Is the NKJV a good version of the bible?

[Rippon]

I think the phrase about giving a hardy handshake all around ( or words to that effect ) was J.B. Phillips's famous rendering .

By the way , Leland Ryken's name keeps cropping up regarding his claim that the ESV is "essentially literal" . I was at the local Christian bookstore recently . He has a book out with the NLT as the primary translation . He hasn't regarded the NLT as essentially literal in the past . I guess he saw value in the translation at long last despite its translation philosophy .

 

[John of Japan]

It has been my opinion, though most translators say it isn't so, that the more dynamic or free the translation is the more the translator's biases tend to work their way into the translatino process. Kinda hard not to happen IMO. That is one reason to prefer FE translation style....

FA

Exactly right. And this is why, to me, a complete equivalence version like the NKJV will always be superior to a DE version. According to Dr. James Price (Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation, p. 27):

“It is quite clear that paraphrase is unavoidable with dynamic equivalence theory. Glassman wrote, ‘It is, in fact, impossible to analyze, transfer and restructure (referring here to the transformational grammar basis of DE--JOJ) without paraphrasing, at the level of the underlying kernel structures; and that, in turn, shows up at the final level of the surface structure.” (Quoting Eugene Glassman, The Translation Debate, p.66—JOJ.) This is primarily true because of the subjectivity involved in the transfer step. The failure to employ transfer rules, but rather to depend on the translator’s subjective judgment, makes it almost certain that the information transferred to the receptor language will lack complete equivalence with the information of the source message. Thus the theory fails to accomplish equivalence; it is instead scientific paraphrase.”

...but I do personally enjoy translating texts in a free style intended for children.

So, have you put together a children's NT or something? Sounds fun.

 

[Faith alone]

Thx John.

The first time I heard the phrase "dynamic equivalence" was with the NIV - don't know if it originated with them though. But the ironic thing is that the NIV is not really DE, in my opinion. And the basic idea behind dynamic equivalence, if applied thoroughly, is that we want to communicate the same meaning in the target language as was intended in the source language. It should then focus on the writer's intended meaning.

And personally, I really like the ole JB Phillips NT. Very stimulating stuff.

And one thing that needs to be recognized is that formal equivalence, if it is too wooden, too rigidly word-for-word, is notaccurate Bible translation either. There's an excellent book out by Beekman & Callow (Translating the Word of God). In it they say that there are two basic types of translation philosophy: form-based and meaning-based. Form-based looks primarily at the forms in the source language (words, word order, grammatical signs, etc.) and focuses first on communicating that, while meaning-based focuses first on communicating the meaning.

They refer to highly literal - modified literal - idiomatic - unduly free as four general types of translation philosophy, stating that the two extremes are not acceptable. I would say that the idiomatic form focuses on understanding by thereader first and modified literal focuses on the writer's intended meaning first. The authors above point out that "the linguistic form of the original was natural and meaningful," and so should the resulting translation in the target language. (p. 33)

Jerome said, "I could translate only what I had understood before."

Another nice little booklet is Translation Problems From A to Z, by Richard Blight. It is very useful for dealing with specific texts as it discusses 100s of issues the translator must deal with in very specific grammatical cases. For example how do you handle crodss-cultural mismatch, and when the author intended a double meaning?

A new concept out there in translation is what is referred to as discourse theory. So with all these new approaches and concerns about translating, it is not surprising that there is not much concurrence about the philosophies.


FA

 

[hawg_427]

Ever look at the Ryrie or the Scofield III?

I like it a lot. I have the John Macarthur study Bible NKJV.

Do you like the notes in the Macarthur study Bible? I wonder why he doesn't have any red letter editions out. Ever look at the Scofield III or the Ryrie?

 

[Faith alone]

Do you like the notes in the Macarthur study Bible? I wonder why he doesn't have any red letter editions out. Ever look at the Scofield III or the Ryrie?

I liked the Ryrie NASB study Bible - I have it. It's solid. Does it come in the NKJV? But the concordance there is atrocious, and the notes are good, but not enough of them or in enough detail at times! I like the Radmacher study Bible the best of any study Bible I've seen far and away. Good concordance, good CRef - center, good additional stuff, great notes - incredible notes, and good header sheet for each book which tells background, audience, dates, etc.. It's a bit thick, but well worth it.

My issue with the MacArthur study Bible is his strong Lordship salvation stance. I am free grace, and I usually do not agree with is notes, FWIW. Even his approach to eternal security passages I differ on. He usually assumes they are not referring to believers, and i do, but the conseqwuence is not talking about losing your salvation.

Haven't seen the Schofield II. I used the Schofield I a long time ago briefly, and have the Schofield II. What kinds of changes did they make? Do you think Schofield would have approved? I found the Schofield good for studying the dispensations and covenants and for prophecy.

If you're reformed, RC Sproul's study Bible seems very good. I don't know if it comes in the NKJV though.

FA

 

[John of Japan]

The first time I heard the phrase "dynamic equivalence" was with the NIV - don't know if it originated with them though. But the ironic thing is that the NIV is not really DE, in my opinion.

