Category: Translation Theory
The CBT respond to the SBC regarding its banning of the NIV!
Is that enough acronyms for you? I thought some of our more nerdy readers (myself included) might be interested to read the Committee for Bible Translation’s response to the Southern Baptist Convention’s banning of the NIV 2011. (For the full response see Daniel Thompson’s post).
One of the reasons I like the NIV 2011 (I was never a fan of the NIV 84 but liked the TNIV) is because of the scholars on the committee itself. What is not to like from this list?
Finally I reiterate what I have said previously: I am left wondering why the SBC felt compelled only discourage the NIV. What about the NLT, NRSV and any other translation which uses gender inclusive language? Surely a better and more Christlike way would have been to commend to members of the SBC translations they felt reflected their theological approach thus admitting in a spirit of humility that they may be wrong. Instead of pointing out what is wrong perhaps folks in the church would be better served by being directed towards translations like the ESV and HCSB. My own denomination recommends the NRSV because it feels it is the most accurate of the English translations (I disagree. As much as I like and use the NRSV I much prefer the TNIV and NIV2011 as it is more readable) however, it would never suggest to its members that any translation should be banned . I fear when a denomination, any denomination, gets to the point singling out and banning a particular translation of the Bible they have crossed the line into idolatry. Perhaps the SBC would better served by only using the Hebrew and Greek?
Anyway, I cannot speak highly enough of the NIV 2011!
Why are the Original Languages important?
A few years ago one of my NT professors told me secretly that he did not believe knowing Greek and Hebrew was really all that important for most pastors. He argued most would never achieve the level of expertise required to make an informed decision on the many linguistic difficulties of a text and would rely on commentaries for advice. Furthermore, he argued that there are so many different English translations now original language knowledge is far less important. I disagreed and went on to do Hebrew and Greek.
I have recently been thinking about what this professor of mine said and wondering why we think pastors should know Greek and Hebrew. Is it really that important for preaching? Is it possible to determine from four or five good English translations what might be a faithful understanding of what the text says? Personally I rarely focus any part of my sermon on a word study, so do I need to start with the Greek or Hebrew when preparing a sermon. Am I better served in fact by beginning in my native tongue?
I have my own opinion on this and will share it at a later time. I do think langauges are important for pastors but my reasons maybe different to others. Therefore, I am wondering what you think. Are Greek and Hebrew important for pastors and if so, why? Why did you learn Greek and Hebrew and why did or didn’t you keep it up?
More anon…
NRSV, Dave Black and Bruce Metzger…
On Saturday (Aussie time) I mentioned that I had grown to appreciate an old Bible I had all but done away with. Well Dave Black has recommended an article by Bruce Metzger on the NRSV and inclusive language. I will be sure to check it out at the library tomorrow!
Dave writes:
6:04 PM Mark Stevens has rediscovered the value of the NRSV. Mark, in Scribes and Scripture: New Testament Essays in Honor of J. Harold Greenlee (which I was privileged to present to Harold at the annual SBL meeting in 1992), Bruce Metzger contributed an excellent essay on translational issues in the NRSV New Testament (he served as General Editor). If your theological library has a copy of this book, I think you’d enjoy reading Metzger’s essay. Among other hot button issues he discusses is the use of inclusive language.
Thanks Dave!
As an aside, I have started reading Dave’s book on the four gospels he graciously sent me a few week ago. I am enjoying the challenge of a different perspective. A review is forthcoming!
Translating δίκαιον in Various French Versions of 1 John 2.1
In a previous post I discussed how the translation of δίκαιον in 1 Jn. 2.1 in the Louis Segond French Bible influenced how I understood the text in contrast to several English translations (see here). For most English translators Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father because he is “the righteous”. Since in English “righteousness” indicates moral uprightness more than it does legal justice the implication of the translation seems to be that Jesus is our advocate because of his moral perfection on behalf of our immorality.
In the Segond translation he is called le juste. While I am a novice at reading French (actually, I have just begun) it came across to me as more of a legal justice. Jesus is our advocate with the Father and he is trustworthy in this role because he is just. In other words, we have no fear of misrepresentation–Jesus will be a (more than) fair advocate.
I wondered aloud if the French translation wanted to have the same connotations as most English translations if vertueux would have been preferable since it has a moral flavor to it. I decided I would look at some other French translations to see if any depart from Segond. Of all the translations to which I have access–BFC, DRB, FBJ, NEG, and TOB along with LSG (Segond)–there is a unanimous use of something related to juste.
I am wondering if there is anyone out there will a solid understanding of the French language who can tell me whether or not juste would be read by a native French speaker as indicating legislative justice or moral righteousness. It may be that such a division would not exist in the mind of a French speaker. I do not know. If you are out there I would appreciate your feedback.
The Implications of Translation Decisions: 1 John 2.1 in English and French
I have been attempting to read through 1 John (or should I say 1 Jean) in the Louis Segond translation of the French Bible in order to gain more familiarity with the language for my theological French course. I know this is not a brilliant observation but it occured to me (a novice) that the translation decision has an important impact on how I understood what I was reading.
In 1 Jn 2.1 most English translations render the Greek word δίκαιον as “righteous”:
…Jesus Christ the righteous. (ESV)
…Jesus Christ the righteous. (NASB)
…Jesus Christ the righteous. (NKJV)
…Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. (NIV)
And even more descriptive:
…Jesus Christ, the one who is truley righteous. (NLT)
I know the English word “righteous” has a broad range much like the Greek δίκαιον. Both can mean anything from godly or moral to just or in the right. For whatever reason when an English translation decides to use the word “righteous” it makes me think in moral terminology with less of a legal emphasis.
Therefore, in English, I .tend to think of this passage as saying Jesus Christ is our advocate before the Father and his trustworthiness is dependent upon his moral uprightness. When I read this verse in the French Bible it says “… Jésus Christ le juste.” I am unsure about the etymological range of juste but it seems that the word vertueux would have been chosen, since it has connotations refering to virtue and moral goodness, if the same translation theory was being implemented.
When I read it in French I am inclined to think of this passage as saying Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father and he is just; therefore, we will not be misrepresented but we can count on Jesus to be our faithful representative.
I said all that to say that translation matters. Likewise, our presuppositions about the meaning of words matters. How we render the text impacts the way it is understood (which again, I know is obvious)!
