Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: ESV

  • Isaiah 64:6 – Menstrual Cloth

    I was planning to leave my comparisons with just Isaiah 63, as I believe that continued comparison charts will largely show the same thing. I’m still reading the translations side by side, and if something seems different I will bring it up.

    But today in reading Isaiah 64 in several translations I came across Isaiah 64:6 (5 in Hebrew) in which the phrase “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (KJV) occurs. Now having just read this in Hebrew I was reminded that the literal translation of this is “menstrual cloths” or something similar. These cloths would be unclean, as was the woman in her menstrual period. One extended discussion of the issue of uncleanness can be found in Leviticus 15:19-33.

    In the passage, there is clearly meaning in the fact that these are not merely dirty pieces of cloth. For example, had someone washed their hands and dried them on these cloths after digging ditches all day, by modern standards we might call them dirty. If I repair the car and then wipe the grease on a rag, we would escalate that to filthy rag. But the menstrual cloth implied ritual impurity, however odd that might seem to us today.

    So having read the TNIV translation:

    All of us have become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
    we all shrivel up like a leaf,
    and like the wind our sins sweep us away. — Isaiah 64:6 (TNIV)

    Now this doesn’t disturb me much. In the course of the verse they have gotten in the words “unclean” and “filthy” and I would assume that the TNIV translators, along with all the modern versions I checked (quite a number), simply don’t think that “menstrual cloth” is going to be meaningful to modern translators.

    But when I turn to a translation that prides itself on word for word renderings, that “seeks as far as possible to catpure the precise wording of the original text” (ESV Preface), I thought perhaps things would be different. But here the desire for literal translation escaped the ESV translators:

    We have all become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. — Isaiah 64:6 (ESV)

    Now I definitely think “polluted” is better than “filthy” in the context. But we have still replaced one metaphor in Hebrew with a completely different English expression. The Message carries this the furthest, using “grease-stained rags,” which does not reflect the basic idea all that well, but has the advantage of conjuring an immediate image in English.

    Though I found only one modern version, the Complete Jewish Bible, that uses any word referring to menstrual cloths (menstrual rags), I did find that ancient translators used that. The LXX, Vulgate, and the Peshitta, all translate with something that includes the original literal meaning in its semantic range. Interestingly enough, the Isaiah Targum, according to the text I have available, uses an even better euphemism than any of the English versions, “cast off garment” or I might prefer the translation “garment thrown far away” (Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949).

    So is there an element of meaning in the actual Biblical wording here or not? Is it possible to convey that meaning accurately in a literal translation? Such a literal translation does not appear common in modern translations.

  • Translation Comparisons in Isaiah 63

    Why Isaiah 63? Well, I was reading it in Hebrew for my devotional time this morning, and then I compared some modern versions purported to be readable, and I thought it would be valuable to provide a complete comparison.

    Note that I’m not attempting to provide a comprehensive list. I’m just comparing some poetic and idiomatic phrases that caught my eye. The versions I will use here are the ESV, TNIV, CEV, and NCV. Of these, I have recommended the TNIV, CEV, and NCV as options for outreach Bibles, that is, Bibles suitable for people who are not well versed in the church environment and dialect.

    I would first note that all four of these versions capitalize “Holy Spirit” suggesting divinity in an Old Testament passage in which this was likely not in view. That is not terribly surprising, but it does illustrate the evangelical Christian roots of all four of these versions.

    I am only going to post the phrases I’m comparing, so you may need to get out your own Bible and work with the context.

