NIV or ESV?

[JonC]

I am re-reading that book by Ryken (as you suggested I need to read it more carefully). Anyway, I know you disagree with his conclusions, but if you have a copy reference Ch. 5. This is a better explanation than I have provided (guess that’s why I’m not a writer). This is the fallacy that all translation is interpretation.

“There is, of course, a sense in which the statement that all translation is interpretation is true…but there is a crucial difference between linguistic interpretation (decisions regarding what English words best express Hebrew or Greek words) and thematic interpretation of the meaning of a text. Failure to distinguish between these two types of interpretation has led to both confusion and license in translation."

“Linguistic interpretation is a judgment that translators make regarding which English words best render the meaning of the words in the original biblical text….At this linguistic level, translation is indeed a continuous process of interpretation. But this is not the type of interpretation that is usually in view when translators invoke the principle that ‘all translation is interpretation.”
“The other main type of interpretation …is thematic interpretation of the theological meaning of a passage, achieved by going beyond the literal statement of the original.”

The example he offers is the literal statement in Romans 1:17 that in the Gospel “the righteousness of God is revealed.” Some translators have made thematic interpretations and presented it as representative of the biblical text. They have made a theological decision for the reader.

“For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed” (NIV)
“The good news tells how God accepts everyone who has faith” (CEV)
“For the gospel reveals how God puts people right with himself” (GNB)

The NIV is not as bad as the other two I listed, but still the NIV departs from the original text.

I hope that this clarifies my position - we were both speaking of interpretation but I don’t know that we were actually speaking of the same thing.

 

[Rippon]

I do agree that the translator also interprets (although I disagree with your comment that "interpretation is translation"). My comment that all translation involves interpretation is weak?...well, I disagree.

You're a confusing fella Jon. You had said "interpretation is present in translation." I called that view rather weak. Now you are saying that you believe "that all translation involves interpretation." I certainly don't take issue with that. Do you now agree with that proposition? It's hard to follow you. Do you have short term memory loss?

I NEVER suggested that the translation present multiple interpretation and am torn between attributing this to dishonesty on your part or simple "misinterpretation." But I will clarify. If the original test allows for interpretations A and B, then the translation should also allow for interpretations A and B (not offer B as the only conclusion, as the NIV does in the passage I mentioned).

You see, this is another example of inconsistency on your part. You are hopping around from position to yet another position --at least taking your words at face value. Now you would allow options A and b, but at the same time you claim that you are not advancing multiple alternatives in the text? You had said (in reference to Ro. 1:5 that "it could be understood either way --obedience as an act of faith or faith as an act of obedience." Those are two different things. How are able to put multiples in the translation unless you follow the way of the Amplified Bible? Translators have to make a singular decision in the text. Alternatives can be put in footnotes.

While I do not prefer the NIV, I have no problem with it and I do use the interpretation.

You're not making sense again Jon. Every version uses interpretation. "I do use the interpretation" in reference to the NIV is kind of hokey on your part.

Tell you what. You said you read what Fee, Strauss, and Carson said regarding interpretation in the translation process. I want to be sure you understand what they said. Feel free to differ with them, but give sound reasons as to why you differ. Take them line by line. That will make things very clear.

 

[Rippon]

Here we go again...

For some inexplicable reason I am not able to quote you AGAIN Jon.

I do not have Ryken's book with me. But have you checked out my old thread I have revived which deals with his book? I brought it back to life just for you.

His thematic thoughts are insubstantial. And his example of Romans 1:17a is pointless.

By the way, the NIV reads this way:"For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed..."

The ISV reads very much like it.

The NET Bible:"For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel..."

NASB and ESV:"For in it the righteousness of God is revealed..."

New Testament scholars have debated what genitive to use for a long time. What you and Ryken regard as "the literal" is no such thing; it's an approximation. And anyway, even if a given group of English words are employed in the effort to render the expression literally --more than likely it wouldn't be the best way to go. Very literal doesn't necessarily mean more exact.

 

[JonC]

You're a confusing fella Jon. You had said "interpretation is present in translation." I called that view rather weak. Now you are saying that you believe "that all translation involves interpretation." I certainly don't take issue with that. Do you now agree with that proposition? It's hard to follow you. Do you have short term memory loss?


You see, this is another example of inconsistency on your part. You are hopping around from position to yet another position --at least taking your words at face value. Now you would allow options A and b, but at the same time you claim that you are not advancing multiple alternatives in the text? You had said (in reference to Ro. 1:5 that "it could be understood either way --obedience as an act of faith or faith as an act of obedience." Those are two different things. How are able to put multiples in the translation unless you follow the way of the Amplified Bible? Translators have to make a singular decision in the text. Alternatives can be put in footnotes.

You're not making sense again Jon. Every version uses interpretation. "I do use the interpretation" in reference to the NIV is kind of hokey on your part.

Tell you what. You said you read what Fee, Strauss, and Carson said regarding interpretation in the translation process. I want to be sure you understand what they said. Feel free to differ with them, but give sound reasons as to why you differ. Take them line by line. That will make things very clear.

