Why a Discussion on Bible Translations is Necessary

Transcription

1 Why a Discussion on Bible Translations is Necessary As we begin the process of determining a preferred Bible translation for Grace, it s important to remember that we are having this discussion from a place of great wealth and abundance. There are more English translations of the Bible than we have time to discuss (at least 25 that could be relevant to this presentation). This is remarkable given the fact that languages do NOT have a translated Bible. 1 That means 350 million people do not have a choice over translation because they have none. Therefore, we must approach this issue with a measure of humility and gratitude that God has given us options. When asked, What is the best translation? I usually respond, Whichever one you are reading faithfully and regularly. The follow up question usually is, Well, which one should I study from? As many as you can, I recommend. No translation gets it completely right all the time. The nature of translation necessarily entails a measure of interpretation communicating not just words and grammar, but also concepts, ideas, and worldview elements from an ancient culture into ours. Translations will vary in their interpretation because they vary in goals. Some want more readability. Others aim for close adherence to the original language. Still others try and navigate a very fragile course between the two. Translations will even vary on which manuscripts of the original Hebrew and/or Greek have priority. Given these varying aims and contributions, it would be wrong for us to belittle or degrade one translation for the purpose of exalting another. The variety of translations is a blessing for studying the Scriptures especially when one does not have knowledge of the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. Nevertheless, for the purpose of teaching and preaching (and also for discipleship, as I will propose), it is important to establish a level of consistency for which translations we use. This is so that we do not implicitly erode our people s confidence in the translation that they might be using. By using a certain translation to preach/teach from, we implicitly prefer one translation over another. If the translation we regularly teach from is different from the one someone has in his hands, the question will eventually arise as to why we prefer one translation over another, and why there are such differences in translations to begin with. Often, differences are minor, but occasionally, they can be significant. If left unaddressed, the thoughtful disciple could begin to doubt the accuracy of his translation over and against the one being displayed or vice versa. Left unchecked, we could implicitly undermine confidence in the English Scriptures. The aim of this discussion is not to decree that everyone must use the translation we are teaching from. Rather, my purpose is to inform our people how to navigate the various translations and usefully employ them for deeper study of, and meditation on the Word. In so doing, I will propose a preferred translation for use on Sunday mornings and make the case that several translations along a discipleship spectrum can serve our purposes to Pursue Christ, Engage Others, and Impact the World. Since it is impossible to treat all of the 25+ English translations that might be within reach of our people, we will limit our discussion to 3-5 of the most used translations in our church: the New Living Translation (NLT), the New International Version-1984 (NIV84), the New International Version-2011 (NIV11), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New American Standard-1995 (NASU). Most of my examples will key in on the differences between the ESV and the NIV (and its various derivatives) as they are representative of the two major translation philosophies functional vs. formal equivalence. Additionally, the recent publication of the NIV11 has brought translational method to the forefront of discussion, and is therefore a natural target for examination and comparison. 1 Cited Sept. 6,

