Can we fix Bible translation?
The translation committee of the English Standard Version has appear that in that location volition be no more revisions to the text, which at present becomes the Permanent Text. The ESV is not 1 of the 'large hitters' in translation like the NIV (it is used by around 8% of American Bible readers) but it has been the preferred choice amongst bourgeois evangelicals since its publication in 2001. Information technology was not, in fact, a fresh translation, but a relatively light revision of the 1971 version of the RSV (changing only 6% of the text), in some means a reaction confronting the inclusive language NRSV.
In principle, this is a rather odd decision to make. Although ordinary Bible readers might feel frustrated both by the constant revision of translations and the plethora of new translations that appear to go on coming out, both are important indicators of what translation is most. Anyone who speaks more than than one language is aware that, even thinking at the level of words, moving from one language to another is not entirely straightforward—consider, for a moment, the range of meanings of the English languagehave compared with the meanings of the Frenchavoir (this is normally chosen 'the semantic range'). Because these ranges don't match, translation involves an interpretative decision well-nigh which discussion is needed in a particular context. Now add to this non simply a significant modify of historical context, but (particularly in the case of Hebrew) a fundamentally unlike structure to language, then you can meet some of the bug. I take been struck that, if you do an cyberspace search for a biblical phrase, there is rarely any difficulty in finding information technology in online Bibles, because all such phrases are zero like ordinary English language!
Translations too take to wrestle with the unlike means in which language has an impact on united states of america. The ESV takes an 'essentially literal' arroyo, by which they mean, a 'give-and-take for word' arroyo, in lodge to help close study of the text. But meaning at the level of individual words is only one of the means that language has an bear upon—it also functions at the level of phrases and ideas (hence the value of 'dynamic equivalent' translations such as the GNB, CEV and to a bottom extent NRSV), and at the level of rhetorical effect (hence the value of paraphrases like The Message). Nosotros need to inquire non only 'What did the text mean?' but as well 'What was its significance?' too every bit 'What was the impact on hearers?'
But at that place are at least 3 reasons why translations tin never really be fixed. The first is that we might make discoveries in the ancient world which shed new low-cal on the significance of ideas, terms or episodes. The second is that, there continue to exist discoveries of new and earlier manuscripts of the NT which might affect translation. The primary reason why the KJV is not a good Bible to read and study (apart from its archaic linguistic communication) is that, since it was fixed 150 years after the get-go version, we accept discovered many more than better, earlier manuscripts of both Old and New Testaments, the most significant being the Expressionless Sea Scrolls. But the tertiary reason has to do with our globe; contemporary language continues to alter, and so translation to this irresolute 'target language' will need to be open to review.
This might exist taken to imply that the ESV translators are happy for new translations to replace this one in time. Only the declaration itself suggests something else, and it has drawn abrupt criticism. First, they draw a parallel with the permanence of the KJV:
Beginning in the summer of 2016, the text of the ESV Bible will remain unchanged in all future editions printed and published by Crossway—in much the aforementioned way that the Male monarch James Version (KJV) has remained unchanged ever since the final KJV text was established nigh 250 years ago (in 1769).
Stanley Porter (with his co-writers) is admittedly scathing on his weblog at what he sees as the hubris of cartoon such a parallel with the KJV, a hubris made worse past the ill-judged citation of Paul's words to Timothy:
In making these final changes, the Crossway Board of Directors and the Translation Oversight Committee thus affirm that their highest responsibility is to "baby-sit the deposit entrusted to y'all" (i Timothy 6:20)—to guard and preserve the very words of God as translated in the ESV Bible.
The 'deposit' Paul is referring to is, of course, the adept news virtually Jesus, and not the words of a particular translation, and this use collapses the distinction between the words of Scripture (either the early on copies in the original language or the autograph which we probably practise not have) and a particular translation—a dangerous move, echoing the 'Male monarch James Just' movement, suggesting that, in some sense, God originally spoke in English!
Even greater business organization arises from the final changes fabricated to the text earlier 'fixing it.' The ESV announcement lists the changes, claiming that they are of minimal significance, and indeed most are trivial. But why make such changes at the last minute, rather than, as previously, making the changes first, allow them to exist reviewed and discussed, before making the text permanent? The reason is revealed by the first change in the listing:
Scot McKnight offers a detailed analysis of what is going on hither. Properly understood, this verse isdescriptive of the result of the fall—but the changed ESV translation turns this instead into somethingprescriptive: women will be resistant to male power, merely men are (in issue) commanded to subdue women.
