Retranslating, for the sake of argument

Isn't it frustrating when people argue from their own translation of Scripture, or from a non-standard rendering of Scripture, to prove a point!

I think we would all want to say Amen to that when someone else is doing it, but might want to support doing this in our own individual case!

Discussion can be tricky if your opponent only accepts one translation as authoritative, such as the King James Version or New World Translation, for example.

On Sunday, our minister preached a terrific message from 1 Samuel 17, the story of David and Goliath. He made the point that the whole passage is about Goliath and the Philistines defying God and that the Hebrew word translated defy, or a word related to it, occurs over and over in the passage.

Sometimes the word was translated with a different English word in most English versions [though, interestingly the New Living Translation used the word defiance in 1 Sam 17:26, where most other well-known versions don't].

In this case, it was helpful to be told what the original said, even though it didn't show up in our NIVs [or even, whisper, whisper ESVs].

But I think it is a fair point that if you have to retranslate a passage to make your point, you should think about making it from another passage which you don't have to retranslate.

Wise words on Bible translations and translating

Craig Blomberg's review of Leland Ryken's The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation makes some excellent points about Bible translation in a short space. It contains interesting comments about the NIV and TNIV, including this:

But it is when Ryken attempts to make generalizations about a wide variety of translations that are all lumped together under the heading of dynamic equivalence that more serious problems result. Far more helpful are approaches that speak of a spectrum of translations from the most literal to the most free and then place each translation at its appropriate point on the spectrum.

Ryken does acknowledge early on that the NIV is the most conservative of the dynamic equivalence translations, but even that is not quite an accurate summary.

Independent analysts have more helpfully described it as attempting to carve out a middle position between the purer forms of consistently literal and consistently dynamic equivalent translations. As someone who most often uses the NIV for public ministry and has read the entire New Testament in comparison with the Greek, I can attest that it is closer to an "essentially literal" translation in far more instances than than those in which it resembles the "pure" dynamic-equivalence model of Eugene Nida, the Good News Bible and the United Bible Societies' numerous other modern-language translations (the real target of Ryken's book, it would seem).

By consistently citing the minority of places where the NIV is freer, Ryken creates a warped and unduly negative view of the translation overall. Sadly, Ryken falls prey to the common, recent misconception of the TNIV as freer still. Whatever one thinks about the use of inclusive language for generic masculine terminology in Scripture for humanity (and it is clear Ryken doesn't think very much of it), it remains a fact that more than 70% of the changes in the TNIV from the NIV have nothing to do with gender. In those changes, the TNIV moves back in the direction of a more essentially literal rendering three times as often as it moves in the direction of a more dynamically equivalent rendering. I know; I have counted them!

On the other hand, it is also a bit unfair to criticize versions at the freest end of the spectrum, most notably the old Living Bible Paraphrased (LBP) and Eugene Peterson's more recent "The Message." Neither of these versions even claims to be dynamically equivalent. The Old Living Bible was a paraphrase, pure and simple, based on the English ASV, authored by Ken Taylor, to make the Bible come alive for his kids.

It was, quite frankly, the only thing that got me regularly reading Scripture as a newly converted fifteen-year old in 1970. I was bright enough to manage the NASB or RSV (the only other more literal options apart from the KJV in those years); they just never "grabbed" me. Years later I relished the chance to work on the NLT (New Living Translation) team to convert the LBP into a truly dynamic-equivalent translation, but I never recommend it to anyone except to supplement the reading of a more literal translation to generate freshness and new insights, unless they are kids or very poor adult readers. My sixteen- and twelve-year old daughters have been weaned on the NLT and have loved it, but both already on their own are now frequently turning to the NIV. As for "The Message," it is freer even than a paraphrase--I think of it more as devotional literature than as a version of the Bible and wouldn't recommend it for any other role.

But repeatedly, in Ryken's illustrations, the NIV is lumped together with the LBP, NLT or "The Message," when it is overall in fact far closer to the more essentially literal translations Ryken commends than to these other three.

New NIV

I was interested to learn yesterday that there will be a new NIV revision published in 2011, to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.

I look forward to this new update of the NIV and hope it will be better received than the TNIV of 2005 was.

I have enjoyed reading the NIV and the TNIV, but also appreciate many other contemporary translations, including the New Jerusalem Bible, the New Living Translation, 2nd edition, the Good News Bible [Australian edition] and the ESV.

It is unfortunate that some Christians feel they have to favour one version and then shout abuse at the translators of other versions.

We are privileged to have many excellent contemporary translations, and we are the poorer if we do not make use of them.

I pray that God will guide the translators of this new version, as I believe he did when they originally produced the first version of the NIV.