I am beginning to see that I have been in error, now I realize that it is most likely dishonestly on your part rather than a lack of comprehension. But just in case it is the latter, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will rephrase and type slowly.

My meaning is that Interpretation is present in translation equates to all translation involves interpretation. Is this your way of recanting the statement of the idea that interpretation is translation or are you just trying to hide that comment in dialogue?

There is no inconsistency here. You were speaking of the Amplified Bible and suggesting that I prefer having multiple alternatives in the text. I am not saying this, and as a literate fella I think that this is not beyond your scope of understanding. What I am saying is that translators should not make thematic interpretative decisions for the reader if at all possible. If the original text can have multiple interpretations then be faithful to the original text when reasonable and leave the interpretation up to the reader.

And how is using the NIV interpretation a hokey statement if you truly believe interpretation is translation?

 

[JonC]

For some inexplicable reason I am not able to quote you AGAIN Jon.

I do not have Ryken's book with me. But have you checked out my old thread I have revived which deals with his book? I brought it back to life just for you.

I have not seen that thread but thank you for reviving it. I will check it out.

 

[Van]

Thanks JonC, for pointing out the significant difference between a thought for thought thematic interpretation, and a word for word linguistic interpretation.

Both the ESV and NIV are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95 and compare with the NET, HCSB, WEB and NKJV.

 

[InTheLight]

Both the ESV and NIV are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95 and compare with the NET, HCSB, WEB and NKJV.

Maybe you should make this your sig, you repeat on a daily basis, sometimes twice per day. We understand your viewpoint.

 

[Van]

Hi In the Light, I do not think you understand at all, since I believe you claim there is no difference between the NIV and the NASB as far as presenting what the inspired word says. God's word says from the foundation of the world, and both the ESV and NIV say before the foundation of the world. Why study corrupted text?

 

[JonC]

Thanks JonC, for pointing out the significant difference between a thought for thought thematic interpretation, and a word for word linguistic interpretation.

Both the ESV and NIV are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95 and compare with the NET, HCSB, WEB and NKJV.

I typically use the NASB for study…never really understood why some think it is so difficult to read (I think it an obtuse objection), but I will readily admit it is a bit awkward. I find it difficult to use the NIV as a study Bible as I seem to run across issues with the translation (omitted conjunctions, “thematic” interpretation, “clarification” that obscures OT allusions, etc). Maybe this is just due to a study preference of mine. The NASB is also my pick because it is the Bible that I grew up with (that and the KJV). What concerns me is when people do not realize limitations in translations and switch into defense mode…they cannot consider criticism of their favorite translation. I know the NASB has issues and I want to know what those issues are as I study. Same with other translations. I do think that "worthless" is an overstatement in regards to the NIV and ESV (I like the ESV and admit that I do not care for the HCSB). But my point is that knowing what you hold in your hand is important...and many do not, they assume that what they are reading is really a translation of the original (I've ran across this often during adult study...some point out that their Bible doesn't say such and such).

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi In the Light, I do not think you understand at all, since I believe you claim there is no difference between the NIV and the NASB as far as presenting what the inspired word says. God's word says from the foundation of the world, and both the ESV and NIV say before the foundation of the world. Why study corrupted text?

NO translation is inspired though, and all legit ones are the word of God to us in English, so while the nas is my preferred version to use, the esv/Niv are also good translations!

 

[Rippon]

"Many assume that what they are reading is a translation of the original."

I find that a curious statement. Your favorite translation is the NASB. Isn't that a translation of the original? You speak in riddles. Every Bible version is a translation of the original.

 

[Revmitchell]

I typically use the NASB for study…never really understood why some think it is so difficult to read (I think it an obtuse objection),

That is my view concerning any version.

 

[Van]

The NIV and ESV are worthless as study bibles because they intentionally present what they think scripture should say, rather than what it actually says. From cannot be translated as before. Those that study such translations are really studying the words of men and not God.

What I cannot understand is that many advocate disregarding the grammar and historical word meanings in the name of readability. If they agree a paraphrase should not be a study bible, then why not go to the least paraphrasic translation.

 

[JonC]

"Many assume that what they are reading is a translation of the original."

I find that a curious statement. Your favorite translation is the NASB. Isn't that a translation of the original? You speak in riddles. Every Bible version is a translation of the original.

You are right. I did not word that well. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Many assume that their Bibles state what is literally stated in the original text. The example in Romans illustrates what I mean. I had a discussion today at work over that passage (which came from a conversation about this discussion between you and I)- the argument was that the passage clearly says obedience is a result of faith...but it was due to the translation not the original words. My friend assumed that "obedience that is from faith" is what all Bibles stated because it was the original text word for word.

 

[Rippon]

My meaning is that Interpretation is present in translation equates to all translation involves interpretation.

1) Interpretation is present in translation.

2) All translation involves interpretation.

You think that both statements are equivalent. But 1) is rather mild and passive. In # 2 all is a determiner relating to every translation. The second is strong in comparison to the weaker #1.

