Browsed by
Tag: RSV

On Prettying-Up the Bible (In Reply to @drbobcwcc and @RevKindle)

On Prettying-Up the Bible (In Reply to @drbobcwcc and @RevKindle)

Does the Bible need some improvements, if not in content, at least in presentation? That’s one way to put the question addressed by Rev. Steve Kindle in a guest post on Dr. Bob Cornwall’s blog. I want to make some fairly picky comments on this post. As I do so, I want you to be aware that I generally applaud the goals of this post, even while disagreeing in detail.

My previous experience with prettying-up the Bible involves the violent passages. I previously reviewed Jack Blanco’s book (I have trouble calling it a translation), the Clear Word Bible. Some of his renderings are much more comfortable reading than the original, but I haven’t been able to conceive of a paradigm that would allow me to think of them as accurate. I often think, however, that some of the violent passages of scripture are saved from revision largely because so few people read them. Numbers 31 has the advantage of being in a portion of scripture rarely consulted by Christians. When they do consult it, they are often shocked and wish it would go away.

Besides honesty (or accuracy), there is a problem with smoothing out the past. It conceals the nature of scripture, of the experience with God that comes from different people at different times. Seeing trajectories of change in scripture will change our approach to how we get from the words in the book to ethical action in our world.

Rev. Kindle is primarily addressing gender language. This is a fairly controversial topic in modern Bible translation. Translations have been excluded from certain Christian book stores because of the way the represent gender. As is often the case, however, the issue was much more how one was perceived to represent gender. The same store carried other Bible translations that used gender neutral renderings. These other versions were simply less well-known. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is very involved in these issues from a conservative point of view, and are opposed by the Christians for Biblical Equality. In perusing these sites, one can see that there is a great deal of weight put on these issues in church doctrine and politics.

What is unusual in Rev. Kindle’s presentation is that it comes from a progressive Christian who supports equality. He supports gender neutral language in many endeavors, excluding one:

I am all for the use of gender neutral terms for God in all church settings including sermons, liturgies, and conversations. But when it comes to inclusive language in Bible translations, I must object.

There is a valid distinction between those fields of endeavor. There is a great deal of difference between determining the way I will discuss God and the way I will translate. Do I refer to god solely with masculine pronouns? Do I avoid the use of pronouns at all? Those questions involve different issues when I am translating the apostle Paul, for example, as opposed to expressing my own theology. I am not a pastor, a liturgist, or a theologian. My studies were in biblical languages, and I’m a publisher. I’m interested in the words.

And that’s where we tend to get into trouble.

Whats in a Version?Most people, in my experience, view Bible translation as a singular effort, one with a definite, definable goal. I encounter this attitude almost every time I speak or teach or any other time someone manages to connect my face with my book, What’s in a Version?. The question I’m most often asked is: What is the best Bible version? Sometimes there’s a variant: What’s the most accurate Bible version?

But those questions reflect the problem. On the cover of my book I have a one-line answer: The best Bible version is the one you read!

Surely that’s a horrible answer! There have to be bad Bible translations, and I could be reading one of them! And yes, it’s not a complete answer, yet it does make a point. The task of Bible translation is not singular. There is no one “most accurate” Bible translation. There is no single “most readable” translation. In order to answer that common question I have to know who the questioner is. What is the best Bible version for you? I also need to know the activity in view. What is the best Bible version for you to use for devotional reading? What is the best Bible version to use in your study group? What is the best Bible version to use from the pulpit?

The reason is that one cannot transfer the entire meaning of a a source text into any target language. You are going to lose something. The question is what?

Let me take a short digression here. When I discuss loss of meaning I do not mean solely between the text of the source language and the tip of the pen (or the little pixels on the computer screen) of the translator. I mean loss of meaning between what a well-qualified reader of the source language could get from the source text itself, and what a reader of the target language can get from the text in the target language. There is no great value in a text which is accurate in an abstract sense, but is not understood accurately by actual readers. It follows from this that a translation must consider who is to read the text in order to determine how to express thoughts from the source accurately.

Further, understanding comes in different forms. Do I emotionally “get” the story told? Do I comprehend the facts that are narrated? Am I swept away by the literary beauty of the passage? Can I place myself in the shoes of those whose story is told, or who might have first heard the story? All of these things are desirable to various extents at various times, but successfully conveying them is not easy. In fact, it’s impossible to do everything at once. I cannot, for example, convey the rhetorical impact of the Greek of To The Hebrews while also making every point of theology clear to an American audience.

