Mark Driscoll out at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, has an interesting post on the Resurgence blog regarding the recent decision he and the elders of that church made to move away from the New International Version (NIV) toward the English Standard Version (ESV), entitled, "Pastoral Reflections on Bible Translations." It's rather lengthy, but well worth reading if you can squeeze in the time, and can be downloaded in pdf format if you would like to print it out.
The first four pages are more of an introduction to the doctrine of inspiration and a study of textual transmission and reliability, than a specific answer to the question of why they switched to the ESV. Beginning with page five (online), he lays a foundation for understanding the difference between word-for-word and dynamic equivilence approaches to translating the Scriptures. He obviously has a healthy appreciation for why both approaches can be a source of blessing to the Body of Christ. He then makes a very strong case, it seems to me, both theologically and practically, for using a word-for-word translation like the ESV instead one based on dynamic equivilence for most public preaching and teaching.
His theological line of reasoning is based on these main points:
1. The ESV upholds the truth that Scripture is the very words of God, not just the thoughts of God.
2. The ESV upholds that what is said must be known before what is meant can be determined.
3. The ESV upholds the truth that words carry meaning.
4. The ESV upholds the theological nomenclature of Scripture.
5. The ESV upholds the truth that while Scripture is meant for all people, it cannot be communicated in such a way that all people receive it.
5. The ESV upholds the truth that while Scripture is meant for all people, it cannot be communicated in such a way that all people receive it.
He states his pragmatic reasons as follows:
"1. Our pulpit is theologically oriented.
2. Our pulpit exists to teach people what they may otherwise not know.
3. Our pulpit is in the most educated and literate city in America.
3. Our pulpit is in the most educated and literate city in America.
5. Our pulpit is precedent-setting for the life and doctrine of our people.
6. Our pulpit is plugged in."
While I am certainly not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, I served as a career missionary before becoming Senior Pastor of Hillcrest Church here in Dallas, and have preached in three different languages, so the challenge of translation is not a new one to me. I know from personal, "hands-on" experience that sometimes the only possible way to intelligibly translate some statements is via dynamic equivilence, but I have found myself on my own personal journey back towards a preference for the word-for-word approach to translating the Scriptures.
When I first came to Dallas and set about preaching regularly again in English, in an effort to use the translation that I felt would be the easiest for everyone in my audience to understand, I began using the New Living Translation in the pulpit. Some of its readings are quite powerful, such as the way it renders the traditional "Blessed are the poor in spirit" in Matthew 5:3," God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs." It seems to me that the NLT has rendered the essence of that verse in such a way that anyone, even a first-time Bible reader, can instantly understand what it means.
Having said all of that, however, the more I preached out of the NLT and the more I came to appreciate the way it stated certain things, the more I became increasingly uneasy with the fact that it's dynamic equivilence approach seemingly causes it to stray quite far away from some important things contained in the original. That growing concern led me to go back to the NIV. Now, after preaching a couple of years from the NIV, I sense myself growing increasingly frustrated with some of the instances where its translators laid aside a word-for-word approach and adopted dynamic equivilence. I still use the NIV, but find I sometimes need to quote other translations in order to clear up some things that I think it could have stated more forthrightly, and I am not entirely satisfied with it.
Reading Driscoll's article has caused me to decide to take a serious look at the ESV in the near future. For me, the bottom line is that a good translation needs to be accessible (after all, the Bible is God's revelation...!) But, it also needs to be accurate. So, the saga continues... I'll keep you posted.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Which translation? NIV? ESV?
Posted by Pastor Mark Brand at 7:35 PM
Labels: Bible Translations, Issues
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Mark, I think you are to be commended for taking seriously which Bible to use when proclaiming God's Word.
And it speaks a lot for you that, as you say in your last paragraph, "the bottom line is that a good translation needs to be accessible."
I think the difficulty in these kind of discussions comes when we mistakenly believe that a formal equivalent (i.e. "word-for-word") translation is somehow more accurate than a dynamic equivalent translation. Obviously, translation is more complicated than simply subsituting an English word for a Greek or Hebrew word. Otherwise, we could let computers create our translations. But if you've ever used those language translatators on the internet, you know that this wouldn't be a good idea.
What is most important for any translation is not so much what translation phiilosophy it uses, but how well it communicates the meaning from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Sometimes literal translations do this fine, but sometimes to be intelligble a passage needs to be translated in a more idiomatic fashion.
If you're interested, I've written two posts recently on this subject: "Grinding Another Man's Grain" and "Literal Is Not More Accurate If It's Unintelligble."
I can also recommend the book The Challenge of Bible Translation for very good discussions on the subject by a number of experts in the field.
For me, the bottom line is that a good translation needs to be accessible (after all, the Bible is God's revelation...!) But, it also needs to be accurate.
Very well stated, Mark. I am a missionary Bible translator. We will dedicate our translation Jan. 28 after 30 years of work. I've been evaluating English versions for many years and blog about it. There is, of course, no perfect translation.
I respect Mark Driscoll's opinion, but I disagree with him. I do not believe that the ESV is adequately accessible. It is accurate, but its English is really strange. There was an incomplete editing/stylistic job done when the ESV team revised the RSV. It's too bad, because we do need better translations, which are both accessible (and sound like natural, good quality English) and accurate.
Feel free to visit our Better Bibles Blog which discusses these issues in as scholarly a fashion as possible. We also remain firmly committed to exegetical accuracy. You can get to our blog by clicking on my username connected to this comment.
You can also click here to see some translation problems I have noted in the ESV. There are many more that could be listed. Some have been noted by other conservative Bible scholars in their reviews of the ESV.
Thanks for thoughtful and insightful post, Rick!
I especially agree with your statement, "What is most important for any translation is not so much what translation phiilosophy it uses, but how well it communicates the meaning from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Sometimes literal translations do this fine, but sometimes to be intelligble a passage needs to be translated in a more idiomatic fashion."
I used the phrase, "word for word translation" in my post simply because that is the phrase Mark Driscoll uses in the post on his blog that I refer to, but, upon reflection, I would have done well to clarify my thoughts on that subject. As you point out, there really is no such thing as a word for word translation, except for something like an interlinear English-Greek New Testament ... and anyone who has ever tried to read a lengthy passage in one of those knows how unworkable that can be, given the vastly different syntax between Greek and English!
At best, it seems to me that the closest anyone can ever get to a "word for word" translation is really a "phrase for phrase" translation or a "sentence for sentence" translation! I do think that Driscoll raises a good question in his post, though, when he talks about his disatisfaction with the NIV using a phrase other than "walk" to talk about the Christian life, when "walk" apparently is so common in the original. His argument is that it would be better to translate "walk" as "walk" and then explain that "walk" is a metaphor for the Christian life than to move so far away from the very words of Scripture.
Backing up from the subject a bit, I hasten to add that, as a missionary's kid who have myself served as a resident missionary, ministering in many different countries, I have always been amazed at how God so powerful uses some of the most awkward and pitiful translations to impact people's lives what that is all there is available! In the Czech Republic, for instance, the most common Bible translates some phrases in a way that have no resemblence at all to the orginal wording (i.e., the phrase in Acts 2 "they all began to speak in other languages..." is rendered, "they all were in ecstasy..."), and, yet, God used it for many years to build His church! What a mighty God we serve...!
Thanks, again, for your post. I look forward to reading your articles. My wife grew up in Louisville, by the way.
Blessings to you!
Mark
Post a Comment