The term "equivalent" has been around since Jerome. In his 1947 book, Bible Translating, Eugene Nida talks about the "closest natural equivalent." He says, "To obtain the closest equivalence in translation it is necessary to consider three basic requirements: (1) the translation must represent the customary usage of the receptor language, (2) the translation must make sense, and (3) the translation must conform to the meaning of the original" (p. 13). Then he talked about "functional equivalence" later in the book, but not quite in the same meaning as his followers use it today, IMO. On p. 136 he goes so far as to say, "The changes which have been proposed in departing from a literal rendition of the original text are not random changes, nor are they made purely for the sake of cultural adaptation. Such changes are not dictated by a desire to make the Bible seem as though it were recording some events which took place just yesterday in the next town. This would be quite impossible. Changes are made only on the basis of two situations: (1) when there is no possible equivalent in the receptor culture, and (2) when the literal translation gives an entirely wrong meaning."

As you can see, he had not yet arrived at DE. He did that later on when he was working on his doctorate. The first use of the term DE about Bible translating was in Nida's Toward a Science of Translating in 1964.

And the basic idea behind dynamic equivalence, if applied thoroughly, is that we want to communicate the same meaning in the target language as was intended in the source language. It should then focus on the writer's intended meaning.

I disagree. This statement is the goal of all translation methods, not just DE. According to Nida, "In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented toward dynamic equivalence. In such a translation the focus of attention is directed, not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response" (Toward a Science of Translating, p. 166). So the crucial difference between DE and other methods is that “reader response” is a primary goal for DE, not secondary.

And one thing that needs to be recognized is that formal equivalence, if it is too wooden, too rigidly word-for-word, is not accurate Bible translation either. There's an excellent book out by Beekman & Callow (Translating the Word of God). In it they say that there are two basic types of translation philosophy: form-based and meaning-based. Form-based looks primarily at the forms in the source language (words, word order, grammatical signs, etc.) and focuses first on communicating that, while meaning-based focuses first on communicating the meaning.

They refer to highly literal - modified literal - idiomatic - unduly free as four general types of translation philosophy, stating that the two extremes are not acceptable. I would say that the idiomatic form focuses on understanding by the reader first and modified literal focuses on the writer's intended meaning first. The authors above point out that "the linguistic form of the original was natural and meaningful," and so should the resulting translation in the target language. (p. 33)

I’ve heard of Beekman & Callow’s book, and will get to it someday. Sounds like a good one, but there are several others waiting for me. From what you’ve said, though, it may not quite jive with what I believe. I don’t think you can pigeonhole translation theory so easily into just those areas. I’ll have to read it before judging, of course.

The problem with the typical scholar of Bible translating is that they have never translated in the “real world.” There are various approaches that must be made in: literature translation (can be somewhat free), poetry translation (can be very free), music translation (constrained by the notes—in Japanese you must leave something out because there are more syllables per word), technical translation (must be very precise and literal), movie translation (very free, completely aimed toward reader response), diplomatic translation (must be precise and dignified), news translating (can be somewhat free but must get the facts right), and even others.

Jerome said, "I could translate only what I had understood before."

Another nice little booklet is Translation Problems From A to Z, by Richard Blight. It is very useful for dealing with specific texts as it discusses 100s of issues the translator must deal with in very specific grammatical cases. For example how do you handle crodss-cultural mismatch, and when the author intended a double meaning?

A new concept out there in translation is what is referred to as discourse theory. So with all these new approaches and concerns about translating, it is not surprising that there is not much concurrence about the philosophies.

Sounds interesting. :thumbs:

 

[Faith alone]

The term "equivalent" has been around since Jerome. In his 1947 book, Bible Translating, Eugene Nida talks about the "closest natural equivalent." ...

As you can see, he had not yet arrived at DE. He did that later on when he was working on his doctorate. The first use of the term DE about Bible translating was in Nida's Toward a Science of Translating in 1964.

So it started with Nida. Not surprising. But I wonder if the NIV was the first Engish translation to advertise as using that philosophy.

And the basic idea behind dynamic equivalence, if applied thoroughly, is that we want to communicate the same meaning in the target language as was intended in the source language. It should then focus on the writer's intended meaning.

I disagree. This statement is the goal of all translation methods, not just DE. According to Nida, "In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented toward dynamic equivalence. In such a translation the focus of attention is directed, not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response" (Toward a Science of Translating, p. 166). So the crucial difference between DE and other methods is that “reader response” is a primary goal for DE, not secondary.

Of course it is stated as such. No one is going to state that they are not interested in the meaning as much as anything else. All philosophies will say that they are interested in accuracy of meaning and clarity as well. But the priorities are different, and the results much different.

As I understand it, in DE the translator is defined as attempting to bring about "the same impact and reaction to the word by the reader of the target language as the source had upon its readers."

With this principle a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the target language wording will trigger the same impact in its hearers that the original wording had upon its hearers. IOW, they are concerned that the reader in the target language understand the same meaning with the same impact as the original hearers in a different culture, time and language.