I know readers will object that it is up to teachers and preachers to get the theology right, and they may be correct, but that is a choice in what will be translated. I could then say, “Translation X conveys the theology of Hebrews with great clarity, while translation Y gives one a feel for the literary tour-de-force executed by the author.” The author, however, was intending to convey his (or her, I must concede) theological points in a powerful and compelling exhortation. Where do I compromise?

This is why some have commented on the irenic tone of my book. It’s not that I’m such a peaceable personality, or that I am a great peacemaker, though I would love to be. The reason is that I believe that there are many possible goals for Bible translation and that there are many audiences for which one might translate. Thus there are many possible ways in which one can (and should) translate, so I have less of a tendency to condemn any particular rendering. I do not mean that all translations are equal. I do not mean that there are no wrong translations. I simply mean that there are multiple right translations within various parameters.

I am disturbed when I hear preachers and teachers refer to translations that are supported by significant numbers of scholars as “mistaken” or just as “errors in translation.” This presents the task of translation as too simple. There are many legitimate disagreements which should be referenced as such. Reserve the word “error” for a translation that cannot be justified.

But to get back to the gender issue, Bob, in his introduction brings it up,

Thus, the New Revised Standard Version and the Common English Bible will, where the translators deem appropriate, translate a word like adelphoi, the Greek word for brother as “brothers and sisters.”

and Rev. Kindle uses similar phraseology (9th paragraph from the end):

“Member” here is literally, “brother.”

I have been accused of not giving users of the word “literal” the sort of latitude I give with any other word, i.e. recognizing that words have different meanings. The problem with “literal,” especially in circumstances such as these, is that it is extremely susceptible to equivocation. As its use has developed in the language, it is often heard as “accurate” or “faithful” when those who use it intend something more like “simple,” “direct,” or “most common meaning.”

In this case I would disagree with the usage in either case. The Greek word adelphos or its plural adelphoi may have as its referent either a male person (or group of males, as appropriate), or a person of undefined gender, or a group of both men and women. It is probably significant that the masculine form was used in both cases, though it is very easy to take grammatical gender too far in translating a language in which grammatical and natural gender do not match.

Similarly, until recently (change is still in progress) we used “he” to refer to a generic person in English, and “men” and “brethren” to refer to groups of mixed gender. In groups I have been able to survey informally, there seems to be a break right around 40 years of age (adjusted for the passage of time) as to how this usage is understood. Older people will understand “brethren” as including both genders when a group is addressed, while younger ones do not. A pastor illustrated this to me very clearly when he objected to the NRSV because of its gender neutral language. He couldn’t see how “brothers and sisters” was an accurate translation of adelphoi, so he would stick to the more accurate (in his view) RSV. The next Sunday he was reading scripture and he came to a passage in Paul where the apostle was clearly addressing an entire congregation. He stopped, looked up, and said, “And that includes you sisters too!” Clearly he knew some in his congregation would not hear the passage as inclusively as it was intended.

This would apply differently in different passages. For example:

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism (James 2:1, NIV, from #BibleGateway).

The words “brothers and sisters” here translated the Greek adelphoi. I think it unlikely that James intended men in the congregation to eschew favoritism, while the women were allowed to practice it. He addresses the whole congregation. Yet if I read the usage of the English language correctly, a congregation with people largely below the age of forty would hear the passage as excluding women if we used the “literal” translation “brothers.”

On the other hand, we have James 3:1:

Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1, NIV, from #BibleGateway).

Now here we have a historical decision to make. My belief is that there were many more women teaching in the early church than we have imagined. This is not the place to argue the point. If, on the other hand, one believes that only men were permitted to teach, this would lose historical information as translated by the NIV, as “fellow believers” is here also a translation of the Greek adelphoi. (Another interesting question is whether “fellow believers” or “brothers and sisters” is the more literal rendering of adelphoi. But I will avoid diving into the morass of meanings for the word “literal” that would evoke.)

This is different, however, from the kind of effort made by The Inclusive Bible, which changes many cases in which the original intent of the passage, by which I mean in this case the original referent, is not inclusive. The passage Rev. Kindle quotes from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, for example, if it is original to the epistle (I believe, with Gordon Fee, that it is not), certainly is not intended as inclusive. That case is very different from either of the cases I referenced in the book of James.

