Bible Translations

[mattrose]

I was a bit surprised by Steve's hard-line stance on Bible translations on the Tuesday evening program.

Steve basically said that he couldn't understand why some Christians use the NIV, bluntly called it 'dumbed down,' and called The Message Bible 'silly.' He recommended the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV.

I was not surprised by his recommendations (I knew his preferences), but I was a bit surprised by the harsh language he used to describe the NIV (perhaps this is Steve's normal set of comments on the NIV, I don't listen to every episode!).

I guess my 'surprise' is due in part to the fact that I almost never disagree with Steve, but I do disagree with him here. I don't think he's giving enough weight to the legitimate debate between 'literal' (word for word) and 'dynamic' (though for thought) translation. I think a good case can be made for the superiority of 'dynamic' translations. Personally, I have found that the updated NIV (2011) has made a number of improvements. I also have been quite impressed with the NLT. I do not consider myself a 'dumbed-down' Christian.

Steve also bemoaned the multitude of translations. While I share concerns about the 'money' angle of Bible translation, I think the multiplication of Bible translations is an awesome thing (and so did the KJV transators, by the way). Most every weak I enjoy reading 8 or more translations in my Bible study. And, truth be told, different translations prove helpful on different weeks. I am frequently helped by the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV, and even The Message Bible (I think it is unnecessary to call The Message Bible 'silly'... clearly Eugene Peterson is a knowledgeable man in regards to Greek and a skilled writer. I recognize that some of his translations are so out of the norm and some are even off base, but I frankly appreciate the fresh approach and, on occasion, am actually quite impressed with it when Ive finished my Greek word studies).

[mattrose]

A follow up call on the same episode helps me narrow in on my disagreement with Steve. He made a comment about how the NIV may be good for Bible reading, but not for Bible study (but with a tone, it seems, that it's a shame more people don't want to do Bible study).

I find that churches that use the NIV in sermons and sunday school do it for exactly that reason (it reads better). But when there is a translation issue, the preacher or teacher stops and has opportunity to discuss translation issues that are relevant to the message/lesson.

Bottom line... I think translating dynamically is not a flawed philosophy when it comes to Bible translation. I frankly think it is a superior philosophy. It is more challenging and risky, yes. But it is also more rewarding in my opinion. And the only real RISK is if you become an NIV or NLT ONLYIST.

[steve]

I received another complaint about my answer from a listener, who wrote:

I felt very insulted when you said people who read the NIV translation are illiterate.
Definition of illiterate is someone who cannot read or write.
As you can see I can do both.
Your "illiterate" sister in Christ,
P—

I responded:

Hi P—,

Thanks for writing. I think you misunderstood my statements, and I'm sorry you were offended.

"Illiteracy" is a relative term, as I indicated by the use of comparative terms like "greater" or "lesser" illiteracy, and "levels" of illiteracy. I did not say that people who read the NIV are completely illiterate (which would be a self-contradictory statement). I am sure that some very literate people read it. I have read it myself, and I am a voracious reader.

What I said was that the NIV was translated by scholars who sought to accommodate the increasing illiteracy of the Christian reading public (which is true), and that I did not think it was a good idea to lower the bar like that. I prefer translations that aim at greater accuracy, even if they don't read as simply. It is my preference to raise the literacy level of the Christian reading public, rather than to encourage their downward trend.

Blessings!

Steve Gregg

I consult dynamic translations, for the same reasons that I consult commentaries. I consider them to be another kind of commentary. However, I would not be pleased if the church I attend began replacing the Bible with commentaries (I think they would probably use John McArthur's). There are, no doubt, good insights in the commentaries, but reading them is not the same, for me, as reading the biblical writers' own words.

I have no qualms about calling The Message a silly paraphrase. Whatever Peterson's qualifications as a language scholar, he has got to be the world's worst paraphraser. Check out Psalm 1:1 in The Message (with the real words of the verse in my brackets):

How well God must like you—---------------- [Blessed is the man...]
you don’t hang out at Sin Saloon,--------------[Who does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly...]
you don’t slink along Dead-End Road,----------[...nor stand in the way of sinners...]
you don’t go to Smart-Mouth College.----------[...nor sit in the seat of the scornful...]

Does any word more generous than "silly" come to your mind? Does any part of his paraphrase correspond to any words or thoughts in the original? How does the verb "walk" become "hang out"; and "stand" become "slink"; and "sit" become "go to"? The wicked people (the ungodly, sinners, and the scornful) become locations — "Sin-Saloon"? "Smart-Mouth College"? Does anyone really talk like this? Give me a break!). I cannot find any connection between David's words in this verse and the words Peterson chose to replace them.

Or here's another classic:

Psalm 6:1-2

Please, God, no more yelling,------[O Lord do not rebuke me in your anger...]
no more trips to the woodshed.----[Nor chasten me in your hot displeasure...]
Treat me nice for a change;--------[Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak...]
I’m so starved for affection.--------[O Lord, heal me, for my bones are troubled.]

This is supposed to reach the modern reader? Does the younger generation even know what a "woodshed" is, or what it means to be taken there?

Or take the third beatitude:

Matthew 5:5

“You’re blessed when you’re content with just who you are—no more, no less. That’s the moment you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can’t be bought."