    Verse Version Phrase;
    1 ESV crimsoned garments
    TNIV garments stained crimson
    CEV clothes stained red
    NCV dressed in red
    In this verse, the ESV strikes me as not quite being English, and I’m not certain of the value of its text in literal terms. Just what does “crimsoned” mean? I believe I know, but I read the text in Hebrew first. The NRSV uses “garments stained crimson” just as the TNIV does. Both the CEV and the NCV simplify with “red.” There is a significant difference in meaning between “clothes stained red” and “dressed in red.” In context one can still get the picture, but the phrase itself is a bit weak. I give the CEV points for both “clothes” and “stained.”
    2 ESV and your garments like his who treads in the winepress
    TNIV like those of one treading the winepress
    CEV your clothes look stained from stomping on grapes
    NCV as if you had walked on the grapes to make wine
    The ESV wording in this verse is extremely awkward, and I don’t think they gain poetic value from it, though it does follow the KJV tradition “and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat.” TNIV is again content to provide natural English, though treading the winepress is no longer a common term. NCV is the most explanatory.
    9 ESV In all their affliction he was afflicted
    TNIV In all their distress, he too was distressed
    CEV It troubled the Lord to see them in trouble
    NCV When they suffered, he suffered also
    This is another completely non-radical rendering by the TNIV. CEV and NCV are much bolder, and with good effect, in my view. I would ask the ESV translators whether when their child is in pain they would say, “In all your affliction I am afflicted,” or whether they might instead say “I’m hurting with you” or something similar.
    10 ESV and grieved his Holy Spirit
    TNIV and grieved his Holy Spirit
    CEV and made his Holy Spirit sad
    NCV and made his Holy Spirit very sad
    One thing I’m noticing in this chapter is how frequently the TNIV and ESV have the same reading. With all the exaggerated criticism, you might expect more radical renderings from the TNIV team, but they seem quite restrained.
    14 ESV to make for yourself a glorious name
    TNIV to make for yourself a glorious name
    CEV The name of the Lord was praised for doing these things.
    NCV and by this you won for yourself wonderful fame
    Note that the CEV rendering combines thoughts in different lines of Hebrew poetry and thus doesn’t fully correspond with the phrase cited from the other versions. NCV conveys the information that “name” in this context refers to fame or reputation.
    15 ESV the stirring of your inner parts
    TNIV Your tenderness
    CEV Show us that you care about us
    NCV your love
    This is a clear instance of an idiom translated word for word in the ESV, but idiomatically in the other three versions. The difference in the amount of text I quoted is based on other issues in the translation of the verse, in which the CEV and NCV both deal with repetition in poetic lines by combing them into more standard English style. That type of translation of Hebrew poetry, which loses the form, but may well convey the meaning more clearly is not my topic here.
    17 ESV and harden our heart, so that we fear you not
    TNIV and harden our hearts so we do not revere you
    CEV Why did you make us want to disobey you?
    NCV Why do you make us stubborn so that we don’t honor you?
    Again, combination of parallel thoughts into single elements tends to make it difficult to quote precisely the phrase desired. I think TNIV’s “revere” is better than “fear” in this context.

    I would have just a few observations on this. First, of course, studying a few instances that caught my eye in a single chapter does not fully characterize Bible versions. That should be obvious, but I don’t want there to be any mistake.

    Second, one of the clearest differences between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence comes in the translation of idioms. Do we preserve the source language idiom, however little sense it may make in the target language, or do we find a good target language idiom to convey the same meaning. Depending on what the reader is looking for, one could answer that question either way. The ESV consistently translates idioms word for word in this chapter, while the TNIV takes a few steps away from that, but the NCV and the CEV generally seek a new idiomatic way of expression.

    While it was not my focus for this comparison, the same differences could be noticed in handling poetic lines. ESV and generally TNIV reflect the Hebrew poetic lines, while the NCV and CEV scramble them as necessary to express the meaning. That conveys certain elements of meaning to audiences who are not acquainted with Hebrew parallelism–a very large percentage of Bible readers–but at the same time it loses the opportunity to see the structure of the Hebrew poetry.

    The differences occur on a scale, i.e. there is not a clean break between the two styles of translation. If you compare the CEV and the ESV, it looks like two completely different approaches, but the TNIV is somewhat mediating, and I know that if I added several more translations, the scale would be even more evident.

