... to authorise a brilliant and lastingly satisfying Bible translation!
OK, in our lifetime there will not be one such translation, but in some of our lifetimes there was a candidate with "prospects". It was the New International Version (NIV) which, at least in my memory, and in my circle of Christian experiences, say, through the 1980s, was widely popular (and produced in some very nice, readable, easy-to-open formats).
But something happened ... I do not quite know what ... and the NIV has both become less widely used, outsold these days (I am told) by the New Living Translation, and succeeded by the Today's NIV (TNIV) - an inclusive language version (but sold side by side with the NIV slightly revised).
But there has been great controversy in the more conservative circles of American evangelicalism about NIV v TNIV v other translations. So we come to this (H/T Titus One Nine) announcement.
Confused after reading that?
On a brighter note, there is a seemingly endless supply of leaves or fragments of leaves of Codex Sinaiticus to excite aficionados of the very first 'full' Bible, as you can read here!
15 comments:
The NIV of course, was always a partisan Bible, as witnessed by the CBT's refusal to translate the Apocrypha (to say nothing of that ghastly "sinful nature" translation of sarx. It was never going to achieve what the KJV did, despite it's many strengths – I liked it enough to choose a leather bound one as my ordination Bible, so don't think this is a simple rejection.
The NIV of course, was always a partisan Bible, as witnessed by the CBT's refusal to translate the Apocrypha (to say nothing of that ghastly "sinful nature" translation of sarx. It was never going to achieve what the KJV did, despite it's many strengths – I liked it enough to choose a leather bound one as my ordination Bible, so don't think this is a simple rejection.
An interesting question, Doug, would be (something like), "What is the least partisan Bible translation ... in times past ... in the last 40 years ...?" (!!)
Greetings
It would be interesting to know what percentage of our NZ Anglican priests have achieved (at least) stage 1 Hebrew and Koine Greek. I suspect that statistic would be frighteningly embarrassing.
The NIV is immediately suspect as, in refusing to translate the Deuteroncanonical Books (“apocrypha”), it cannot be the Bible for over half of the world’s English-speaking Christians.
A quick glance at some important texts shows the NIV to be another version of the Bible as some people wished God had written it. Isaiah 7:14 is mistranslated, without even a footnote that this might be so. When it comes to theories of atonement, someone will have to point out the word “wrath” in my Greek NT that is to be found in the footnote to Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10.
It was you, Peter, who pointed me to the Satanic nature of NIV (LOL)
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/niv-dodgy/1506
IMO for English-speaking Christians who are not familiar with the original languages the NRSV, keeping a careful eye on its footnotes, is the least partisan recent Bible translation and the safest way to access the full Word of God.
Blessings
Bosco
http://www.liturgy.co.nz
I am inclined to agree with you, Bosco, about the NRSV, yet you will think it strange, I am sure, that I continue to use the ESV! I also enjoy using the REB these days.
I will only think it strange, Peter, if you think it strange that I also keep an eye on these and several other translations :-)
I suspect that you and I keep our primary eye (in my case my right one) on the original texts.
NIV has produced some wonderful different formats of the Bible. Thankfully, finally, the NRSV is catching up with some stunning resources.
The NRSV with its PC 'friends' etc for 'adelphoi' and its studied avoidance of 'he who' etc (pluralizing or making it 'you' or other gender-free circumlocutions) doesn't strike me as particularly non-partisan translation.
I guess Matthew was wrong about Isaiah 7.14!
... alla dei emoi legein hoti en te ekklesia emou hoi adelphoi (kai hai adelphai!) huperkalos didaktoi dia ten kallistan diakonian kai megan tapeinophrosounen emou eisin kai ou chreian echousin tais graphais en glosse agglike anaginoskein!
choris onomou hen
English Anonymous does not realise most of the NT, including Matt 1:23 quotes the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Hebrew. If her comment is claiming that we Christians should be translating from the Septuagint, then NIV fails both in claiming that it doesn’t, and in lacking the books present in the Septuagint but lacking in NIV.