This is commentary, not scripture (and pretty awful commentary at that!). It does not simply clarify, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." It gives it an entirely different meaning. A reader of this verse in The Message would have no idea of its connection to Psalm 37:11, which The Message renders: "Down-to-earth people will move in and take over, relishing a huge bonanza" (Here, the word "bonanza" replaces "the abundance of peace" in the original! Who would've guessed?). What has become of the rather significant promise that the meek will inherit the earth in these corrupt paraphrases? It has vanished!

Such attempts to be clever are simply embarrassing. I would be ashamed to give a copy of this paraphrase to an unbeliever or a young believer. They would certainly think the Bible to be a piece of literary pablum.

The problem here is not only that of inaccurate rendering, but the removal of any element of majesty from the text (which is as much a feature of the original as is the meaning). To reduce profound words to childish drivel would be objectionable, even if it were paraphrasing a secular classic. To do the same with the Bible is like a man insulting my wife.

I could understand if an author thought, "I would like to write my own psalms, loosely inspired by the biblical Psalms," and then produced something like The Message (assuming him to be a writer who is not in touch with the way real people communicate). However, I would not refrain from denouncing the substitution of his paraphrase for the real Bible. My criticism would not be of Peterson, if he was intending to write a creative work of his own (though I am not impressed with his literary creativity), but when pastors or laymen choose it in place of the Bible, it seems unconscionable.

[Homer]

Hey Steve! We agree! I would challenge anyone to take The Message and prove from the "New Testament" that homosexual sex is a sin.

[Paidion]

I think Steve has made the case pretty clear concering "The Message". In my opinion, it doesn't qualify even as a paraphrase.

I haven't read much in the NIV, but what I have read doesn't seem significantly different in meaning from the ESV or the NASB. I cannot agree with the idea of it being a "dumbed down" translation.

[steve]

By "dumbing down," I mean taking ambiguous terminology in the original, like Paul's "sarx" ("flesh") or his "old man (anthropos)" and "new man (anthropos)", which would repay extensive study and analysis by a serious Bible student, and simply giving the translator's preferred interpretation—"sinful nature" (e.g., Rom.7:18, 25) and "old (or new) self" (e.g., Rom.6:6; Eph.4:22; Col.3:9) so that readers need not think through Paul's meanings for themselves. This assumes that the reader is not intelligent enough to work with Paul's actual statements, and gives the impression that the translator's interpretation is what Paul actually said.

It is comparable to a teacher presenting his students with one side of a controversial doctrine and not mentioning that there are other possible ways to see the matter, for fear that the students will become "confused." The assumption is clearly, "I am more intelligent than my students. I can handle the knowledge of different options without becoming confused, but they are not mentally capable of doing so."

[Paidion]

Thank you for that explanation, Steve. I hadn't listened to the broadcast, but what you have said above makes sense. It is so easy to latch onto an expression and assign a meaning to it based on our own understanding, without making sufficient effort to understand the way in which the speaker or writer is using it, just as several of us have done with the expression "dumbing down". And it seems that the NIV has done the same thing with some of Paul's words and expressions.

I favour more literal translations myself—especially in Bible studies. I don't go for the AV, however, because it seems to be off base in so many areas. The NKJV is a great improvement, but in many passages it seems to slavishly copy the AV with simply updating the 16th century English. My preferences are the ESV and the NASB.

[steve]

I don't go for the AV, however, because it seems to be off base in so many areas. The NKJV is a great improvement, but in many passages it seems to slavishly copy the AV with simply updating the 16th century English.

I can't disagree with you on that.

[mattrose]

Certainly I wouldn't recommend The Message Bible as one's personal Bible.

Nor would I deny that some of his choices cause some eye-rolls

My point was that I've experienced a number of occasions when, after doing Greek study on a verse, and then consulting various translations, The Message actually, in my opinion, communicated better and more accurately than the major translations. I wish I had kept a record of such occurrences (though I am talking about only a handful of times), but I didn't.

As for the debate between LITERAL and DYNAMIC translation... I simply re-state my original point that the debate is a valid one. I do not agree with Steve that dynamic translations are more like commentaries than Bibles. Translating from one language to another is done for the purpose of communication. It's easier to translate word for word, but actually far less accurate and communicative in many cases.

My stance remains the same... anyone doing deep study of the Scriptures should consult both literal (NKJV, ESV) and dynamic (NIV, NLT) translations. They are all equally valid as translations, just with different translation philosophies. Dynamic translators do harder and more risky work, but when done rightly, the results are better for the Kingdom of God.

I am glad to find an area of disagreement with Steve. I sometimes fear being labeled a clone!

[Paidion]

Steve, I looked up the passages: Rom 6:6, Eph 4:22 and Col 3:9 where the NIV renders "ανθρωπος" as "self", where as the AV and the NKJV render it as "man". I believe that "man" is a misleading translation. For it suggests an adult, male human being. The English word "anthropology" is derived from it. When one studies "anthropology" one's study is not limited to adult males. It is the study of "man" in an inclusive sense. But this isn't clear that this sense is meant from these passages. I think "ανθρωπος" should be translated as "person", and thus "the old person" in these passages. "Self" is closer in meaning to "person" than is "man" (as it is usually understood). Both the ESV and the NASB translated the word as "self".

However, in Romans 7:18,25, the ESV and the NASB translate "σαρξ" as "flesh" and not as "sinful nature" as does the NIV. I do think that "flesh" in this case does refer to the sinful nature as opposed to the physical flesh. Nevertheless, since "σαρξ" means "flesh", I think it should be so translated, and let people decide for themselves its application.