So a DE translator naturally had to focus on the writer's intended meaning in the SL - he could not minimize this. The translators had to consider meanings of roots and words and phrases and the interaction of words and parts of speech, the grammar, connotation, etc..

My point is only that with DE (or meaning-based translating as translators seem to prefer to call it these days) translating, IMO it seems that the translator focuses more on the understanding and impact (IMO) in the target language, and perhaps has accuracy of meaning transference not as high a priority. If push comes to shove, and something has to give, they insist on something that is clear and easily readable. While the FE translator has reversed his priorities. He places accuracy of meaning over clarity and impact transferral, if push comes to shove. Of course, there are ranges of FE and DE style. A whole spectrum.

But IMO the NIV is not strictly a DE translation, compared to most DE/MB translations these days. It is closer to a FE translation.

In optimal equivalence the person is saying that they want the highest degree of translation of meaning and impact and clarity. Those who refer to essential literal translation, as you said the RSV referred to it, are saying that they do not ignore impact and clarity, and that it is important to them. But the accuracy of meaning must always come first. At least that's how it comes across to me.

In some MB translations when I read it and crack open my Greek text I wonder if the transaltors looked at the Greek very carefully at all before translating - when so much accuracy is lost. I wonder how much time is spent simply trying to re-word it in English such that it is impactful and clear, without verifying if such is acceptable in the source language.

Personally, I like many fairly free translations, though I've learned which ones I trust.

You seem to have had some experience in translating.

FA

 

[John of Japan]

I think the phrase about giving a hardy handshake all around ( or words to that effect ) was J.B. Phillips's famous rendering .

By the way , Leland Ryken's name keeps cropping up regarding his claim that the ESV is "essentially literal" . I was at the local Christian bookstore recently . He has a book out with the NLT as the primary translation . He hasn't regarded the NLT as essentially literal in the past . I guess he saw value in the translation at long last despite its translation philosophy .

Could have been Phillips.

Leland, being an English professor (not one of Biblical languages, meaning he was an editor of the ESV, not a translator), would see value in any version that used the English language well.

 

[John of Japan]

So it started with Nida. Not surprising. But I wonder if the NIV was the first Engish translation to advertise as using that philosophy.

You may be right here, but the intro to the translation doesn't say so.

Of course it is stated as such. No one is going to state that they are not interested in the meaning as much as anything else. All philosophies will say that they are interested in accuracy of meaning and clarity as well. But the priorities are different, and the results much different.

As I understand it, in DE the translator is defined as attempting to bring about "the same impact and reaction to the word by the reader of the target language as the source had upon its readers."

Correct. But I view this as an impractical pipedream. There is too much we don't know about Bible times. Who is to know how a 1st century Jew or Gentile reacted to what he read?

With this principle a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the target language wording will trigger the same impact in its hearers that the original wording had upon its hearers. IOW, they are concerned that the reader in the target language understand the same meaning with the same impact as the original hearers in a different culture, time and language.

The Bible transcends culture, does it not? So its impact in 21st century Japan cannot duplicate its cultural impact in the 1st century, but should duplicate its spiritual impact.

To try to make it duplicate the cultural impact of the 1st century in 21st century Japan to me is looking down on the intelligence of the Japanese. They understand quite well about cultural differences, so they are entirely able to study and learn about 1st century Israel, Greece and Rome. I have a lady in my church I would match with any lay person in your church about Bible knowlege.

So a DE translator naturally had to focus on the writer's intended meaning in the SL - he could not minimize this. The translators had to consider meanings of roots and words and phrases and the interaction of words and parts of speech, the grammar, connotation, etc..

My point is only that with DE (or meaning-based translating as translators seem to prefer to call it these days) translating, IMO it seems that the translator focuses more on the understanding and impact (IMO) in the target language, and perhaps has accuracy of meaning transference not as high a priority. If push comes to shove, and something has to give, they insist on something that is clear and easily readable. While the FE translator has reversed his priorities. He places accuracy of meaning over clarity and impact transferral, if push comes to shove. Of course, there are ranges of FE and DE style. A whole spectrum.

DE is still a good term. Many scholars still use it.

I believe that to try to clarify difficult passages does the reader an injustice. Why not let the chips fall where they may, translate the plain meaning of the original whatever it may be, and let the Holy Spirit help the reader understand?

But IMO the NIV is not strictly a DE translation, compared to most DE/MB translations these days. It is closer to a FE translation.

There is a wide range of equivalencies, contra Nida and friends and their original FE and DE. I would put the NIV about where you would.

In optimal equivalence the person is saying that they want the highest degree of translation of meaning and impact and clarity. Those who refer to essential literal translation, as you said the RSV referred to it, are saying that they do not ignore impact and clarity, and that it is important to them. But the accuracy of meaning must always come first. At least that's how it comes across to me.

You got it right--except that it was the ESV, not the RSV.

In some MB translations when I read it and crack open my Greek text I wonder if the transaltors looked at the Greek very carefully at all before translating - when so much accuracy is lost. I wonder how much time is spent simply trying to re-word it in English such that it is impactful and clear, without verifying if such is acceptable in the source language.