    Being aware of such differences, we can more intelligently select a Bible version for any particular setting and use.

  • From Word to Study

    (Continuing my series on word studies.)

    From time to time in conversation with my wife I’ll jump topics. My brain does that to me, as one thing suggests another thing, often related only in the most distant way. Suddenly she’ll stop me and say, “I need a context for that.” I’ve said something that she can’t understand clearly because she doesn’t know what it relates to. It might be “What are we going to do about that meeting?” If she doesn’t know what meeting I’m talking about, when it is, or why we need to do something about it, she has no basis on which to react.

    Similarly in Bible study, we always have to have a context. I know that I hammer this point repeatedly, but I do so because it is so often neglected. Much too much use of Bible texts in Christian teaching, preaching, and conversation results from looking for a set of words that fits whatever the person wanted to say. There are a lot of phrases in the Bible, a lot of clauses, a lot of sentences. If you ignore context, you can find one that is useful for you.

    We’ve already discussed one of the primary dangers of word studies, that a person looks for a series of definitions, and then plugs in the one that suits his theology without regard for the immediate context. Now I’m going to talk about some practical ideas for studies you can do with words that can improve your understanding.

    All of these are based on a single principle: A word study should start from a usage in context, and end with a usage in context.

    If that is a bit unclear, think of it this way: The word study doesn’t provide you with a meaning that can be dropped into place like a puzzle piece. Rather, it provides you with options. In order to get at those options, you have to understand each usage of a word in its particular context, and then compare carefully. Differences in the context may imply differences in meaning. Someone who knows the source languages is protected to some extent by use of lexicons, knowledge of various forms of the word that provide natural categories of usage, and the fact that he has just the source language word’s semantic range to deal with. When working in English, or any other non-source language for the Bible, you need to be doubly careful to understand each particular context.

    I’m going to do a brief application of this idea using the word “propitiation” because it has become a key word in the ESV Bible debates. I’m going to use my Logos Bible Software solely to look up words in the ESV, and display ESV text, but I’m going to use Goodrick and Kohlenberger’s NIV concordance (hereafter GK), keyed to the Greek and Hebrew words to track ideas further. This means I’m working today with two English versions, the NIV and the ESV.

    Let’s say my study starts from Hebrews 2:17:

    17 Therefore he had nto be made like his brothers in every respect, oso that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest pin the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [1] — Hebrews 2:17 (ESV)

    What I want to discover in this study is what it might mean to “make propitiation.” One thing I’m not going to do here to save space, but that I would recommend doing normally, is to compare this text in many English translations. This will help give you a better idea of what the semantic range of the Greek word behind this is. Another critical step is to find out just what the book of Hebrews says Jesus did about the sins of the people. I’m going to leave that aside for the moment. Right now we want to get a better idea of this one word. But remember, if you are studying through Hebrews, that before you settle on a definition for “propitiation” in this verse, you need to understand how this verse relates to the rest of the book.

    In order to work with GK I need to find the text in the NIV. There I find that my key phrase is “make atonement for.” Now depending on my theological background, I may already be more comfortable than I am with propitiation, but if I look in an English dictionary I will generally find that “propitiation” is a narrower and more precise word than “atonement.” (Your results may differ, depending on your dictionary. For example Merriam-Webster says “reconciliation” is obsolete, but that meaning is still used in theological writing, I believe.) Another approach in GK is to simply look up “propitiation” and find the reference at that point to “atonement.”

    Again in order to keep this study limited, I’m going to stick with the New Testament. First, that keeps all my source words in one language. There is value in comparing words as used in the Old Testament with those in the New Testament, especially when studying a book that quotes the OT as much as Hebrews does, but it is more complicated. I find that “atonement” is listed in GK only 3 times in the New Testament, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, and Hebrews 9:5. Add to this 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 which use “atoning.” So we have a rather manageable list there.

