how to discuss differences over the relative merits of Bible translations and the different philosophies behind them in a way that’s fair, productive, and humble.
Also, after our recent time of fellowship, I purchased the NIV 2011 for my Olive Tree Bible reader and have been using it for my devotional reading. So far, I’m finding it helpful.
Will the NIV 2011 Study Bible include many translational notes like those found in the NET Bible? I realize that some of the tn’s in the NET are unnecessary and make for too much footnote material. But some of the tn’s are helpful. At times, it can be helpful to know the original syntactical structure (especially in Hebrew). For that reason, I like the idea of a good DE translation that also includes translational notes that highlight potentially important syntactical structures, wordplays, repetition, etc., that might otherwise be obscured in a DE translation.
Thanks, Bob.
Good question. Some of the notes may be similar to the translator’s notes in the NET Bible, but the flavor will be more like a succinct commentary (esp. one that makes biblical-theological connections).