Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Example of Doing Dialogue

    I comment from time to time on dialogue and diversity (most recently here), a pair of topics that I regard as particularly important. It’s important amongst Christians because we have much in common, but we often focus on difference. It’s important in general, because we do share a home planet, however much we might think some other folks come from interstellar distances.

    A couple of the requirements that I believe are important for effective dialogue is knowing what you believe yourself, along with a willingness to search out both the common ground and the major differences, and then express those politely.

    This morning I read a post on the evangelical outpost, titled What Evangelicals Owe Catholics: An Appreciation. Now what precisely interested me about that article, seeing as I’m neither Catholic (nor even ex-Catholic) nor am I evangelical? It was an excellent demonstration of precisely what I’m talking about in terms of dialogue.

    I recommend going and reading it, for content, yes, but especially for method.

  • Newsweek Article on Human Evolution

    There’s an excellent piece on human evolution in Newsweek, written for those of us who are not scientists. I think there are a couple of unclear points, but for the most part it’s a good update on the state of science. I did notice that things that have been around for some years seem to be considered brand new and exciting–exciting they certainly are, but the simple “begat” idea of human evolution has been weakening for a long time.

    In any case, this is an article worth reading. I’ve seen the various pieces on more scientific blogs, but as an overview for the non-scientist, this one is good.

  • Accuracy in Communication

    I have maintained in a number of posts that it is pointless to talk about accuracy in a medium intended to communicate without involving the audience that is intended to receive the communication. First, I would like to note that it is quite possible for the information in a medium of communication to be inaccurate for all potential audiences, i.e. the information is just plain wrong. But when one is talking about a translation, one is dealing with the accuracy with which the information in the source language is carried over into the receptor language, and that is always audience dependent. In fact, the information in the source language could be completely wrong, and yet be accurately conveyed by the translation.

    I was discussing this with my wife this morning at breakfast. Yes, we do discuss such things over meals from time to time. She provided me with a wonderful illustration. In the move Angels in the Outfield there’s a scene where the coach, played by Danny Glover, plays some baseball with a few neighborhood kids. There’s this really little guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing yet, and somehow he hits the ball, but he just stands there. (I don’t remember the details, and don’t have the movie at hand to check, but the basic point is there.) Everybody is yelling at him, “Run Home! Run Home!” So he runs home. But “home” to him is where he lives, not home base. Off he goes, off the ballfield and down the street.

    Now in a sense the communication was accurate, but the audience didn’t comprehend what was going on. He applied another definition of “home” that made sense to him and ran with it. The information was not communicated accurately.

    Our favorite word in this whole ESV discussion seems to be propitiation. Most people I encounter are not at all sure just what propitiation means. There are, in fact, a number of meanings of propitiation in various non-Christian contexts that I would not want applied to Christianity, and which I do not believe reflect accurately the meaning of the words “hilasterion” or “hilasmon” in New Testament literature.

    But more critical for the moment than the question of whether I’m right or they are on “hilasterion/hilasmon” is the simple question of whether people hear accurately what these translators are trying to communicate with the word “propitiation.” That is the real objective test of communication–how accurately does the hearer understand the meaning the writer/translator intended to convey.

    I submit that for a large number of readers, the situation will be much like that little boy in the movie–running for the wrong “home.”

  • ESV vs KJV (Better Bibles Blog)

    Those following the ESV/KJV debate might be interested in this post by Suzanne McCarthy, explaining why she prefers the KJV as her literal translation. I don’t find the language of the KJV nearly as attractive as she does, but that’s a matter of taste in my view.

    I always love to find the occasional comments by “anonymous”–clearly the same “anonymous” every time on Better Bibles–who has a love affair with pretending that subjective factors are actually objective beauty. Weird that . . .

  • On the ESV

    While I don’t mind being seen as a critic of the ESV, I feel that lately my posting has gotten a bit out of balance because I have largely been responding to the ESV proponents, who appear to be pretty much critics of everything else. I want to comment on the “critics of everything else” position a bit later, but right now I want to look specifically at how I see the ESV in terms of value and appropriate use.

    At the end of this post I will append some links to things I have said about the ESV previously and to some of my more general comments about Bible translation for those who want to look. Note that all links on the abbreviations of Bible versions are to that version’s page in the Bible Version Selection Tool.