Predictions:
1. When the new NIV is released, it will be even more similar to the ESV than it already is. [Although some will dispute their similarity, I have read both through completely and have discovered that they are much more alike than many folk would like to admit.]

I am guessing that the use of gender-inclusive language in both versions [which is currently an obvious difference between the NIV and ESV, and to a lesser extent, between the TNIV and ESV] will be fairly similar.

2. Those who have continued to use the NIV, despite the strident campaign by ESV promoters, will be pleased with the update and find less reason to change over to the ESV, which may be one of the NIV publisher's objectives.

The best study Bible?

The ESV Study Bible is the best I have used so far. I highly recommend it, but advise that if you want to understand the Bible, read it firstly without notes and guides.

If you read the Bible prayerfully, as if it is the Word of God, I believe you will find that

it seems to be,
clearly claims to be
and ultimately proves to be indeed from God himself, though written by men.

Over the past 3 years or so I have read through the Bible seven times in seven different versions, including the TNIV [updated NIV Bible], a special presentation of the TNIV called "The Books of the Bible", The New Living Translation, 2nd edition and the Good News Bible, Australian edition. Each of these is well worth reading, and better if you read it alongside other Bibles.

I have also read the ESV Reformation Study Bible, the NIV Archaeological Study Bible and the New Jerusalem Study Bible and have found each of them worth reading.

The Reformation Study Bible is useful for coming to grips with Reformed Theology and some Bible background.

Zondervan's Archaeological Study Bible is a great help in digging into the Bible's background [whoops!], but fairly light on theology.

I like the way The New Jerusalem Study Bible uses the Hebrew words for God, such as Yahweh, Shaddai and El Elyon, though mercifully it does not use Elohim, but renders it as "God." It also has many interesting renderings of words that you have become familiar with in the many Bible versions which seek to follow in the Wyclif-Tyndale-KJV tradition. But its study notes are written from a critical position which assumes that the Bible is fallible and not God's inerrant Word, and these notes did not help me to get to know the divine author any better.

The ESV Study Bible has 2 million words, 750,000 of which is the biblical text itself. It has a wealth of useful articles, resources, many terrific maps, introductions to each section of the Bible and each Bible book and extensive study notes on the ESV text.

It has taken me from 3 to 6 months to read through each of the other seven versions, but be warned: if you really want to read this whole Bible through [which I enthusiastically urge you to do AFTER you've read the Bible without study note help], it may take you about three years, based on my experience so far. This would be well worth doing, but you will need to plan it. There are excellent Bible reading plans available from the producers of the Bible on their website, which also contains the complete text of the Study Bible and makes ploughing through the many Bible references in the articles much easier to do.

What are you waiting for?

NIV bashing

I've been reading David Jackson's Crying Out for Vindication, which is part of The Gospel According to the Old Testament series.

It is an interesting, insightful book which I warmly recommend, but I was sorry to see this statement on page 50, commenting on translating Job 3:24.

The New International Version gives us a tame and euphemistic translation of the words Job uses here. Roaring and bellowing would seem to be closer to the meaning of the text.

But most translations do seem to render verse 24 pretty similarly:

For sighing comes to me instead of food; my groans pour out like water. NIV
For my sighing cometh before I eat, And my groanings are poured out like water. American Standard Version
For my sighing comes as my bread, and my groanings are poured out like water.RSV
For my sighing comes like my bread, and my groanings are poured out like water.
NRSV
For my sighing comes instead of my bread, and my groanings are poured out like water.
ESV
For my sighing comes before I eat, And my groanings pour out like water. NKJV
For my sighing comes in place of my food, and my groanings flow forth like water. New English Translation [NET]
My only food is sighs, and my groans pour out like water. New Jerusalem Bible
I cannot eat for sighing; my groans pour out like water. New Living Translation, 2nd edition
When my food is in front of me, I sigh. I pour out my groaning like water. God's Word to the Nations

The only translations I can find which differ are the King James Version

For my sighing cometh before I eat, and my roarings are poured out like the waters.

and the New American Standard Version

For my groaning comes at the sight of my food, And my cries pour out like water.

The translators of the NIV have many that agree with them and are certainly not standing out from the crowd in the way they rendered this verse [which they continued to do in the TNIV].

Jackson goes on to cite other places in Scripture where the words come out more forcefully in English and makes a fair case for a stronger rendering in Job 3.

Do you think there was a conspiracy between the translators, or do you think they had good reasons for not speaking of a man as roaring?

In drawing attention to this bit of NIV-bashing, I'm not aiming to make you wary of David Jackson or his book, because I think it is a valuable one which I hope you will read and ponder, but I'm merely commenting that it is worth checking whether a rendering in one version has also been adopted in others, and if so, allowing the translators some credit for their reasons for their decision.