These cases should be handled differently, according to the nature of the audience and the usage in the target language. Right now we are somewhat in transition on inclusive language in English, and that will complicate the work of the translator, and even the liturgist. Something that is heard one way by part of the congregation may be heard in the opposite way by another.

In addition, we need to recognize multiple goals in the use of our ancient texts. We do not translate just to convey data. We also translate for liturgy, for devotion, for prayer, for meditation, and for other goals. The particular way we handle the material at hand must take this different uses into consideration. There are certainly illegitimate translations (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 above from The Inclusive Bible, and many Old Testament passages from The Clear Word, for example) but there are also multiple legitimate goals and multiple audiences to which the translator will hope to convey something of the source text.

Communism and Bible Translation

Communism and Bible Translation

Bible translators and those who discuss that work know quite well that translation produces controversy, sometimes quite virulent controversy. One of the great watersheds in American church history was the publication of the RSV and the fight that followed. Though many of these issues are still quite alive today, the battle lines have largely shifted to other issues such as gender neutral or gender accurate language.

In turns out that the Methodist church, or at least some Methodist clergy were pretty thoroughly involved in the incident I want to recount. In the days of Joseph McCarthy and his red hunting, it should not be surprising that reds were “discovered” on the RSV translation committee. It won’t surprise any Methodists that one bishop was accused, G. Bromley Oxnam, among other church leaders. I should note that being accused by McCarthy had no evidentiary value–he’d accuse anybody.

Peter J. Thuesen, in the book In Discordance with the Scriptures [link is to my book note], notes that J. B. Matthews, a Methodist minister, and one-time communist sympathizer himself, was hired by HUAC. He had written in an article in American Mercury that “. . .the Protestant clergy comprised the largest single group of communism’s supporters.” After various protests, Matthews was allowed to resign.

There were more accusations, however. One pamphlet accused various Protest leaders and Samuel McCrea Cavert, National Council of Churches executive secretary, of subversive activities (Thuesen, 103). Further,

Still more pointed was a second pamphlet, Thirty of the Ninety-five Men Who Gave Us the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, issued by the Cincinnati-based Circuit Riders, Inc., a Methodist anticommunist organization led by air-conditioning executive Myers G. Lowman. Lowman’s widely distributed booklet alleged that the thirty members cited on the RSV committee and its advisory board were “affiliated with Communist and pro-Communist fronts.” (Thuesen, 103)

Such accusations may seem a bit unreal today, but they were very significant in their time. Simply the accusation of communist sympathies could be enough to torpedo a career in some areas.

Translators will not be surprised, however, to see the popular accusation of the day applied to their work.

Book: In Discordance with the Scriptures

Book: In Discordance with the Scriptures

Though it would be a slight exaggeration, one could call this a history of Bible translation for post-moderns. Rather than focusing heavily on the technical issues as do most books on this topic, it focuses on the political and social elements and emphasizes that Bible translation is not a purely objective and scientific process. Any translation is influenced by the social and theological values of the translators.

After briefly providing the background on how English Bible translation developed, the author begins looking in detail at the English Revised Version, the forces that shaped it, and the reasons for its successes and failures. The text really comes alive with chapters 4 and 5, dealing with the translation of the RSV and the liberal-conservative controversy that resulted.

From the historical point of view, this is the key watershed in the history of Bible translation. Before that, even though there were a number of translations, the King James Version was overwhelmingly dominant, and the only competitors that came even close were the ERV and the ASV. The RSV was intended as another general, standard, authorized English Bible to replace the KJV, but Thuesen documents the reasons why it didn’t work. There simply was no organization that could authorize the Bible that would be accepted by all protestants.

The fight over the RSV also tended to focus on theological more than technical issues. It is these social and theological issues that often drove other Bible translations, such as the New American Standard Bible and the NIV.

This book is well-researched, extensively footnoted, and well written. The author does ramble just a bit, in my opinion, but generally less than I do, so that’s OK!

My numerical rating is a 4.

Revision and Translation

Revision and Translation

In my book What’s in a Version? and in my Bible Translation Selection Tool I do not deal much with the question of whether a translation is a revision or not, except when the translation is not taken from the original languages. In this entry, I’m going to look at a couple of revision histories, and discuss what terms like “revision” and “derivative” mean in the context of translation.