I merely think the NIV is dishonest in claiming “For the Old Testament… the Masoretic Text…was used throughout” (NIV preface) without so much as a footnote to indicate this is not the case, for example, when they “translate” Isaiah 7:14.
As for “adelphoi” being translated as “friends” in NRSV, I guess she would also be in uproar that it is so normally translated, for example, in Xenophon (An., VII, 2, 25). Furthermore, I highlighted that in reading the NRSV one keeps an eye on the footnotes. Which, as I’ve highlighted, is more than can be said for NIV.
For those of us who believe what is actually written is inspired, rather than what one would have liked to see written there, the NRSV wins hands down over the NIV. I also repeat – nothing replaces familiarity with the original languages
Hello, Bosco - I'm not English any more than you're Italian (o forse Lei esta un poco? ottimo!). I'm well aware that Matthew quotes (with slight variations) LXX - he was writing in Greek after all! If he accepted LXX 'parthenos', that must be because he considered it a fair rendering of 'almah' - which may or may not denote a virgo intacta: and surely so in Gen 24.43 (Rebekah), Exod. 2.8 (Miriam). So I don't agree it's (necessarily) a 'mistranslation', and neither do the translators/revisers of the ESV who similarly rendered Isa 7.14. (One of them, Prof. Gordon Wenham wrote something years ago (in ZAW?) on the meaning of bethulah which might be relevant here.) The NIV translators were not being 'dishonest' but merely following an old conservative tradition.
I'm not too bothered how Xenophon is translated, unless you are suggesting Anabasis should be added to the Canon, in which case I will be worried about you, adel- pardon, hetaire! :) NT Greek already has hetairos and philos to do duty for 'friend'; the significance of adelphoi is the family metaphor for the Church which is lost in the feeble 'friends' of NRSV. (Why don't you just say 'mates' in Chch!)
And you have ignored my point that NRSV, in its gender-agenda, consistently pluralizes Gk 3rd masc. sing verbs or makes them second person. This is in part a concession to modern western concerns.
Gender issues aside, NRSV and NIV represent different translation philosophies; NRSV is closer to word-for-word literalism (but avoids 'man', 'he', 'his', 'brother' etc when this is the literal rendering of the Gk or Hebrew), while NIV is actually semi-dynamic equivalent. The ESV, from the same stable as the NRSV ( from RSV) is 'essentially literal' without the 'degenderized' changes.
But as you Italians say: 'traduttore, traditore!'
(Have a look at 'The Inclusive Language Debate' by D A Carson for a balanced and insightful discussion of some of the issues.)
It is difficult for me to see what is so controversial in what you write that you feel the need to hide behind anonymity so that I distinguished between your English comment and another Greek comment.
What evidence do you have that “If he accepted LXX 'parthenos', that must be because he considered it a fair rendering of 'almah'”? The Orthodox study bible translates LXX, not the Masoretic text, yet still has the integrity to note the Masoretic original in the footnote cf. NIV! Following your logic every Old Testament text should be made to conform to its NT (mis)quotation. And I agree with you, the ESV is as dishonest as the NIV – sometimes more so.
What you call the “gender issue” is merely the changing nature of English language. You can deplore changes in English all you like but the days when “he” and “men” etc. are universally understood to include both genders are behind us. To have as accurate a translation into contemporary English as we can requires taking that into account when the clear intention of the original text is to include both genders.
Definition of “semi-dynamic equivalent”: translate as much as possible word for word – change the resulting translation where you don’t like it. (I can find only one reference on the internet to your technique of translating:
"The Gospel of the Kingdom: Retold"
http://www.biblebureau.com/otherbibleversions.htm)
I am sorry you find friendship feeble. That has not been my experience. Once again you seem to have missed my point of the importance of footnotes (as well as competency in the original languages).
At the risk of using up Peter's bandwidth:
"What evidence do you have that “If he accepted LXX 'parthenos', that must be because he considered it a fair rendering of 'almah'”?"