Gen 3:16describes how fallen humans may/will behave at times. This is not what God wants; but this is what will happen. It is not a necessity (and doesn't history absolutely prove thatnot all men and women fight?). It is non God'due south design. Already in the Old Testament in that location is show that there is a better way: truly loving relationships are reciprocal relations of desire for one another, not a war of wills. Not a desire-rule but want-desire…
The ESV here is mistaken inover translating Genesis 3:sixteen and the fault is the supposition emerges from the conventionalities that this is prescription and non description. Every bit description it needs some nuancing; as prescription it turns the male against the female, the wife against the husband, and it ways the male partner volition rule by God's blueprint…
This translation turns women and men into contrarians past divine design.The fall means women are to submit to men and men are to rule women, but women will resist the rule. This has moved from subordinationism to female resistance to subordinationism.
This all appears to be part of a wider theological argument, that women are eternally subordinated to men as the Son is believed to be eternally subordinate to the Father. In that location is a myriad of problems with this view, not least that it contradicts both Paul'due south statement in 1 Cor 7.4 that men and women exercise mutual authority over each other's bodies in marriage and sexual relations, and Jesus' instruction that there volition exist no union in heaven (Matt 22.30, Mark 12.25, Luke twenty.36). And, nigh seriously of all, this translation contradicts the bodily meaning of the Hebrew. McKnight cites the assay of Sam Powell, 'the pastor of First Reformed Church building in Yuba City' who has 'loved the Heidelberg Catechism from my youth' (and so hardly a radical feminist egalitarian!):
The question is whether the preposition 'el always has the meaning "contrary to", equally the ESV revision committee, following the lead of Susan Foh, claims.
The simple answer is no. If you wish to do a very technical study, y'all may wait at Bruce Waltke and M. O'Conner, Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns) 1990. 11.2.ii. A helpful summary of that massive work is the work by Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi (A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2003). Hebrew prepositions by and large have a primary spatial meaning, with metaphorical secondary meaning. The master spatial meaning is terminative (to, unto, towards).
I know, very technical. Let me break information technology downwards. The preposition 'el means to, unto, or towards. It is a preposition indicating the termination of move. That is its primary meaning. If I leave my part and walk to my firm, I would use the preposition 'el. Towards. Most commonly, information technology is used with the verb "to say" to bespeak to whom the words are said. In the phrase, "And God said unto Moses", the preposition 'el would be used. God designed his words to terminate in the ears of Moses. I hope this makes sense…
After a detailed survey of both lexicons and parallel uses of the discussion (which, incidentally, is the beginning give-and-take of State of israel's national airline, El Al, significant 'To upon' or we might paraphrase 'Up and away!') Powell concludes this:
To summarize this rather complicated survey, the bones significant of the word is to, or towards. Sometimes, if the context and the verb used are hostile, "confronting" would be a proper meaning. Simply this does not mean that we can option and choose whatever meaning we want. "Reverse to", in the context of Genesis 3:16 or 4:vii, cannot be justified.
And Powell so goes on to put this verse in the context of the narrative of Genesis 2 and 3:
Earlier, Adam and Eve were one flesh. At that place is no hint of hierarchy in the garden. It is beyond the scope of this commodity to go into the meaning of "help meet", merely suffice information technology to say that hierarchy, authority and submission are not inherent in the Hebrew word 'ezer (assist). Information technology is the proper name about oft given to God, Israel'due south assistance.
Instead, the relationship of the man and the adult female was a human relationship of unity and love. They were ane flesh, committed, loving, fleeing all others, cleaving to one another. I believe in that context, Gen 3:16 can but mean one thing. Eve will notwithstanding long for that. Her longing volition terminate on her married man. She will long for that which was lost in Eden. But instead, her husband will rule over her.
As I hope you lot can come across by now, this very modest, last-minute change to the translation of a single term has meaning implications, and I tin run into generations of men (and it volition be men) clutching their ESVs to make their case. Just this also has implications for what it means to be evangelical. Every bit a senior leader in the C of E said to me recently, 'I believe that Scripture, rightly interpreted, is the last authority for faith and doctrine.' That, I believe, is that heart of what it means to be evangelical (and probably what information technology means to be Anglican and Christian). But the ESV translators are undermining that in the most serious manner. They appear to accept decided, on other grounds, what the text of the Bible needs to say, and by golly they are going to help it say that. They truly are attempting to 'ready' the Bible. I am seriously tempted to prohibit its apply in my classes, not because it is a poor word-for-give-and-take translation (which generally it isn't), but considering its existence at present represents a contradiction to the key principle that evangelicals, of all people, should be standing up for.
C H Spurgeon famously compare the Bible to a panthera leo, who does not need defending, merely needs simply to be let out of the muzzle (he actually said it three times in three slightly different ways). What the ESV appears to be doing is truthful to secure the bars to keep the Bible firmly in the 'sound' cage.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo
Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If you lot have valued this mail service, would you considerdonating £one.20 a month to support the product of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, practice share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can brand a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skillful comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to exist understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; accost the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/can-we-fix-bible-translation/
0 Response to "Can we fix Bible translation?"
ارسال یک نظر