Sep 06 2007
paraphrases - love’m and hate’m
There is a translating frenzy in American Christianity. This is a good thing for at least two reasons.
- Since the last frenzy in the 60’s and 70’s, American English has changed pretty significantly and in some unanticipated ways. As a result new translations are needed. And for someone like me, I was never very happy with the options I had and I am glad to see some new options.
- New translations require all of us to think carefully about how we translate and that the Bible is translated. For years is was easy for English speaking Christian to just assume that the KJV was the Bible. This created a crisis when the translations of the 60’s and 70′ caught on in such a big way. Now we a generation or two who have never read anything but the NIV. So it is good to remember that translation is real work and none of us should be dogmatic about translation.
There are some dangers however.
- New translations can make people nervous, as we wonder if we can really trust the Bible.
- Some of them will undoubtedly be junk.
- Some which have real value to offer will be misused.
- Some people will spend all their time fighting over which one is the best and will consequently get distracted from real kingdom work.
- Bible paraphrases will be confused with Bible translations.
If there is interest, I may in the future post in some specific way about Bible translations, but for now I would suggest that every Christian might want three bibles that are purchased in this order.
A good translation designed for readability and faithfulness to the meaning of the original- NRSV, NLT, TNIV and NIV would be examples. These are most excellent for devotional reading, group study and worship services.
A word for word translation designed to render as rigidly as possible the thought forms of the original text. ESV or the older NASB, and for a different era, the KJV would be good examples of this category. These are most suited for careful study of a text focused on detailed meanings and arguments.
An evocative paraphrase that tries to capture the passion and feel of the original text using modern idioms, images and sentence structure. The Message would be the most popular current example. The Good News Bible would be an example from the past. These are most suited as devotional reading or in publics service when we want to capture the spirit of a text but are not dealing with the letter of the text.
I leave this with one good example of what a paraphrase is good for. Here is the Message of Heb. 12:1-2.
Do you see what this means—all these pioneers who blazed the way, all these veterans cheering us on? It means we’d better get on with it. Strip down, start running—and never quit! No extra spiritual fat, no parasitic sins. Keep your eyes on Jesus, who both began and finished this race we’re in.
That is good catchy stuff. It well captures the energy and pacing that the original text would have had and since the images connect with us so easily we don’t have to slow down and can just let the call to action inspire us. That is exactly what a paraphrase should do. Of course there are problems. The last phrase, “who both began and finished this race we’re in” gives us the impression that Jesus as previously run and completed the race course that we are now running but what Paul means is that Jesus actually finishes our running of the race. For another examples check out “all these veterans cheering us on” and compare that to my thoughts here. You may think that Peterson got this one right, but even in this case you see that the paraphrase forces a conclusion that is not forced by the text (and in my opinion it is the wrong conclusion).
In summary, I am not a translation dogmatist and I am excited to see all these new translations. At the very least it will prompt us all to get talking about what the Bible means and that is a conversation I always love.
on the walk
-Ethan
Ps. If you have a translation question you want to ask, why don’t you share it and we can discuss it in the comments. Later today I will share my least favorite NIV translation issues.
http://www.biblegateway.com/
is a good website that has many of the versions you mention.
I have the ESV on my Palm because the download is free - I’ve found it useful.
Yeah, I definitely like the ESV for my word for word study choice. I have to be careful because sometimes the Greek language structure is enough different from contemporary English that I misread a text if I am not thinking. But in general I am a growing fan of the ESV.
LEAST FAVORITE NIV TRANSLATIONS
I promised that I would share my least favorite NIV translations issues. Now I am certainly no scholar on this so there may be some particularly bad ones that I am missing, but my top two are in Romans. [On the not a scholar front, I will do my best to summarize this accurately but i you read this and know that I am wrong, please set me straight. If you have already fallen asleep, then move on to the next post.]
They are particularly fresh in my mind because I am preparing to teach Romans. The easiest one to explain is that in Romans the NIV translators have chosen to render the Greek word “sarx” as sinful nature, even though they no perfectly well that the word is a plain and untheological word that means “flesh”.
Now they may be right that Paul is using this word to describe a sinful nature that lives in us, or perhaps Paul is just reminding us that until we get new bodies we are still part of the fallen world. Paul who was a Jew saw the body and soul as inseperable so for him to say that we are still enfleshed carries the weight that their is something about us that is still enmeshed in sin.
Now I am sympathetic to their plight because when you read a more literal translation such the ESV which uses “flesh” you might be led to think that Paul is arguing that the soul is now spiritual and the body evil. (Because modern readers might assume our dualism back onto the text.) But I think that in this case they (the NIV) have chosen a term that is more about a modern theory of anthropology (Reformed Theology) than about how to best render the word.
My second big frustration is how the NIV renders genitive constructions. Most plainly a genitive construction turns a noun into a modifier roughly similar to our word of. So “charis tou Christou” is the grace of Christ. The problem is that like our word of, the genitive can mean lots of things. In this case, it could mean, the grace from Christ, the grace belonging to Christ or even Christ-like grace, plus about ten others. To figure out which you have to study the context and do some serious homework.
More literal translations usually translate this construction with “of” and let the reader try to figure it out. The NIV often picks for you. There is nothing inherently wrong with this and probably if I agreed with their choices more I wouldn’t mind. But since I often don’t, it bugs me.