As a linguist, it bothers me no end when someone does this.

You seem to have had some experience in translating.

I am in a committee producing a new Japanese NT. And today is my translating day, so tata for now! :type:

 

[EdSutton]

What exactly is a "Scofield III"???

Uh- I thought the old dude had been dead for eighty years.

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

What exactly is a "Scofield III"???

Uh- I thought the old dude had been dead for eighty years.

Ed

:laugh: :laugh:
"He being dead, yet speaketh."

 

[Faith alone]

You may be right here, but the intro to the translation doesn't say so.

John,

Just something I remember when the NIV first came out - a big deal was made about the dynamic equivalence method of translating that had produced a far more readable, yet accurate , translation. But my memory fails me more and more these days.

...

Correct. But I view this as an impractical pipedream. There is too much we don't know about Bible times. Who is to know how a 1st century Jew or Gentile reacted to what he read?

The Bible transcends culture, does it not? So its impact in 21st century Japan cannot duplicate its cultural impact in the 1st century, but should duplicate its spiritual impact.

To try to make it duplicate the cultural impact of the 1st century in 21st century Japan to me is looking down on the intelligence of the Japanese. They understand quite well about cultural differences, so they are entirely able to study and learn about 1st century Israel, Greece and Rome. I have a lady in my church I would match with any lay person in your church about Bible knowlege.

Right. So it sounds like you feel that translators are then stepping into the realm of commentary with such a philosophy. I do think that translators have a responsibility to clarify expressions, whether idiomatic or whatever, which are not clear or completely misunderstood by today's readers. A good example is actually Martthew 15:5 where the NKJV translated it as "is given to God," which started this discussion. The question is if it is a responsible thing to do to include the expression "to God" or as in the HCSB "a gift committed to the temple." Otherwise we can assume that the reader will not understand what is going on there.

DE is still a good term. Many scholars still use it.

I believe that to try to clarify difficult passages does the reader an injustice. Why not let the chips fall where they may, translate the plain meaning of the original whatever it may be, and let the Holy Spirit help the reader understand?

Understood. IMO the translator has a responsibility to express it such that the reader sees the array of possibilities. For example, in 1 Timothy 3 Paul spoke of GUNAI ("wives" or "women"). In the context people argue over whether this is referring to the wives of deacons (the text there is discussing qualities required for deacons) or to women who are deacons themselves. There are strong arguments for both possibilities.

Most older translations have it "wives," but I like what the NASB did - calling them just "women" with a footnote saying that it could be "women" or "wives." When one reads the text the natural question is "just who are these women?" Let the reader wrestle with that.

However, when the TNIV first came out it translated this text as "deaconesses." Now DIACONOI is not there. The translators simply thought, "we need to make it clear to the reader that this is referring to women who are deacons." But IMO this was classic reading of your theology into the text. Fortunately with the revision of the TNIV last year they changed it to "women" with a footnote similar to the NASB.

Personally, I don't like it translated there as "wives" either since that does not allow the reader to see the other possibility.

You got it right--except that it was the ESV, not the RSV.

Right. But the RSV said in its original translators' preface that it followed a philosophy of, "as literal as possible, as free as necessary." That sounds to me like "essentially literal." And the ESV is a very mild revision of the ESV.

I am in a committee producing a new Japanese NT. And today is my translating day, so tata for now! :type:

Cool... I suspected as much. Are you on the BTrans egroup? Also, I would be curious about how you feel regarding gender-inclusive translations.

FA

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Just something I remember when the NIV first came out - a big deal was made about the dynamic equivalence method of translating that had produced a far more readable, yet accurate , translation. But my memory fails me more and more these days.

What failing memory? Seems like I had that problem, but I can't recall.

Right. So it sounds like you feel that translators are then stepping into the realm of commentary with such a philosophy. I do think that translators have a responsibility to clarify expressions, whether idiomatic or whatever, which are not clear or completely misunderstood by today's readers. A good example is actually Martthew 15:5 where the NKJV translated it as "is given to God," which started this discussion. The question is if it is a responsible thing to do to include the expression "to God" or as in the HCSB "a gift committed to the temple." Otherwise we can assume that the reader will not understand what is going on there.

Interpretation is often necessary in translation, but when it passes over into commentary, I oppose it. In my view a pure paraphrase is commentary, and should be called such and treated as such. I went to language school with the SBC folk, 1981-1983, and one day one of the liberals and I discussed this very issue. He made the point that in seminary he had to compare the Greek to the Living Bible, and was amazed at the difference. He then criticized the conservatives for believing in inerrancy and verbal-plenary inspiration, yet endorsing the LB!

Understood. IMO the translator has a responsibility to express it such that the reader sees the array of possibilities. For example, in 1 Timothy 3 Paul spoke of GUNAI ("wives" or "women"). In the context people argue over whether this is referring to the wives of deacons (the text there is discussing qualities required for deacons) or to women who are deacons themselves. There are strong arguments for both possibilities.