    The source language words are numbers 2661, 2662, and 2663. Now here’s where you can get into serious trouble, and if you don’t know Greek well, you should be very tentative with your conclusions and spend even more time on context. (Did I say that before?) In this case, however, the proximity of the three words indicates that they are cognates in Greek, etymologically related. Words that are etymologically related generally developed from similar roots. It’s easy, however, to make what’s called the “etymological fallacy” here, and assume that their meanings must be either the same or very similar. Words can be closely related etymologically, but very differet semantically.

    Nonetheless, since the NIV translators have provided us with similar English translations, let’s hope we can find at least some relationship. Word 2661 is hilaskomai, and occurs twice (all according to GK) translated once as “make atonement for” and once as “mercy on.” Word 2662, hilasmos (see the similarity?) occurs twice and is translated as “atoning sacrifice” both times. Word 2663 is hilasterion and occurs twice translated once as “atonement cover” and once as “sacrifice of atonement.”

    Where are these? Well, you can find them in GK because the lexicon doesn’t provide definitions, but rather lists of how each word is translated in the NIV. Thus you can look up the words in translation in turn, and find out where and how they are used. Of course, all those definitions using “atonement” or “atoning” should already be on our list. Using this method, let me list the uses of these words:

    • 2661
      Hebrews 2:17 (our primary text) and Luke 18:13 (Aha! Fresh meat!). Note that I located the second verse by looking up the word “mercy” and scanning for the number 2661.
    • 2662
      1 John 2:2 and 4:10. We know these are all the cases, because it lists two occurences, both with the same translation.
    • 2663
      Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5, which we already had located.

    Now let’s go back and use our ESV for a moment. Since I’ve already looked at Hebrews 2:17 (that’s my starting point), let’s look at the only use of precisely the same word in the New Testament. Luke 18:13 reads:

    But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” [1] (ESV)

    Knowing Greek, I can say that there is a difference of form, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. We have here two possible meanings: “make an atoning sacrifice for” and “have mercy on.” Use of an English dictionary will expand the list, but I’ll leave that to you, especially as you consider what “atoning” means in connection with “sacrifice. You can try dropping these two defnitions into Hebrews 2:17 and see what the results are in context. When you do that, however, I suggest you look very clearly at what the author of Hebrews believes is involved in atonement. Does he believe God simply “has mercy on” or does he believe there must be a sacrifice?

    Similarly try dropping these definitions into 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. Consider both verses before you make your selection, and realize that this is a different Greek word, even though it is related to the word used in Hebrews 2:17.

    Finally, word 2663, hilasterion also occurs twice. In Romans 3:25 the ESV uses “propitiation” saying that God put Jesus forward as a “propitiation” (atoning sacrifice?) for our sins. The NIV goes right to my parenthetical suggestion and uses “sacrifice of atonement.” But Hebrews 9:5 is a bit different. Here we read “mercy seat” in the ESV and “atonement cover” in the NIV. The covering of the ark, which is the item in consideration, is often called the mercy seat, and was the place where God manifested his presence in the tabernacle. Interesting that Merriam-Webster (Tenth Edition) suggests that “reconciliation” is an obsolete meaning of “atonement” because it appears that Bible translators may still be using that meaning partially.

    Given these various options, it would now be time to go back and study your text in context, and keep your mind open to the possibilities. Is it possible that when the author of Hebrews uses related words in 2:17 and 9:5 he may intend to connect the sacrifice of atonement and the place of atonement and God’s presence? Those are possibilities for further study.

    Let me make one more comment on the etymological fallacy. This is terribly pervasive. I even found just such a fallacy in my devotional reading as an author used the Greek “dunamis” to connect to cognate “dynamite” and from there to read “explosive” back into a text. At the same time, I think the quite proper emphasis on fighting that fallacy can result in a sort of “anti-etymological fallacy,” the notion that etymology doesn’t contribute to discovering meaning. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it’s all we have. With the three related Greek words involved in our study today, we have so few instances in the New Testament that we may be required to use etymology as seed for ideas. The key is to start from a word in context and end with a word in context.