- read the commentaries by France and Hagner, ad loc.
"The Orthodox study bible translates LXX, not the Masoretic text, yet still has the integrity to note the Masoretic original in the footnote cf. NIV!"
- As you probably know, the Orthodox Communion accepts the LXX as inspired thruout. The Western Church since Jerome has followed MT - and Jerome also followed the MT Canon, and this was affirmed by the Reformers.
"Following your logic every Old Testament text should be made to conform to its NT (mis)quotation."
- Not my logic at all. I follow the MT, and did so when I participated in a Bible translation project and in commentary writing. How the NT writers handle OT "quotes" is another question.
"And I agree with you, the ESV is as dishonest as the NIV – sometimes more so."
- then you don't agree with me, because I don't think it's dishonest, just traditional and conservative. Of course, that might mean 'dishonest' to you.
"What you call the “gender issue” is merely the changing nature of English language..."
You misunderstand again. I am fully aware that language changes. Some of the NRSV changes are improvements on the RSV, others actually conceal the precise meaning of the Heb. and Gk. Read Carson for details.
"Definition of “semi-dynamic equivalent”: translate as much as possible word for word – change the resulting translation where you don’t like it."
Your own idiosyncratic definition, Bosco. Read Eugene Nida.
"I am sorry you find friendship feeble. That has not been my experience."
I am very pleased for you. But I have friends who are not brothers (in Christ) and vice versa. 'friends' is just the NRSV's way of avoiding saying 'brothers and sisters' all the time'
"Once again you seem to have missed my point of the importance of footnotes..."
- THe NRSV is absolutely replete with footnotes, most of these giving the original Gk or Heb. that the NRSV has changed in the interest of gender inclusivity. The avoidance of 'man' and 'son of man' in NRSV Heb 2.7-9 has obscured its christological significance.
-(as well as competency in the original languages).
No argument from me there. I could only wish the prayers and theology of the NZ prayer book were more biblical themselves.
“As you probably know, the Orthodox Communion accepts the LXX as inspired thruout.”
- Yes, you appear so engaged in anonymously disagreeing that you do not take the time to engage with my point. I am quite open to engaging in dialogue and even changing my position in a conversation (as illustrated in my response to Peter above). A translation of a denomination committed to the LXX as inspired still has the humility and integrity to note the original Hebrew being different. NIV does not do this as it goes against its partisan position – the original thread.
“I follow the MT, and did so when I participated in a Bible translation project and in commentary writing. How the NT writers handle OT "quotes" is another question.”
- Agreed. It was you who introduced the way “NT writers handle OT "quotes".” I merely highlighted NIV mistranslated the Hebrew OT. I have no disagreement with NIV’s translation of Mt 1:23. It was you that needed them to be identical.
“The avoidance of 'man' and 'son of man' in NRSV Heb 2.7-9 has obscured its christological significance.”
- your responding with this in the context of my stating the value of NRSV footnotes that is a bit rich as, for those who are not agile in the original languages, the NRSV footnotes for that passage are crystal clear.
I repeat. The NRSV is not perfect – no translation is. Best is to work from the original language. For those who cannot, the NRSV with its footnotes is the best starting point. Other translations are helpful from there.
Why you do not have the courage of your convictions to come out from hiding behind anonymity is beyond me. An explanation of that would be worth reading.
"Why you do not have the courage of your convictions to come out from hiding behind anonymity is beyond me. An explanation of that would be worth reading."
Psalm 22:6 (ESV or NIV, definitely NOT the terrible NRSV translation here! :))
(BTW, apologies for not sending greetings on the Birthday of ha-Almah ha-Beruchah Miryam.)
Thinking that, as a woman, hiding behind anonymity on the web gives you any more right to teach men than preaching in the non-virtual world by cutting your hair and wearing trousers in the pulpit is IMO fundamentally flawed :-)
It is intriguing that you accept Mary’s perpetual virginity but not the Deuterocanonical books.
Post a Comment