Most older translations have it "wives," but I like what the NASB did - calling them just "women" with a footnote saying that it could be "women" or "wives." When one reads the text the natural question is "just who are these women?" Let the reader wrestle with that.

However, when the TNIV first came out it translated this text as "deaconesses." Now DIACONOI is not there. The translators simply thought, "we need to make it clear to the reader that this is referring to women who are deacons." But IMO this was classic reading of your theology into the text. Fortunately with the revision of the TNIV last year they changed it to "women" with a footnote similar to the NASB.

Personally, I don't like it translated there as "wives" either since that does not allow the reader to see the other possibility.

I agree with this. It mirrors the optimal equivalence principle of preserving the ambiguities of the original where possible.

Right. But the RSV said in its original translators' preface that it followed a philosophy of, "as literal as possible, as free as necessary." That sounds to me like "essentially literal." And the ESV is a very mild revision of the ESV.

Point well taken.

Cool... I suspected as much. Are you on the BTrans egroup? Also, I would be curious about how you feel regarding gender-inclusive translations.

No, didn't know about this one. Tell me more. I'm on the B-Greek one, but it doesn't help much--too much discussion about picayune stuff. Have to run.:wavey:

 

[John of Japan]

Also, I would be curious about how you feel regarding gender-inclusive translations.
FA

As I understand it, the gender-inclusive idea comes from feminism, which comes from the "women's lib" movement of the 1960's, which comes ultimately from the women's suffrage movement of the late 19th century. (I realize I'm simplifying here.)

In support of this view, note that the infamous feminist theologian, Virginia Mollenkott, "was invited to join the Committee for the Production of the Inclusive Language Lectionary for the National Council of Churches. Her involvement on the committee furthered her interest in inclusive language and the image of God. By 1983 she had written another book, The Divine Feminine: The Biblical Imagery of God as Female. By this time Mollenkott was convinced that naming her own faith with inclusive God-language was necessary for the liberation of women in the church. Furthermore, she noted, inclusive God-language would be a step in the direction of the reconciliation of the patriarchal dichotomies of masculine/feminine, superior/inferior, logic/emotion, etc. At the concolusion of this work, Mollenkott suggested that God be referred to in an all-iinclusive way, as the force in all things and all people" (The Feminist Gospel, by Mary A. Kassian, 1992, pp. 237-238).

So, inclusive language comes from such radical feminists as Mollenkott, who would have us believe in a "mother/father god," or even a purely female God. Therefore, using such inclusive language in a Bible translation means cooperating in the feminist movement and its political aims. From a Biblical viewpoint, this is an abomination.

Now, let's look at it from a secular translator's viewpoint. Feminism is a modern philosophy. If I were to translate The Book of Five Rings by famed Samurai swordsman Musashi into English, how would it fly if I made Musashi have an existential viewpoint instead of a Confucian one? Or if I were to translate into English the Kojiki, a Japanese history from the 7th century and the earliest document in the Japanese language, how would it play in Hoboken if I were to translate it with a postmodern view instead of a Shinto view? If these examples are ridiculous, so is translating a first century document with a late 19th-20th century viewpoint such as feminism.

Sorry to be so shy with my views! :smilewinkgrin: :type:

 

[Faith alone]

FA asked if John was on Btrans...

No, didn't know about this one. Tell me more. I'm on the B-Greek one, but it doesn't help much--too much discussion about picayune stuff. Have to run.:wavey:

It's here:

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/

Wayne Leman, who is working with Indians in the US - I believe in the Cheyenne language in Montana - is one of the hosts and moderators of the egroup. You send and receive emails - not a posting kinda thing - just like B-Greek.

Most of the users are professionals involved in translation around the globe. The questions asked are required to have to do with translation - no theological discussions allowed. I was very active while on staff with The Jesus Film Project. I'm still a member and ocassionally make a comment or ask questions to get feedback.

I'm on B-Greek too, but I agree that it's too liimited. I rarely get involved in discussions there now. This one is handy in that Wayne has some great resources available at his blogspot regardless. And when they talk about something sensitive, it can get interesting.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

As I understand it, the gender-inclusive idea comes from feminism, which comes from the "women's lib" movement of the 1960's, which comes ultimately from the women's suffrage movement of the late 19th century. (I realize I'm simplifying here.)

In support of this view, note that the infamous feminist theologian, Virginia Mollenkott, "was invited to join the Committee for the Production of the Inclusive Language Lectionary for the National Council of Churches. Her involvement on the committee furthered her interest in inclusive language and the image of God. By 1983 she had written another book, The Divine Feminine: The Biblical Imagery of God as Female. By this time Mollenkott was convinced that naming her own faith with inclusive God-language was necessary for the liberation of women in the church. Furthermore, she noted, inclusive God-language would be a step in the direction of the reconciliation of the patriarchal dichotomies of masculine/feminine, superior/inferior, logic/emotion, etc. At the concolusion of this work, Mollenkott suggested that God be referred to in an all-iinclusive way, as the force in all things and all people" (The Feminist Gospel, by Mary A. Kassian, 1992, pp. 237-238).