2 Two Basic Translational Philosophies The goal of translation is to reproduce the meaning of the text, not the form. 2 This statement by Gordon Fee lies at the heart of the differences between the philosophies behind translations. Some translations prioritize the meaning over the form, while others include the form as part of the meaning. A good translation will convey the intended meaning of the original language into the target language, but how should it carry out this task? Is meaning only found in the ideas being communicated or is it also conveyed through the forms of grammar and syntax? That is, is how something is said as important as what is said? Translation is a complicated issue in that no two languages have the same forms or structure. They differ in grammar (how words are put together), size of vocabulary (how many words), lexical range (what words mean), and stylistic preferences (what speech is appropriate to certain settings). For example, every language has its own conception of how to describe hunger. In English, someone might be hungry vs. in Spanish, having hunger vs. in Korean, stomach aching. All of these phrases convey the idea of wanting food though they are grammatically very different. Similarly, some grammatical constructions in Greek and Hebrew do not exist in English or would make for really awkward translation if carried over literally. Hebrew uses infinitive constructs and would make for unintelligible English if left as an infinitive in the English text. Likewise, Greek uses cases to mark the function of a word in a sentence while English uses word order. Thus, exact word-for-word translation is impossible. Given these considerations, a translation that emphasizes formal equivalence (also called literal or wordfor-word ) seeks to retain the form of the original Greek or Hebrew while producing intelligible English. A functionally equivalent translation (also called dynamic or thought for thought ) seeks to reproduce the meaning of the text into good, idiomatic, conversational English, abandoning the form if need be. Most of the translations that concern our church can fit into a spectrum between these two philosophies. In truth, every translation will have some formal features and some functional features. We will look at each of these translational philosophies in turn. Formal Equivalent Mediating Functional Equivalent NASB KJV RSV NAB NIV JB NEB GNT LB NASU NKJV ESV NRSV TNIV NJB REB NLT CEV Tanakh HSCB NET GW NCV The Message Formal Equivalence Consistency is one of the top priorities of a translation that aims for formal equivalence. When it comes to individual words, formal equivalent translations try to translate a Hebrew or Greek word with the same English word as much as possible. Syntax, or grammar, is also kept intact as much as possible. So if a word is in the infinitive in the Greek text, it will be translated into an infinitive in the English. The formal equivalent approach has less sensitivity to the language of the contemporary reader. It runs the risk of sacrificing meaning for the sake of maintaining form. 3 The clearest example of a translation that seeks formal equivalence is the New American Standard Bible (NASB). While adhering closely to the sentence structure of the original Greek/Hebrew, the English can also be a little awkward and/or forced. The result is that very few people memorize Scripture from NASB. The King James Version (KJV) retains old English, and still adheres to the structure of the Greek/Hebrew. The 2 Gordon Fee. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, p J. Scott Duvall & J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God s Word. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, rd ed. p

3 English Standard Version (ESV) moves more towards readability in the language employed, but still seeks to adhere to the form of the original language as much as possible. Translations like the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) are a bit more readable than even the ESV, while still maintaining a commitment to preserving the form. It would fall somewhere between the NIV (see below) and the ESV, while being closer to the ESV. Functional Equivalence Intelligibility is the top priority of a functionally equivalent translation. The goal is to make the English translation sound as clear and natural as the original text sounded to its original readers. Words are translated according to their meaning rather than lexical correspondence. Thus, while a Greek word may be translated by the same English word in a passage, if there is the sense that the word is referring to something else in another place, a different English word could be used. Accuracy is found not in following the form of the original text, but the meaning in its context. The functional equivalent approach has less sensitivity to the form of the original text. In trying to make the message as natural to contemporary readers as it would have been to the original ones, it runs the risk of distorting the true meaning of the text. In defending the functional equivalence view, Gordon Fee states, the best translation is one that remains faithful to the original meaning of the text, but uses language that sounds as clear and natural to the modern reader. 4 While I would certainly affirm this, I believe that the functional equivalent approach runs into more problems in preserving the original meaning of the text because of its commitment to readability. Readability requires interpretation, and while every translation has a certain measure of interpretation, a functional equivalent translation is far more prone to take interpretive license in the name of readability. The best example of a functional equivalent translation is the New Living Translation. The goal of this translation is to take the idea being conveyed and to repackage it into contemporary, user-friendly English with little regard to the original form. Moving towards more formal equivalence while still prioritizing readability, the New International Version (NIV) has been the most popular translation because of its mediating stance between the two poles. However, the latest update (NIV11) has taken some steps that perhaps make it unsuitable for use in the larger context of our church. We will discuss some of these problems below. To illustrate the differences between the two approaches, imagine an ancient pot translated for use today: Original Text Formal Equivalence Functional Equivalence 4 Fee, p