    An excellent route for those who have access to the appropriate tools is to carry this study beyond the New Testament. How was the word used in the Septuagint, for example, and what Hebrew words/concepts did it translate. Again, particularly in Hebrews, we have an author who quotes extensively from the Old Testament, and many of his quotations are taken from the Septuagint. Thus that provides an interesting background. We can also look into the broader Greek world and literature to get additional ideas. But all of that is beyond the scope of this post.

    *****

    [1] The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • With Reasons Like These . . .

    . . . who needs rationalizations? I refer to the article 7 Reasons Why (it’s title in the title bar) also titled “Key Issues Regarding Bible Translation.” This is on the domain genderneutralbibles.com, (yes, Virginia, there really is a genderneutralbibles.com!).

    A while back I blogged on Mark Driscoll’s reasons for using the ESV at his church. But with highly credentialed people to feed pastors misinformation, what should we expect? I am freshly astounded at the poor quality of argumentation and even of exegesis that is used in these articles, even though I shouldn’t be, because I have read these so many times before. Much of this is warmed over KJV-Only argumentation, just used a little bit more narrowly.

    Let’s look at some of the major problems with this essay.

    In discussing 1 Kings 2:10, the authors wax quite eloquent about the wonders of the metaphor “slept with his fathers” as opposed to “died,” preferring the Hebrew metaphor for death to a modern understanding. One should, of course, note that the metaphor is a Hebrew metaphor, and question whether the modern English reader in fact hears all of the things the translators expect. This underlines one of the common problems with the arguments of advocates for literal translation: They speak constantly of what meaning a word, phrase, or passage “contains” without asking what an audience will hear when reading that translation. What is lacking is any testing to see precisely what people will hear and understand.

    This is precisely how I was awakened out of my own apathy on the issue of translations. I was already a fan of dynamic equivalence translations, and thought the KJV was hopelessly out of date in terms of language. But I felt there was no great reason for me to argue with anyone else about this until I was invited to teach on the history of the Bible to a group of high school aged young people. A couple of the students used the KJV, and when they would read, nobody, including them, understood. Now I still see no problem with my mother using the KJV. She’s 87 years old, has read it all her life, and can understand it quite well. But those young people could not. Why should I spend my teaching time in teaching them how to understand 17th century language?

    But that incident started me on learning something very important, other than the realization that many people try to use the KJV even though they don’t really understand it. It suggested to me that the right way to discover how well a Bible translation functioned was to ask people to read it or hear it, and then to explain what they had heard. This applies to the use of gender language, or in this case to the particular metaphor, “slept with his fathers.” Does this metaphor mean all those things to actual church congregations, new believers, or non-Christians? I haven’t tested that particular one, though I suspect the answer is that few people would come up with all the wonderful meanings for the metaphor that our authors find. The problem is that those authors are blithely unconcerned with what people understand. For them, communication is all about what’s “in” the text, not about what readers actually understand from it.

    Thus we see the following:

    Supporters of essentially literal translations would agree that the dynamic equivalence rendering “then David died” does translate the main idea into contemporary English, but they would add that it is better to translate all of the words of the Hebrew original, including the word shakab (which means, “to lie down, sleep”), and the words ‘im (which means “with”), and

  • Rick Mansfield on the ESV

    Rick Mansfield has made an excellent post on the controversy with the ESV. He makes a number of excellent points, but I’d like to quote one paragraph from near the end:

    My contention is not with the ESV. But I do have great problems with the inaccurate rhetoric that I often hear from proponents and endorsers of this translation. I have favorite translations, and I have written about a number of them on this blog. While I talk of their qualities that I like and appropriate uses for them, I go out of my way to try to do so without needlessly putting down other versions of the Bible. I’ve probably been harder on the ESV on this blog than on any translation, but usually it’s been in a context of addressing the audacious and often fallacious claims made for it by ESV supporters. This idea that literalness equals greater accuracy or literalness equals greater faithfulness to the original text is pure nonsense if the rendering is so literal that the author’s intent and meaning is unintelligible to readers and hearers. Antiquated vocabulary and sentence structure do not give a translation greater authority–it merely limits readership in an contemporary setting.