So, inclusive language comes from such radical feminists as Mollenkott, who would have us believe in a "mother/father god," or even a purely female God. Therefore, using such inclusive language in a Bible translation means cooperating in the feminist movement and its political aims. From a Biblical viewpoint, this is an abomination.

Now, let's look at it from a secular translator's viewpoint. Feminism is a modern philosophy. If I were to translate The Book of Five Rings by famed Samurai swordsman Musashi into English, how would it fly if I made Musashi have an existential viewpoint instead of a Confucian one? Or if I were to translate into English the Kojiki, a Japanese history from the 7th century and the earliest document in the Japanese language, how would it play in Hoboken if I were to translate it with a postmodern view instead of a Shinto view? If these examples are ridiculous, so is translating a first century document with a late 19th-20th century viewpoint such as feminism.

Sorry to be so shy with my views! :smilewinkgrin: :type:

Well, the gender-inclusive certainly has some feminist sides to it. But in general it is not feminist at all. Most of the changes made by the TNIV to the NIV, for example, have to do with using say "their" / "them" (plural 3rd P pronouns) in place of "he" / "his" etc. (2nd P masculine pronouns). The question comes down to whether we should use what is referred to as "male representative" speech anymore: "his" or "him", for example, to refer to both men and women. This was common until the early 20th century, and still is found in more rural parts of the US even today. But almost everyone now says something like, "If anyone wants a pencil, come up here and they can have one," (gender-inclusive GI) instead of "if anyone ... come up here and he can have one." (male representative)

Now feminism certainly did influence such a trend starting in the early 20th century. But like it or not it is essentially a done deal these days, especially among academia.

I've found it to be much overblown. It has nothing to do with trying to refer to God as neuter or even feminine. It's very difficult to find any Bibles which do that, though there is a revision of the RSV which does in fact do just that - don't remember it's name.

Now some history... When the NIVI (NIV Inclusive) Bible came out in about 1998, I believe, there was a strong reaction to it in the US - it was referred to as the "stealth Bible" because it appears that Zondervan was going to introduce it as a revision of the NIV to replace the NIV itself with the NIVI in bookstores quietly. Conservative evangelicals had a cow. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which exists to preserve the biblical roles of men and women - of which Wayne Grudem is an active member, perhaps the president, led a charge on the NIVI and quickly got several prominent evengelicals to back them up. Zondervan didn't know what to do, though many renowned evangelicals backed them up as well - led by Mark Strauss, and so there was a meeting of high-level evangelicals in Colorado Springs to draw up a list of what was considered to be legitimate and conservative rules to follow when doing gender-inclusive translation - called the Colorado Springs Guidelines - referred to as the CSG, which would be acceptable to all.

In addition apparently Zondervan promised to never revise the NIV, which ironically violates their charter. Zondervan also stopped plans to market the NIVI in the US.

But unbeknownst to them at the time the CBT, which is an autonomous group in Z which actually does the translating - The Committee for Bible Translation, did not agree with this CSG. A new transaltion was started and came out in, I think, 2002. But the CBT did not follow the CSG - I think there was some of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing initially. Now there was really an uproar because the CBMW felt that they had been submarined. They went ballistic.

Anyway, in 98 the SBC in reaction to the NIVI approached Art Farstad, knowing he was at work on a translation based on the majority text (NT), and threw lots of money at him, offering to help speed things along. What resulted is the HCSB - which I personally really like. It followed the CSG carefully. The GI stuff is limited. The ESV also resulted as a reaction to the NIVI, and is a conservative revision of the RSV, with even more limited GI stuff.

Now in general the TNIV, NRSV and NLT are more agressive in their gender-inclusive stuff. In fact, pretty much all modern translations are, including the GW, the latest Good News, NCV, CEV, etc.. But most of the reaction is much to-do about little IMO.

I once did a little personal survey, trying to see how young people speak. I discovered that almost no teens use "he" or "him" in a male representative manner. I also interviewed some English teachers at 3 Christian schools who all said that the use of "they," "them," their" etc. to represent singular generically was the proper way to do it, and that using male representative speech, though they were comfortable with it personally, simply was only done by the uneducationed. These were all very conservative teachers, who held to the biblical roles of men and women. So since then I have a pretty mild reaction to that stuff. :sleep:

What used to bother me was using those 3rd P plural representatives for 3rd P singuler generically because it wasn't correct grammatically. But the problem is that in English we simply no longer have such generic pronouns, so something has to give somewhere. So then the issue comes down to when, in scripture, was the intent to refer to men and women together and when was the intent to refer to men, with an application for women. Also, we have to deal with the fact that in the 1st century male representative speech was common.

I found that I tend to agree with about 2/3rd of the TNIV changes, for example. When the TNIV first came out I would not endorse it because of how they handled 1 Timothy 3:11. But the CBMW listed abut 900 places in which they disagreed with the TNIV in their GI. The CBT went back to work and dealt with the more extreme ones - like 1 Timothy 3:11, so I feel more comfortable with what they have done since.