4 Translation Comparison We will now discuss several passages to illustrate the weaknesses inherent to a functional equivalent translation. The disclaimer we began with bears repeating. The aim of this comparison is not to bash one translation in favor of another, but rather to demonstrate how a formal equivalent translation may be more suited to our ministry needs at Grace. I have listed the textual examples under some general headings in order to treat some of the difficulties systematically. Because of space limitations, I have not provided an exhaustive list of examples. 5 Additionally, I have not included examples from the NASB as the ESV and the NASB appear to handle the examples below in almost identical fashion. The only difference is word order and use of more natural English (ESV). 1. A functional equivalent translation loses some of the stylistic wordplays of the Hebrew and Greek. Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. If anyone takes a human life, that person s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image. While the ESV and NIV11 maintain the poetic form of this saying, the NIV11 replaces man with human in the name of gender accuracy (we will discuss this below). The problem with this, while minor, is that there is a wordplay in the Hebrew between blood ( dam in Hebrew) and man ( adam in Hebrew). While most English readers would not have access to this knowledge without further study, anyone with a cursory introduction to Hebrew could suspect an adam / dam wordplay here. This reinforces the poetic nature of the text something completely lost when human is substituted in place of man. Acts 19:11 And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, God did extraordinary miracles through Paul... God gave Paul the power to perform unusual miracles. Here, the ESV includes hands of Paul while the functional equivalent translations NIV and NLT both simply translate it as Paul having power to do the miracles. The rationale is that by the hands is a Greek idiom that is unnatural in English (a debatable point even at that). In so doing, the functional equivalent translations ignore the ongoing theme of Acts 19 beginning with Paul laying hands on people and healing them. This even goes back to the signs and wonders performed by the apostles through their hands (Acts 5:12)! It may be a simple Greek idiom, but it may be more (even a thematic repetition of the use of hands!) Nevertheless, the translators should have let the reader/interpreter decide instead of removing that obvious repetition. The NIV11 has under-translated Acts 19: A functional equivalent translation creates confusion with regards to gender neutrality. This is perhaps the most contentious and most misunderstood aspect of a functional equivalence approach and therefore deserves special attention. The only gender neutral Bible under examination is the NIV11, but even the NIV11 translation committee would reject being labeled a gender neutral Bible instead preferring a gender accurate designation. I will use the term gender neutral to refer to gender accuracy. A few myths about gender neutral/accurate approaches to translation must first be addressed. 5 For more examples, see Gordon Fee s excellent book on choosing a Bible translation or Vern Poythress book on Gender Neutrality. In addition, Kevin DeYoung has an excellent pamphlet on why he chose the ESV as the preferred translation over the NIV. 4

5 Myth 1: The NIV removes masculine reference to God as father or Jesus as son of man, and all masculine pronouns referring to the Godhead. This is simply false. The translators own statement in the preface reads, Nowhere in the updated NIV...is there even the remotest hint of any inclusive language for God. The revisions solely surround inclusive language for mankind. 6 Myth 2: The NIV removes gender distinctions between men and women in the name of inclusive language. Again, this is false. Where there is clear reference to a woman, the language is preserved. Gender neutral language refers to the generic uses of man to refer to both men and women. While some of the proposed instances of generic language (using man or brothers to refer to a group of men and women ) are debatable, the NIV never replaces a clear she with a they or he. In texts dealing with gender roles, the NIV does not eradicate the differences in the name of gender neutrality. This also applies to passages that clearly deal with fathers vs. mothers and sons vs. daughters (though again, there are some debatable instances). The clarification of these myths is not to affirm the gender neutral approach. In fact, gender neutrality, while attempting to clarify and make explicit assumptions we make about the text when referring to both men and women, actually creates more difficulties than it is worth. Pluralization as a side-effect of gender accuracy. James 1:12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. God blesses those who patiently endure testing and temptation. Afterward they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. The NLT pluralizes the man in the name of gender accuracy, but in the process loses the maxim nature of James saying. James is following the form of wisdom literature, and the NLT completely overlooks that. Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice. The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice. Fools think their own way is right, but the wise listen to others. The NIV11 and NLT both pluralize what is a singular referent in the Hebrew ( fool fools ) in order to preserve gender accuracy by replacing his own eyes with them. At least the NIV stays consistent in translating the following verse plural as well. Strangely, the NLT goes back to the singular! Additionally, introducing the collective fools while still maintaining a singular way creates ambiguity. While the Proverb seems to designate the particular concoction of a fool ( the way of a fool ), the NIV11 seems to describe the pattern of fools in general ( the way of fools ). The most problematic example of this will be discussed in conjunction with #3 below. Changing of person as a side-effect of gender accuracy. 6 Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation. 5

