Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Optimal Equivalence and the HCSB

    It has been some time since I complained about something in a Bible translation, so here goes! In this case it’s not the translation itself, but rather the description of the translation in the introduction.

    I used the HCSB in church today, and I noticed something interesting about the way the name of God is used. In most cases, they use LORD for YHWH, but in one case they used Yahweh. According to the introduction, they use Yahweh if there is an emphasis on the name and what the name is. I haven’t looked at how they make this determination, but it would make an interesting study. I’m using the Nook edition, which loses the small caps on LORD, so it comes out as Lord in the edition. The print edition uses the long standing conventions for indicating the name of God.

    This was not, however what got on my nerves. Translations handle the name of God in a variety of ways. I just wanted to know how they justified their approach. On the way to finding this explanation I found their description of their translation philosophy. They reject both “dynamic (or functional) equivalence” and “formal equivalence” in favor of “optimal equivalence.”

    So what is optimal equivalence? Amongst the various things that seem to characterize it are an acknowledgement that neither formal nor functional equivalence can be followed absolutely, that form cannot completely be separated from meaning, and that the text should be exhaustively analyzed at all levels. Then using “the latest and best language tools and experts, the nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to convey as much of the information and intention of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible.”

    That, of course, is completely contrary to the intention of other translators who ….

    Well, actually, that’s pretty much how translators describe their work. Naming it “optimal equivalence” is just marketing speak. In fact, I think the HCSB has failed in these goals in a number of cases, as do most translations (see my notes on the HCSB). Doubtless were I to put my best effort into accomplishing those goals in a translation, I would fail numerous times. So claiming these ideas as a distinguishing feature of a particular translation is, to put it mildly, a bit misleading. The point is not that the HCSB, contrary to other translations, wants “to convey as much of the information and intention of the original text … as possible.” Rather, they tend to approach that goal in their own particular way, and you can find a statement on that in their introduction as well: “… form cannot be neatly separated from meaning and should not be changed (for example, nouns to verbs or third person ‘they’ to second person ‘you’) unless comprehension demands it.” That suggests that they lean toward formal equivalence, and indeed, my own analysis, done a couple of years ago, supports my initial impression.

    I don’t want to be too negative about this particular translation. I actually find it overall quite readable. It’s a credible and usable translation, though not my favorite. The issue is that it is not some sort of break through in translation theory or practice. Everybody tries to accurately convey what’s in their source text via the target language. The question is just what information is regarded as most important (you’re going to lose something) and how that information can best be conveyed.

    And that is where the very legitimate differences in translation philosophies occur.

  • Merging Blogs

    I’ve been involved in various varieties of online activities since the mid-1980s when I established the Wind Dragon Inn, a bulletin board connected with FidoNet. Over time my internet presence has gotten pretty complicated with a variety of domain names, three main blogs and a couple of smaller ones.

    You may have arrived here via the URLs for any of these other blogs. All of the posts from those blogs have been preserved here, and you can find them through search.

    I have quite a few things to implement to combine the themes and provide all the information that these blogs provided. That will happen over the next couple of days.

    Thank you for your patience!

  • Yet Again on the (Supposed) Persecution of American Christians

    Jonathan Merritt writes a well-titled article: In the Middle East, not in America, Christians are Actually Persecuted (HT: Dave Black Online via The Jesus Paradigm).

    My tolerance for referring to the comfortable life Christians lead in this country was destroyed before I even knew such a thing was possible. At a very young age I remember fleeing for our lives as some angry folks wanted to kill us. Even that, however, is a very minor incident compared to what Christians in many countries go through every day. We ran less than a mile. Law enforcement was on our side. We returned home the next day. Nonetheless, the memory helps me set the bar a bit higher for the word persecution.

    Now I do believe we should advocate for freedom. I’d be delighted if we would advocate equally for the rights of people of other religions (yes, including Muslims), and people of no religion at all. Besides doing it for the political good of our country, we should do that as Christians on the basis of the golden rule. Let me be very clear here. If Muslims want to build a mosque in my neighborhood, I should be prepared to help them, not protest their presence. If the atheists want a display during Christmas, I’m not going to prevent it. I do this because that is what I would like others to do for me.