    I actually have very little against the ESV. It does have some awkward readings, but none of them are things that make it hard for me to use. I’ve recommended it to pastors who are uncomfortable with some of the gender-accurate (which they will call gender-inclusive) language in the NRSV. It provides an option to avoid the archaic language used in the RSV for prayer, and still keep to that general tradition.

    But it is currently being pushed forward by some people almost as a new “one true version” and this is more than questionable, it’s potentially dangerous. I too have my favorite versions, but no single version becomes the standard. The particular reasons used in support of the ESV are often inaccurate as well.

  • Maintaining and Improving Biblical Languages Skills

    This post is for a rather limited subset of what (I hope) my audience is here–those who have some knowledge of Biblical Greek, Hebrew, or both. Tragically, many seminary students learn a little bit of Greek or Hebrew but not enough to really put to use, and then they spend the rest of the career (or at least the next couple of weeks) forgetting what they learned. There are two common results–either a pastor/teacher who presents inaccurate information about Biblical languages in teaching, or one who simply leaves out Biblical languages in study altogether. In the former case we have the tragedy of misinformation confidently presented by an authority figure. In the latter, we have the waste of seminary and seminarian time and money.

    I’m going to post a few short entries here about maintaing and improving your Biblical languages skills. Most of these suggestions are equally applicable to both Hebrew and Greek, or even to Aramaic if you have it. Specific tools, of course, will generally apply to one or the other.

    My first general suggestion is simply that you continue to read material in the Biblical language that you studied. There are several things that tend to prevent students from doing this. You may be overwhelmed and disgusted, and never want to see the material again. You may feel that you can’t really read, so what’s the use in trying. You may decide to try, but set excessively ambitious goals.

    So at the first level, let me suggest just making the opportunity to see some Greek several times a week. (I’m going to use “Greek” here for convenience, but this applies equally well to Hebrew.) There are a number of tools to help you do this. Bible software these days, from e-Sword to the source language texts from the NeXt Bible or Logos Bible Software include tools to take you quickly to the lexical entry on various Greek words. Your teacher probably told you not to do this while you were initially learning, but you’re out of class now, and the problem is maintaining and building. These tools allow you to see more Greek text.

    Then there’s the ultimate crib sheet–a good Bible version. I normally recommend dynamic equivalence translations, but for this purpose you will want a literal translation like the ESV, NRSV, or NASB. These are again available in the various software packages I’ve mentioned.

    If you don’t have the Bible software, take your Greek New Testament and get the Reader’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Again, this is a tool you wouldn’t be encouraged to use during first year Greek, but you’re away from the seminary now and trying to maintain your Greek.

    There are some other tools that can help, including grammars, but I’m going to discuss them in a later post. The idea here is that no matter how badly your Greek has faded, you can work your way through a passage. (You will, of course, need to refresh the alphabet.) Don’t be afraid even to just accept the translation in whatever English version you’re using if you don’t understand the material from the text. In later posts I’ll give you suggestions for getting beyond this, but for now you just want to dip your toes in the water.

    At this point don’t get too ambitious. If you can only manage one verse per day, do that. You may have heard of folks who read a chapter each of Greek and Hebrew every day. I read three or four of each besides whatever I read for current research projects. But I’ve been doing this for quite a few years, and I left seminary with five years of Greek and four of Hebrew to which I’ve now added nearly 25 years of reading on my own. Don’t get tangled up with grand goals. Be content to read a verse at a time, and do so several times per week.

    In later posts I’ll discuss solving grammatical issues, reference grammars, building vocabulary, and getting the immediate blessing for your devotional life and your teaching.