6 Puzzlingly, while the Translators Notes of the NIV11 state that using second person forms ( you ) in place of third person forms ( he ) was avoided, there are plenty of examples where this is not the case. Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. Again, in the interest of gender neutrality, NIV11 and NLT replace he with you. The effect of changing out the he is that the punchline of this teaching is delivered too early. The effect of this teaching is to begin with a generic he and then to hit it home in the final line, you cannot serve both God and money. By trying to avoid the masculine he, the NIV11 reduces the rhetorical punch of the teaching. Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends. This is a glaring example of both pluralization and changing of person. The NIV11 completely botches this translation by introducing a generic that person and then pluralizing it with they. The rationale is that the they acts as a collective pronoun used singularly, but it adds more confusion than clarifies. Is this a corporate feast? Who else is included? Will Jesus only eat with that person? Psalm 34:19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all. The righteous person may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; The righteous person faces many troubles, but the LORD comes to the rescue each time. This final example demonstrates the inconsistency of the NIV11. Here, the righteous is a collective singular (thus, the ESV and NASB follow with the generic him ), but the NIV also includes the him. Based on our previous data, shouldn t they have pluralized again if only to remain consistent? At least the NLT pluralizes all the way for the sake of consistency. 3. A functional equivalent translation produces inaccurate NT citations of the OT. One of the most troubling deficiencies of the NIV is in the way that OT citations are handled with regards to the gender neutrality issues listed above. The best (or worst) example of this is in the use of Psalm 8 by the writer of Hebrews. We will handle each passage in turn. 6

7 Psalms 8 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. what are mere mortals that you should think about them, human beings that you should care for them? Yet you made them only a little lower than God and crowned them with glory and honor. The same sort of pluralizing of a singular ( son of man human beings ) is evident here. The NLT goes so far as to pluralize man mortals and son of man humans. Scripture ESV NIV (2011) NLT Heb 2:6-8 6 It has been testified somewhere, What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? 7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, 8 putting everything in subjection under his feet. Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But there is a place where someone has testified: What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him? 7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor and put everything under their feet. In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. 6 For in one place the Scriptures say, What are mere mortals that you should think about them, or a son of manthat you should care for him? 7 Yet you made them only a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. 8 You gave them authority over all things. Now when it says all things, it means nothing is left out. But we have not yet seen all things put under their authority. Here is where the occurrence of pluralizing and inconsistency in translation poses real interpretive obstacles. In describing the humiliation of Jesus, the writer of Hebrews cites Psalm 8:4-5. While the practice of OT citations/allusions in the NT is a complex one, it is clear that the writer is appealing to Psalm 8:4-5 to support his assertion. 7 The problem is that while the ESV and NASB preserve the wording of Ps. 8:4-5 in the OT (for the most part just reiterating what the OT text says), the NIV11 and the NLT change their translations. The NLT changes the translation in Heb. 2:6-8 to say man and son of man in order to keep the Messianic reference in Ps. 8 intact, but the Ps. 8:4-5 citation quoted in Heb. 2 is nothing like the Ps. 8:4-5 in the OT. The NLT translation of Ps. 8 is 7 The writer is relying on some form of the Greek OT (LXX) citing the verse almost verbatim, and then adds the ending of Ps. 8:6 in order to make the point that Jesus has been exalted over all things. For a more detailed discussion of the complexities of the NT authors use of the OT, see Greg Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Baker Academic: Grand Rapids,