FWIW,

FA

 

[John of Japan]

Well, the gender-inclusive certainly has some feminist sides to it. But in general it is not feminist at all. Most of the changes made by the TNIV to the NIV, for example, have to do with using say "their" / "them" (plural 3rd P pronouns) in place of "he" / "his" etc. (2nd P masculine pronouns). The question comes down to whether we should use what is referred to as "male representative" speech anymore: "his" or "him", for example, to refer to both men and women. This was common until the early 20th century, and still is found in more rural parts of the US even today. But almost everyone now says something like, "If anyone wants a pencil, come up here and they can have one," (gender-inclusive GI) instead of "if anyone ... come up here and he can have one." (male representative)

If this is all it is, I see no sense in calling it "gender inclusive." What you have described is, as you say, simply developments in the English language. And of course language is a living thing. It's hard to believe how much Japanese has changed just since we came over in '81!

Now feminism certainly did influence such a trend starting in the early 20th century. But like it or not it is essentially a done deal these days, especially among academia.

I've found it to be much overblown. It has nothing to do with trying to refer to God as neuter or even feminine. It's very difficult to find any Bibles which do that, though there is a revision of the RSV which does in fact do just that - don't remember it's name.

To any extent feminism is involved, I oppose it. I do remember hearing that the new edition of BADG has something about "Father" being gender neutral, or some such silly thing.

Now some history... When the NIVI (NIV Inclusive) Bible came out in about 1998, I believe, there was a strong reaction to it in the US - it was referred to as the "stealth Bible" because it appears that Zondervan was going to introduce it as a revision of the NIV to replace the NIV itself with the NIVI in bookstores quietly. Conservative evangelicals had a cow. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which exists to preserve the biblical roles of men and women - of which Wayne Grudem is an active member, perhaps the president, led a charge on the NIVI and quickly got several prominent evengelicals to back them up. Zondervan didn't know what to do, though many renowned evangelicals backed them up as well - led by Mark Strauss, and so there was a meeting of high-level evangelicals in Colorado Springs to draw up a list of what was considered to be legitimate and conservative rules to follow when doing gender-inclusive translation - called the Colorado Springs Guidelines - referred to as the CSG, which would be acceptable to all.

In addition apparently Zondervan promised to never revise the NIV, which ironically violates their charter. Zondervan also stopped plans to market the NIVI in the US.

But unbeknownst to them at the time the CBT, which is an autonomous group in Z which actually does the translating - The Committee for Bible Translation, did not agree with this CSG. A new transaltion was started and came out in, I think, 2002. But the CBT did not follow the CSG - I think there was some of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing initially. Now there was really an uproar because the CBMW felt that they had been submarined. They went ballistic.

Anyway, in 98 the SBC in reaction to the NIVI approached Art Farstad, knowing he was at work on a translation based on the majority text (NT), and threw lots of money at him, offering to help speed things along. What resulted is the HCSB - which I personally really like. It followed the CSG carefully. The GI stuff is limited. The ESV also resulted as a reaction to the NIVI, and is a conservative revision of the RSV, with even more limited GI stuff.

SNIP to shorten things--JOJ

FWIW,

FA

Thanks for the history lesson. Very interesting. I have to bow to your superior knowledge here. Frankly, the whole issue is off my radar, being over here in Japan where male chauvinism reigns supreme in the culture. :tongue3: I've read just a little bit about the issue over the years, but never had the opportunity (or need) to check out the controversial translations myself, so you have educated me.

I do believe strongly in making gender roles in the Bible specific. Here in Japan there is so little understanding even among Christians of Christian manhood and womanhood that uncertainty in that area is unhelpful.

In our translation we have made what some will call a radical change. For reasons unrelated to gender role, the first complete Bible in Japan (The "Original Translation" from around 1870) translated "Son (of God)" with the term Miko, meaning literally "Honorable Child," since this is the term used for the Emperor's children. Every single translation since then has copied that. We are using Goshisoku, meaning "Honorable Son" (same honorific, different pronunciation), making the term specifically male to translate the Greek huios. Our term is used at formal occasions to refer to the male offspring of honored people, so we felt it was a great word to use for Jesus, the Son of God. We want to portray a gentle but strong Savior, male all the way!

 

[John of Japan]

It's here:

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/

Wayne Leman, who is working with Indians in the US - I believe in the Cheyenne language in Montana - is one of the hosts and moderators of the egroup. You send and receive emails - not a posting kinda thing - just like B-Greek.

Most of the users are professionals involved in translation around the globe. The questions asked are required to have to do with translation - no theological discussions allowed. I was very active while on staff with The Jesus Film Project. I'm still a member and ocassionally make a comment or ask questions to get feedback.

I'm on B-Greek too, but I agree that it's too liimited. I rarely get involved in discussions there now. This one is handy in that Wayne has some great resources available at his blogspot regardless. And when they talk about something sensitive, it can get interesting.

FA

Thanks! I'll check it out and maybe join. :thumbs:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

While off topic this has been a profitable thread with 2-3 good topics for reasonable discussion.

I am going to let it run, but would suggest you fellas move the topics to threads of their own so that the title may stir interest.