Let me deal with “derivative” first. As a literary term, it is of very limited usefulness, simply because a translation is derivative to some extent by nature. The translator is not attempting a composition. Originality is not all that desireable for the most part; occasionally one may need serious originality to come up with a way to accurately convey what is said in the source language. Thus all translations are derivative to some extent. To apply this to a translation revision is a bit misleading, unless that translation is rewritten without reference to the source languages. It might, for example, be accurate of the Living Bible, though not of its successor the New Living Translation.

Before I look at the process of revising a translation let’s look at the historical connections between some modern versions. The KJV has been the root for many English translations, as the following chart will show:

Some genetic links between Bible translations

Note: I make no attempt in this chart to show precise chronology. Note also that any translation owes something to those that have gone before. The NIV, for example, was a new, original translation, but nonetheless it does owe something the the KJV and RSV before it.

Now let’s look at the whole process of revision.

In some ways this issue is similar to the one commonly found in apologetics books. How can one trust the Bible when it has been translated so many times? In response, one might ask what damage is done to the source text when it is translated. The difficulty here is that each new translation can, and most commonly does, go back to the source texts, and thus there is no deterioration due to successive revision; rather, there is likely to be improvement.

What process does a person undertake to produce a new translation? One goes deals with issues of target audience, source texts, translation philosophy, target language style and so forth, and one translates. How does this differ from a revision? In a revision one deals with all of the same questions. There are two differences. The translation philosophy and method is to one extent or another derived from the earlier translation, and second, phrases in the older translation that do not need to be changed are not changed. Variations in how much a revision will change a translation depend on what the translators find as they translate.

In the chart above, for example, when the ASV was produced from the RV, it was largely a matter of employing the American editors preferences in wording and style. This was not a new translation at all; simply the selection of one set of editing results over another. Because of the time gap, there were a few additional points, but these were largely minor. In the case of the Living Bible, the ASV was paraphrased from the English of the ASV to a more modern, colloquial English, and this was done without reference to the original languages. This is the closest thing I see in Bible translation to the normal understanding of a derivative work in terms of literature. The New American Standard Bible, on the other hand, while flowing from the tradition of the ASV, was a new translation starting from the original languages. The only importance that the fact that the NASB is a revision has for the user is that a certain style is maintained. Every word of the text has been reworked using original language texts by the new translators.

The NIV and the NEB each introduced some new elements into Bible translation philosophy at the time. The NIV manages a sort of balance in terms of functional and formal equivalence. If you check my data page on that translation (link above), you will see that it rates quite high in both my formal and functional tests. The NEB leans much more to the functional side of the scale. These are not directly revised from any other version.

Nonetheless translators will consult other versions. I normally make a working translation of my own when I prepare to preach or teach, even if I use one of the major versions when I’m actually in front of people. I will first create a translation of my own, then I revise it, and then I will compare it to several major versions. I recheck differences between these versions and my own work to make sure that I understand why they translated as they did. Sometimes the result is that I again modify my own work. This is also normally a part of the process of translation for anyone who wants to be accurate.

I think that the ESV is particularly clear on this issue in their preface. They have separate headings, “Translation Legacy” and “Translations Philosophy.” Under the first heading, they note that ” . . . each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighted against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek . . .” A little later they note: “The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV . . .”

In effect, the revisers thoroughly check everything against the original languages, and are willing to change what needs to be changed for accuracy and for current language, in effect giving you the same quality of translation as you get from a brand-new translation. There is no ongoing loss of meaning that results from this process. There would be no necessary improvement were the translation not a revision at all.

Now if a new translation introduces a new translation philosophy or some new efforts in terms of style, then there is a reason to look at a translation that is not a revision. But those are the precise things we look for in a translation in any case. So supposing you are looking for a literal, or formal-equivalent translation. The fact that the NASB and the NRSV are both revsions tracing their history back to the KJV really has no bearing on which you should choose. You would have to look at their philosophy of translation, their style, their translation committee and from there make your decision. And in this case, I chose the NRSV because, though a revision, it has introduced a substantial new twist in translation style–gender neutral (or gender accurate, depending on your viewpoint) language, and it made this innovation while revising another version. Which just goes to show how little the term “revision” will tell you about a particular translation.

One last point I like to emphasize is this: The proper way to test a translation is to check it against the documents from which it was translated. I have seen huge numbers of arguments discussing what might have happened, or what certain terms mean, when simply looking at the translation itself would answer the questions.

(Note: I will get back to talking about inspiration, though I suspect some were hoping I’d find another subject!)