8 fraught with plurals ( mortals ; humans ), and even resorts to 1 st person plurals ( you made us... ; you crowned us ) while the Heb. 2 citation of Ps. 8:4-5 looks like something out the ESV! The NIV11 fares no better. It changes the second half of the citation of Ps. 8:4 from human beings son of man in order to preserve the Messianic reference, but it also maintains the pluralization (as a result of gender inclusiveness). The remaining portion of the citation then reverts back to the plural. This results in a convoluted citation that changes subjects from a collective plural mankind to son of man to them and their feet! The citation looks nothing like the verse being cited. Granted the NIV11 does a better job than the TNIV, which totally obliterates the reference back to Ps 8, but it does not go far enough. In sum, the pursuit of gender neutrality has obfuscated the connection between Heb. 2 and Ps. 8, an important example of the NT use of the OT. In fact, the NIV translation is in danger of blotting out the typology that the writer of Hebrews painstakingly points out. This is inexcusable for a committee of translators to overlook such an important biblical theological connection in the name of readability. 4. Inconsistent translation in functional equivalent translations leads to the loss of thematic emphases. Loss of Technical terms This point is similar to #1 above, but deserves some comment. Because of the goals of functional equivalence, the translations take some interpretive license in assigning meaning to a word as it seems to function in the immediate context. The result can be inconsistent translation of a word through a given book or passage. This is especially troublesome when it comes to technical theological terms. Rom 3:25 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, The NIV11 and NLT both replace propitiation with sacrifice of atonement and satisfy God s anger in their respective translations. The intention is to replace an archaic unused term with a more understandable one. Ellis raises the objection that such accommodation devalues technical terms that have weight theologically. It advocates conforming biblical language and concepts to the modern culture rather than conforming the modern culture to the biblical language and concepts. 8 While I do not agree completely with his stance nor the conclusions he draws, I do think there is some merit in the suggestion that, rather than abandoning technical terms for the sake of modern parlance, we should explain the biblical words and idioms E. Earle Ellis, Dynamic Equivalence Theory, Feminist Ideology, and Three Recent Bible Translations. The Expository Times. p. 8

9 Gal 3:3 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 3 How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort? Gal 4:23 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. 23 The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God s own fulfillment of his promise. Gal 4:29 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 29 But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit. Gal 5:13 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 13 For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don t use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love. The word sarx ( flesh ) appears 18x in the book of Galatians so there is obviously some thematic usage of the idea of flesh in the letter. The NASB and ESV translate the word as such in all of their occurrences. The NLT is not as consistent. Instead it opts to use terms like birth, sinful nature, circumcised, etc. The NIV11 does a much better job in translating flesh as such throughout Galatians. Inconsistency in Translation Phil 2:7-8 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death even death on a cross! 7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, 8 he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal s death on a cross. Similar to what has already been discussed under gender neutrality and also the loss of style, the NIV11 introduces more ambiguity in translation. In Phil. 2:7, it says that Jesus was made in human likeness (replacing likeness of men ), but in the next verse it translates, found in appearance as a man. The intent is to preserve the masculinity of Jesus, but given that intent, it is unclear as to why they replaced men with human likeness. The NIV11 has lost the interchange between man and human form and is again guilty of inconsistency. 5. A functional equivalent translation can be guilty of over-translation. 9

10 Interpretive Genitives & Hebrew Constructs Because a discussion of genitives and constructs requires a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew grammar and syntax respectively, I will refrain from adding examples into this section. The basis of this section is that there is a lot of interpretation that goes into translating genitives in Greek and Hebrew constructs. The NIV11 and NLT tend to fill in these relationships and constructs, supplying an interpretation of the relationship that is more than just translation. There is a simple way to translate these types of relationships, and the NIV11 often elucidates these relationships by interpreting them for the reader. Cultural cues built into the text 1 Cor 4:9 9 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. 9 For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. Instead, I sometimes think God has put us apostles on display, like prisoners of war at the end of a victor s parade, condemned to die. We have become a spectacle to the entire world to people and angels alike. In several places, the functional equivalent translations add phrases and words to illuminate the cultural notions behind a word or phrase. Note the differences between the ESV & the NIV11/NLT. The idea of exhibited (ESV) is elaborated by on display at the end of the procession (NIV11) or at the end of a victor s parade (NLT). While many scholars would agree that the Greek phrase has in mind the Roman cultural practice of displaying prisoners at the end of a victory procession, the text itself does not explicitly say this. Why not let the interpreter (pastor, student, reader) interpret the passage instead of building the interpretation into the translation? The functional equivalent translations overstep their translational boundaries by explicitly translating a cultural idea into the text. Col 3:1-2 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 Since you have been raised to new life with Christ, set your sights on the realities of heaven, where Christ sits in the place of honor at God s right hand. 2 Think about the things of heaven, not the things of earth. Similarly, the NIV11 and NLT add in v. 1 the idea of set your hearts (NIV11) and set your sights (NLT), but the Greek only says seek. In so doing, the NIV11/NLT has created a false progression of hearts and minds (which is in the Greek text in v. 2) from vs