    There are many things that can be done about Christians in countries where persecution (even with the bar set higher!) is very real and very constant. You can read just a small number of recent stories in the article I linked. I’m not going to try to argue strategy. Personally I try to provide support to Christian workers where I can. I have little faith in political action. Often, I’m afraid, the actions of American Christians don’t have the effect we hope for. But I could be wrong. Just consider this issue and do something.

    But let’s not call our inconveniences and cultural annoyances “persecution.” It devalues an important word.

  • A Testimony on Loss, Grief, Hope, and Joy

    I want to call attention to Dave Black’s blog. I’ve posted some extracts over at The Jesus Paradigm, the support site for one of Dave’s books I publish.

    Dave’s site doesn’t provide an option to link to specific posts. It is very much like an online journal. I can’t link to every specific item  that I hope you read. But if you’re dealing with loss and grief in any way, I believe you’ll find Dave’s openness about his experiences helpful. Just start with the present and work your way back.

  • On Interpreting Hebrews 6:1-8

    David Allen has an excellent series of posts on this passage (HT: David Alan Black), which I think is the key to the entire book. I am, of course, especially impressed with the fact that much of what he says is compatible with the way I believe the passage should be interpreted!

    Agree or disagree, I think one must admit this is exceptionally well written and reasoned.

    I will doubtless acquire a copy of his commentary on Hebrews in the New American Commentary Series [Hebrews: 35 (New American Commentary)].

     

  • USAF Band and Chorus Flash Mob

    As a USAF veteran …

  • A Temperate Comment on the Mark Driscoll Controversy

    I like the tone of this article by Andy Crouch in Christianity Today. I’m concerned about the concentration of Christian thinking, preaching, teaching, and writing in the hands of Christian celebrities. I think Crouch makes some good points.

    As a Christian publisher myself (Energion Publications), I don’t intend to comment on the details of this case. I would note that it is incredibly easy to make mistakes and very hard work to find them. There have been a number of times when someone I work with says, “I don’t see how anyone could make (or miss) that mistake” only to do something similar (or worse) by mistake down the road. I do not say this to excuse wrongdoing or carelessness, but to make us think twice before throwing stones at others.

    When we do make a mistake, the correct response is not defensive. It is to say simply, “I made a mistake. I’m sorry. I’ll correct it.” I’ve been there any number of times.

    I hope that in my own publishing work I am managing to distribute the work of a broad range of people. As a small publisher, these people will rarely be celebrities. To me, however, they are stars. Why do I say that? I have authors who donate their royalties to various causes. I have authors who have refused royalties on certain books in order to help me reduce the price and allow wider distribution. Every author I publish is active in service in a variety of ways. I have encountered no authors who are not extremely anxious to give credit to everyone who contributed in any way. I have even had to suggest that authors cut down the acknowledgments section in a couple of cases.

    That’s what I took away from Andy Crouch’s article. There’s a church filled with people who can contribute. I want to give as many as I can a voice. The church needs to hear them, and not just the folks who can get a manuscript accepted with one of the big presses. The church needs to realize the breadth and depth of the talent available to it.

     

  • Step-by-Step Exegesis

    Thomas Hudgins provides 10 steps for biblical exegesis. I’m particularly pleased to see structural and rhetorical analysis on the list.

  • Psalm 122: On Praying for Both Israelis and Palestinians

    Bruce Epperly, in his comments on the scriptures for the first Sunday in Advent at Process & Faith, has a note about praying for Jerusalem. The call for this is made in the Psalm for this first Sunday in Advent, 122.

    Bruce notes:

    “I was glad when they said unto me let us go unto the house of the Lord,” rejoices the Psalmist. The Jerusalem temple becomes a focal point for the nations through its vision of peace. Without peace in Jerusalem, there is no peace on Earth, the Psalmist asserts. The Psalmist commands, “pray for the peace of Jerusalem.” This is a strong admonition for progressives who often side with the Palestinians over the State of Israel. We must pray for Israel as well as Palestine; we must insure a just peace that protects Israel as well as liberates Palestine. We must go beyond polarization in the Middle East, recognizing the universality of threat, violence, and self-interest, along with the possibility of personal, national, and regional transformation. God loves the whole world, without exceptions; and God’s love embraces the diversity of nations and ethnicities, inviting them toward peace, goodness, and beauty.