    I do not advocate a single Bible version myself. I am an advocate of the CEV as an excellent Bible for use in outreach and general ministry. I personally use a variety of Bibles in my own study time. My primary study Bibles are texts in the source languages. My first Bible to put alongside such study is the REB, followed closely by the NRSV and the JPS Tanakh. For me personally, the ESV is well down the list, though I do consult it occasionally aside from when I’m busy criticizing it.

    What do I see as positive elements of the ESV?

    • It lives up to its claim of careful, literal translation.
    • It is in the KJV tradition and manages to keep some of the style that makes older church members comfortable with it.
    • It’s language is generally modern, except where the dialect is “churchese,” and this usage is consistent throughout, eliminating the archaic prayer language used in the RSV
    • It uses a good eclectic text, which is a substantial improvement over the NKJV

    In language, I regard it as better than the NASB, even the 1995 edition, and definitely better than the NKJV. I would be very happy to see someone move from the KJV to the ESV. Amongst generally literal versions, I prefer the NRSV to the ESV for a number of reasons, which should become clear as I list my negatives.

    Here’s what I don’t like about the ESV:

    • It is a literal version, and in my view goes further in this direction than good English, comprehensible to an average reader, will permit.
    • It uses church language and theological terms that are not in common enough use. These terms essential require retranslation before the reader gains adequate understanding of them.
    • It continues the use of gender language that is going out of use in the English language. While there is still an audience for such language, it does not reflect the correct understanding to the majority of modern American readers.

    Where would I recommend its use?

    • By persons who would like a modern language version, but want something that is close to a prior version they are used to. This would include people moving form the KJV to a modern version for the first time, or who dislike the RSV because of its use of archaic language in prayer, unfortunately including many Psalms, or renderings that disturb some conservative Christians.
    • For any person who wants a good literal version to use for comparison in Bible study.
    • With some distress, for a church that sees its primary mission as maintaining the status of long-time church goers. I say with distress, because the idea of such a church bothers me, while I know that many churches exist for that purpose whether they admit it or not.

    I do not recommend the ESV for the following:

    • An outreach Bible, aimed at attracting unchurched people.
    • A youth Bible
    • A primary study Bible for someone who does not have access to excellent commentaries and information on the source languages.
    • A fast reading Bible. I recommend fast reading for overviews as part of my Bible study method. The ESV would not suit for that purpose.
    • The pew Bible for any church that is not in maintenance mode.
    • A Bible for anyone who is concerned about gender accuracy in their own speech, writing, and reading.

    Now these negatives and positives apply with equal and sometimes greater force to other versions in the same tradition and translation style. The only reason I’m doing this extensive of a comment on the ESV in particular is that I’ve been drawn into the debate by the proponents of the ESV who are setting themselves up as critics of all other versions. I regard this as a dangerous approach to Bible translation. Certainly we will all have positive and negative things to say about various versions. But ESV proponents have generally joined in a war against dynamic equivalence versions and any version that seeks gender accuracy in translation. This places the ESV front and center in debates in which it would otherwise simply be one of several versions used to illustrate a point.

    I have not expounded much on the reasons behind each of these points. After all, this is a blog entry rather than a book, but I would like to link to some of my previous comments for those who are interested in pursuing this some more.

    Have fun!

  • Waiting for my Link

    Update (3/7/07 6:40 PM CST): I stand here with egg on my face. The trackback appeared on the ESV blog. I apologize for my insinuation that they would not do so. I was wrong.

    The folks over at the ESV Blog say that “[a]s always, we appreciate everyone who blogs about the ESV.” They were responding to the palmertree endorsement concerning which I blogged yesterday. Shall I hold my breath waiting for my link from them? 🙂

  • Christian Carnival CLXIII Posted

    . . . at Everyday Liturgy. Another rich carnival. Enjoy!

  • If True, This is Good

    Public pressure is sometimes a good thing, as shown by this story on Rep. Jefferson. See my previous comment.

  • Why Force when you can Encourage?

    I found this Washington Post article interesting. GM has a reputation for producing gas guzzlers here, but as a leader in fuel economy over in Europe. Why is this?