11 Summary and Recommendation These sampling of examples show why functional equivalent translations are not sufficient as the primary translation for widespread use in our church. There are too many interpretive difficulties caused by gender inclusiveness, over-translation, under-translation, and loss of style. This is not to say that such translations have no value at our church. In fact, they do, but I would propose that we employ the ESV translation for use in our public worship services. My reasons are as follows: 1. The ESV seems to strike the best balance between readability and adherence to the original text. The NASB while more formal than the ESV, sometimes provides an awkward translation, making it hard for memorization and deeper meditation. 2. The ESV does not over-translate like the NIV11. Thus, the preacher/teacher does not have to rework the translation, nor does the translation do all the work. 3. The ESV does not employ gender-neutral/inclusive/accurate language. Thus, it avoids the problems of pluralization, confusion regarding citations, etc. 4. The NIV11, while an improvement on the Today s New International Version (TNIV), still resembles that translation, and could be a stumbling block to those who already have a predisposition against the TNIV (often times based on notions about gender neutrality see our discussion of gender neutrality above). While I propose that the ESV should be used in our corporate services, this is not the same thing as saying that the ESV should be our preferred translation for use in our church. I make the distinction because we need to think about translations as discipleship tools just as we would any curriculum or materials. A new believer with little to no biblical literacy (or for that matter, many Christians today!) may be intimidated or confused by the language of the ESV. Unlike in our public services where a preacher gives commentary on the passage, an individual reading the Word and developing the habit of personal devotions needs a translation that will be thoroughly accessible. If we desire our people to be in the Word regularly, we must suggest to them translations that will allow them to understand and meditate on the Word. However, because we are serious about spiritual maturity and discipleship, we want an individual to grow in his/her understanding of the Word and thus the language of the Bible. As an analogy, we may start someone reading a book by Max Lucado, but if that is all they ever read, they miss out on John Piper, C.S. Lewis, or even Jonathan Edwards! Those latter writings are not for the faint of heart you cannot just jump into them. At the same time, it would be a tragedy to avoid them forever. Thus, we would want a new believer to begin using the NLT for personal reading, but as time goes on (and as discipleship progresses), we would want them to eventually use the ESV and perhaps the NASB. Thus, I would propose a translation spectrum for use by our church. I have delineated it according to the following schematic. 11

12 Introduction: the Bible accommodates my cultural perspective, language, and contemporary worldview by using language, ideas, and interpreting ancient culture. This is exactly what a functional equivalent translation seeks to do. New believers and children would be introduced to and taught in the NLT. Exchange: I begin to be exposed to concepts and cultural cues of the biblical world, but still in language that is accessible and memorable. A mediating formal equivalent translation would be the best tool for this stage. I would surmise that this is the broadest swath of our congregation, so we would use the ESV (hence the recommendation to use the ESV in our corporate worship services). Engagement: As I continue to mature and learn the concepts and cultural ideas of the biblical world, I begin to engage the more technical and theological ideas that unite, drive, and shape the biblical storyline. My study of the Bible grows deeper, more thoughtful, and more comprehensive. I have more biblical knowledge to draw on so I can more readily interpret Scripture with Scripture and see unifying themes, cross-references, word analogies, etc. A more formal equivalent translation that will root us in the original text would be helpful NASB. Final Thoughts Thankfully, God uses all the translations to reveal an understanding of His will, His character, and His actions in the glorious Gospel! Therefore, we are not bound to draw a line in the sand regarding translations or to prescribe the mandatory use of one translation over another. More than anything, this discussion has sought to provide a rationale for being thoughtfully consistent in what translation we preach from and display in our public gatherings as well as how to take advantage of the variety of translations for discipleship. 12