 

[Faith alone]

If this is all it is, I see no sense in calling it "gender inclusive." What you have described is, as you say, simply developments in the English language. And of course language is a living thing. It's hard to believe how much Japanese has changed just since we came over in '81!

Well you've been there quite awhile then. IMO that is mainly what it is. At the CBMW website they list the 900 or so places the TNIV changed the NIV which they do not agree with, and classify them. You can get an idea. My concern was grammatically changing singular to plural references, but it's difficult not to do that in modern English. You can find the TNIV website and they give examples of the kinds of changes involved. Compare them yourself. I'd be interested in your opinion.

Darrel Bock from DTS is pretty conservative and he supports it. RW Stott does as well. Almost all of the professional translators support it.

My concern is the use of "brother or sister" in place of singular ADELPHOS. I see plural ADELPHOI as being fine as primarily "brothers and sisters," depending on the context. I also do not like it when some translations (TNIV included) translate on occasion ANHR not as "man" but as say "anyone." It always has masculinity tied up with it IMO, but some translators say that sometimes it should be used more generically. Liddell & Scott supports that and it makes sense in places like James 1:12, but I say why not just translate it as "man" and let people see the application unless it is very clear.

To any extent feminism is involved, I oppose it. I do remember hearing that the new edition of BADG has something about "Father" being gender neutral, or some such silly thing.

Well there's no doubt that feminist movements support it, but IMO if people will read GI Bibles and they are accurate translations of the Greek, then I really don't care about the little stuff.

Have you heard of the Cotton-patch Bible? Everything was written in American culture so that we could relate to it. Unbelievable.

http://rockhay.tripod.com/cottonpatch/index.htm

Here's an example, and yes he was serious:

Acts 1:6-23

Cotton Patch
So those about him began asking, "Will that be the occasion on which you will take over the government?"

He said to them, "You are not to get all worked up about timetables and events which the Father has under his own control. But as the Holy Spirit comes over you, you will get power and will be my agents in Atlanta and throughout Georgia, in the ghetto and across the land." As he said this, and while they were watching, he was carried away and a cloud kept them from seeing him.
10. As he went away, and while they were still staring into the sky, two men in blue jeans joined them and asked, "Citizens of America, why stand there looking at the sky? This Jesus who was carried away from you into the sky will come just as you saw him going into the sky."


12. Then they returned to Atlanta from "Peach Hill Orchard," which is in the suburbs of Atlanta. When they got back, they went upstairs where they were living. This included Rock and Jack and Jim and Andy, Phil and Tom, Bart and Matt, Jim Alston and Simon the Rebel, and Joe Jameson. All of them, including the women and Mary, Jesus' mother, and his brothers, were continually praying together.


15. While this was going on, Rock arose and said to the brotherhood (the number in the assembly was about one hundred twenty) "Brothers, it was inevitable that David's inspired prediction about Judas being in cahoots with those who framed Jesus, should come true. He belonged to our group, and thereby obtained a rightful share in this undertaking."

(It was he, you know, who with his bribe money bought a plot, where he fell and busted open, and his guts spilled out. That's why the people around Atlanta refer to it as "The Blood Plot.")

20. Rock continued, "In the book of Psalms it says,

'May his barn be empty and his house be vacant;'​

also,

'Let someone else take over his office.'​

"So, we've got to choose someone to join with us as evidence of Jesus' aliveness–someone who has been with us throughout the whole time Jesus was among us–from the beginning at John's baptism until the day of his ascension."


23. They then nominated two, George Jones, who was nicknamed Barsey, and Matt. They prayed and said, "You, Lord, heart-knower of all, please make clear which one of these two you have selected to receive the rightful share of this undertaking and commission from which Judas deserted to go his own way." They had them draw lots, and the share fell to Matt, who was then counted in with the eleven officers.

OK, stop laughing.

Thanks for the history lesson. Very interesting. I have to bow to your superior knowledge here. Frankly, the whole issue is off my radar, being over here in Japan where male chauvinism reigns supreme in the culture. :tongue3: I've read just a little bit about the issue over the years, but never had the opportunity (or need) to check out the controversial translations myself, so you have educated me.

That is something you have to consider. If language in Japan is male-representative in nature, then that should affect how you translate, I would think.

Personally, I am much more concerned with translations which are too free.

I do believe strongly in making gender roles in the Bible specific. Here in Japan there is so little understanding even among Christians of Christian manhood and womanhood that uncertainty in that area is unhelpful.

In our translation we have made what some will call a radical change. For reasons unrelated to gender role, the first complete Bible in Japan (The "Original Translation" from around 1870) translated "Son (of God)" with the term Miko, meaning literally "Honorable Child," since this is the term used for the Emperor's children. Every single translation since then has copied that. We are using Goshisoku, meaning "Honorable Son" (same honorific, different pronunciation), making the term specifically male to translate the Greek huios. Our term is used at formal occasions to refer to the male offspring of honored people, so we felt it was a great word to use for Jesus, the Son of God. We want to portray a gentle but strong Savior, male all the way!

Very interesting. I think in issues like this, the Btrans egroup might be helpful.

FA