    As Christians, it is our duty to love and care for all people, not just particular people. It’s very easy in promoting a particular political agenda to ignore the needs of those who are out of our focus. But the agenda of the Christian should be to build the kingdom of God.

    There are many responses to Psalm 122 amongst Christians. There are those for whom the command is a simple command to us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Some would respond that this command was given to the people of Israel, and not in general to the people of the world. And it is truly “decreed for Israel.” At the same time, the language of this Psalm is such that it’s hard not to get an eschatological sense from it, or perhaps to read one into it if it’s not already there. Others might see its application in praying for our own nations and their leaders. My point is not to deal with all possible issues of interpretation, nor to answer policy questions regarding the middle east. Rather it’s to look at our prayers, starting at home, but extending to all people.

    Bob MacDonald, in Seeing the Psalter,  notes that the reference to the house of David (verse 5) falls between opening and closing references to the house of the LORD (verses 1 & 9). This explains to some extent why the passage is an advent passage. That eschatological sense comes through. God’s presence is, according to the Psalmist, manifested in Jerusalem in the house of the LORD. God’s presence will be manifested. Eschatology always has a sense of the future in the present.

    I must mine another one of my Energion authors, Edward W. H. Vick, quoting from Eschatology: A Participatory Study Guide:

    Christian theology is essentially eschatology. ‘From the beginning, eschatology is not primarily an apocalyptic conception, but an understanding of being in faith.’ The question then is, Which eschatology? Is it a theology of the future? Or, may it be better understood as a theology of the present? Are there other alternatives, relating present and future? (p. 51)

    If the tension between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ in the New Testament and in the Christian message is maintained, there is no antagonism between ‘salvation-history’ and Christian existentialism. Indeed the two positions are complementary. To raise the essential question of continuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith is to press beyond the position of Bultmann. The question is whether a sequence of events can be an object of faith as well as of assent. Cullmann answers with an emphatic affirmative. In faith the believer is overwhelmed by that in which he did not participate (p. 115). The events of salvation are pro nobis, but first they are extra nos. (p. 63)

    Now there’s quite a bit of theological terminology in that quotation, especially without the 12 pages that come between the two paragraphs I quoted. But I want to bring out two points. First, Christian theology is essentially eschatology, that is, it has to do with the age to come, last day events, or something similar. What we often miss, however, is that God coming near is also now, not just something to await in the future. Second, when we participate in Advent we are celebrating events “in which [we] did not participate” and in that celebration we certainly hope they “overwhelm” us, i.e. bring us into themselves.

    It’s in that “overwhelming” that “to the Jew first, but also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16) becomes also “there is no longer Jew nor Greek” without contradiction. At the same time, it is only in that way that we can both pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and for justice for Palestinians without contradiction.

     

     

  • Book Extract: Discerning Interpretations

    1893729389sMany teachers and preachers speak with great authority and then say, “This is not me speaking. I’m only telling you what the Bible says.” But that assertion is always dangerous. When we apply the Bible to any particular situation we are interpreting. This is another case when one’s words can seem very pious, but actually border on sacrilege. What could be more pious than simply speaking God’s words and never adding anything of your own to them? But there is the problem. You and I are not capable of speaking “just what the Bible says.” There is always something of our own thinking and interpretation in what we have to say.

    The honest thing to do is to admit that what we say is our interpretation, and leave the accuracy of our interpretation open to discussion and discernment. At the same time, no matter how
    forcefully someone says that what they say is simply God’s truth, whether they claim that they got it by hearing directly or by reading and interpreting sacred documents, discernment is always up to the individual hearer.

    A word of prophecy must be tested. An interpretation of scripture must be tested. Everything must be tested using the intelligence God gives you and the wisdom he promises (James 1:5).

    — When People Speak for God, p. 78