But if you want to believe that both mean the same thing --go for it. The way I understand English differs from your understanding.

Is this your way of recanting the statement of the idea that interpretation is translation or are you just trying to hide that comment in dialogue?

I don't know why you insist on being so defensive. All translation is interpretation as Fee and Strauss argue in their book on Bible translation.Other New Tesament scholars state the same kind of thing.

There is no inconsistency here.

Funny. When I see inconsistency I can't see consistency.

I prefer having multiple alternatives in the text.

It sure sounds like it when you have said that Romans 1:5 :"could be understood either way."

A) obedience as an act of faith
B) faith as an act of obedience

How can a translation that can only put one rendering in the text employ both expressions without sounding like an Amplified Bible?

What I am saying is that translators should not make thematic interpretative decisions for the reader if at all possible.

Define your terms or what you think Ryken means. Your example of Romans 1:17a didn't demonstrate anything. What rule of orthodox translation principles did the NIV reading violate?

If the original text can have multiple interpretations then be faithful to the original text when reasonable and leave the interpretation up to the reader.

When you speak in such a convoluted way how am I to make sense of things?

1)A particular original passage has multiple intended interpretations (because I assume you don't mean the whole canon of Scripture).

2)Be faithful to the original text.

3)Leave the interpretation(s) up to the reader.

So the original pericope has several interpretations. Will your preferred translation of that pericope have those multiple interpretations?

How can the interpretation(s) of the original be left up to the reader? Are you saying that the original text is deliberately vague --and so the rendering must be put in a stylistically nebulous fashion?

Please be clear Jon. I honestly cannot follow you much of the time.

 

[Rippon]

The following snips are from The Challenge of Bible Translation edited by Scorgie, Strauss and Voth. Chapter one is penned by Moises Silva. It's called Are Translators Traitors? some Personal Reflections.

[T]he unwary reader can hardly suspect how many major syntactical transformations are adopted by the ESV. Here is a fairly word-for-word rendering of Hebrews 7:20-22(but respecting the word order required by English):

And according to which [= inasmuch as it was] not without and oath --for on the one hand the ones having become priests are without an oath, but he with an oath through the one saying to him, "The Lord swore and will not regret: 'You are a priest forever' " --according to so much Jesus became a guarantee of a better covenant.

...The ESV, however, renders it this way:

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath,but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.' " This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

By (1) breaking up one long sentence into three, then (2) transforming a binary comparative structure (with a long parenthesis in the middle) into a set of independent clauses, and finally (3) adding quite a few items absent from the Greek ("it was, "formerely," "were made such," "was made," "This makes") the ESV successfully clarifies the statement to modern readers and makes its meaning clear to them. But to call such a rendering literal (let alone word-for-word) is a fantasy. (pgs.39,40.)

 

[JonC]

1) Interpretation is present in translation.

2) All translation involves interpretation.

You think that both statements are equivalent. But 1) is rather mild and passive. In # 2 all is a determiner relating to every translation. The second is strong in comparison to the weaker #1.

But if you want to believe that both mean the same thing --go for it. The way I understand English differs from your understanding.

Exactly. I made both statements but you interpreted each to mean different and opposite things.

 

[JonC]

When you speak in such a convoluted way how am I to make sense of things?

1)A particular original passage has multiple intended interpretations (because I assume you don't mean the whole canon of Scripture).

2)Be faithful to the original text.

3)Leave the interpretation(s) up to the reader.

So the original pericope has several interpretations. Will your preferred translation of that pericope have those multiple interpretations?

How can the interpretation(s) of the original be left up to the reader? Are you saying that the original text is deliberately vague --and so the rendering must be put in a stylistically nebulous fashion?

Please be clear Jon. I honestly cannot follow you much of the time.

I am sorry that you cannot understand and I don't know that I can help other than point you again to an example.

The passage in Romans states "obedience of faith." This can mean obedience that is from faith or faith being obedience. The original text can be interpreted at least two ways.

If I change the words so that it can have only one meaning - obedience that is from faith - then I have presented an interpretation of what I think the writer intended...I have also removed another interpretation from the table. My audience may never know that the original could have been interpreted another way.

Do you really not understand?

 

[Rippon]

Exactly. I made both statements but you interpreted each to mean different and opposite things.

Not opposite --but certainly not equivalent.

Wings are present in birds.
All birds use wings in flight.

Do the two statements above have the same meaning?

 

[Rippon]

Jon, as I have said, scholars are divided over this. It's as not clear-cut as you want it to be.

It gets technical. Deacon (Rob) supplied this quote way back in August of 2007 from Herman Ridderbos's work Paul:An Outline of his Theology (1975).
"The genitive construction is probably to be taken as embracing both the sense 'response which is faith' and 'obedience which stems from faith' --interchangeable ideas."

Doug Moo in his commentary on Romans takes the genitive as subjective :"obedience that flows from faith."

JohnofJapan said back on 8/7/07 regarding his Japanese translation :"I see that the committee went with the subjective genitive on Romans 1:5."

So there is good warrant for a rendering that indicates that faith produces obedience.

For review Jon.