    “We could sell the OPC here and make money because gasoline is near $6 a gallon,” Lutz said. “If we had $6 gasoline in the United States, we could sell it there at a profit, too,” he said. But he said it is unlikely that Americans would buy a little car at $30,000 “when they’re paying $2.50 for gasoline.” “We need $6 gasoline” in America to make sense of the Corsa OPC in that market, Lutz said. [Lutz is GM’s vice chairman for global product development]

    Auto manufacturers can do it with the proper motivation. In this country we seem to have an imperative to force fuel prices lower any time they threaten to rise. Then we simultaneously try to force companies to produce more fuel efficient cars. Neither the consumers nor the manufacturers have the motivation.

    One of my least popular personal ideas is simply that gas prices should be higher in this country. Frankly, it would inconvenience me if they were, but it would be good for our economy and for the environment in the long run. One of the reasons we do not have the type of efficient mass transit that folks have in Europe is simply that it is not economical, even when subsidized.

    Two things would serve to appropriately raise the price of gas. First, don’t react with panic to rising prices with such politically expedient but stupid ideas as releasing petroleum reserves. Second, cover a reasonable amount of the environmental impact through gas taxes. I know I’m bound to hear about gas taxes being too high already, but I don’t agree.

  • ESV Endorsements

    I’ve written a considerable amount of negative stuff, not about the ESV itself, though I do have a few complaints, but about its supporters. Thus when a friend e-mailed me a new endorsement, I thought I’d take a look at why these endorsers regard the ESV so highly. The latest endorsement is ESV: the long-awaited Palmertree endorsement. The key thing about this endorsement is that, well, there is no key thing. It’s sort of an “I waited a long time and then got comfortable with it” kind of endorsement.

    He does, however, cite three other endorsements: John Piper, Philip Ryken, and Mark Driscoll. I’ve dealt with Mark Driscoll’s comments before (more recently here), though he has revised the material a bit, but the bottom line is still the same. After reading the other two, I have to say that they have added little, so I’m not going to go over them point by point.

    There are three elements in these endorsements of the ESV:

    1. Nostalgia
    2. Theological positions
    3. The allure of literal “accuracy”

    Nostalgia

    Nostalgia was something that drove the KJV only movment for years. Now many people who might earlier have been sort of gentle KJV advocates are realizing they need some modern version, and the ESV has proven the least shocking option. I actually have little problem with someone using a Bible for reasons of nostalgia. If you understand the ESV, and you enjoy it, go ahead and use it. The same thing goes for the KJV.

    Where I have a problem with nostalgia is in churches when its used for public reading and especially outreach. Too often church people regard something as obvious, clear, enjoyable, and downright cuddly and loveable, when most of the people who come through the door find it anything but. Consider your audience when choosing a Bible translation for use in the pews.

    Theological Positions

    First, I do not mean that one must not hold any theological positions, nor do I mean a position that holds the Bible to be inspired and accurate translation to be important. I have never run into anyone who doesn’t think the Bible should be translated accurately. Disagreements are about precisely what constitutes accuracy, and how one goes about achieving it.

    What I mean here, however, is selecting a Bible based on how well your favorite texts support your favorite theological positions. If you have carefully examined the source languages, and tested how the English expression would be understood, and you then regard the expression used as the best expression of the meaning (pause for breath!)–then that’s fine. But that’s not what I see argued. People simply announce that the Bible in question, especially the ESV, supports their conclusion. How about some linguistic arguments, assuming you endorsers are capable of presenting them.

    The Allure of Literal “Accuracy”

    I put accuracy in quotes because I think this is the great failing of this entire school of Bible translating. It’s an example of the one ended telephone cord approach to meaning. In communication, there is no “accuracy” except in terms of what the receiver actually receives. You may think “propitiation” is a wonderful word, which accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek word hilasterion, but if the hearer hears “blablabla” instead, no meaning is accurately conveyed.

    Of course, ESV advocates will announce that they can explain the word propitiation, and then the congregation will understand it. Well, so can the Bible translators, by translating hilasterion into something the readers understand in the first place. You complain that those using dynamic equivalence deny the readers the chance to decide for themselves. Well, all your process does is deny them the same choice by passing it on to their pastor, who has likely determined what “propitiation” means based on his church’s doctrinal statement.

    Accurate translation has to convey meaning accurately from the source language to the reader or hearer in the receptor language. I repeat what has become nearly a mantra for me: There is no accuracy in a vacuum. It’s only accurate communication if the hearer accurately hears it.