The Politics of Bible Translations

[rlvaughn]

Proponents of 20th and 21st century English Bible versions may be unwilling to ultimately make exclusive claims for their favorite version. However, two Bible translators have noted a tendency to “rally in groupie-like fashion around one and only one” Bible, and that “Bible translations have become ecclesial politics." In Jesus and the Gospels, Craig Blomberg writes:

Who would have imagined twelve years ago the balkanization of the Bible reading public into clumps of vociferous supporters of their favorite English translations, often accompanied by vitriolic rhetoric against other versions? That was then a distinction of the almost defunct King James Version only movement! Today, not only has that movement actually revived but it seems that far too many scholars, professors, pastors, and theological students, not to mention quite a few laypeople, rally in “groupie-like” fashion around one and only one of the NASB, NIV, NRSV, NKJV, NLT, TNIV, NET, HSCB, or ESV! Meanwhile, most of the people of the world continue at best to have only one reasonable translation of the Scriptures in their native tongues, while non-Christians in English-speaking countries too often assume that none of the translations is reliable or else we would not keep making new ones and quarreling over existing ones! (Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 2nd Edition, Broadman & Holman, 2009, p. 4)​

Scot McKnight calls this trend The Politics of Bible Translations, writing:

The Bible you carry is a political act. By “Bible” I mean the Translation of the Bible you carry is a political act. Because the Bible you carry is a political act the rhetoric about other translations is more politics than it is reality...The world in which we live, however, has turned the Bible you carry into politics. So here goes for my politics of translation at the general, stereotypical level, and it goes without having to say it that there are exceptions for each [a partial list follows, rlv]...The rhetoric that “our Bible” is better than your Bible — masked as “word for word” or “accurate” — is political rhetoric and not translation theory. The politics of Bible translation is a sad case of colonizing the Bible for one’s agenda. There is lots of stone throwing about translations as if one is wildly superior to the others, but often that is about tribes and not the translation. Each group has its Bible, has its translation, and you declare your allegiance to your tribe by carrying and citing the Bible of your tribe. Show your cards by exposing the Bible you use and you will be telling us which tribe is yours...When I visit a new church I can walk into the sanctuary (or auditorium) and know which tribe the church belongs to by the pew Bible: the translation tells the story because Bible translations have become ecclesial politics.​

Thoughts?

 

[kathleenmariekg]

Along with assumption that a translation is a political statement, the political statement is also seen as a stereotypical political statement, and the most negative stereotype possible.

 

[Strannik]

We also have many different translations, but people themselves come to the conclusion that the best version of the translation is the Russian Synodal Translation of the ROC MP or the Translation of Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov) is still allowed. They are the most professional and correspond to the literary-literalistic transmission of the meaning of Scripture.

I think that there would not be all these disputes if there were not people who try to impose their views on everyone at the level of translations.
Examples:
Jehovah's Witnesses with their translations, representatives of sodomy made their translation, in Germany some smart guy made a translation with youth jargon, feminists shove their translations, and so on, and so on.

 

[Logos1560]

Scot McKnight calls this trend The Politics of Bible Translations, writing:

.When I visit a new church I can walk into the sanctuary (or auditorium) and know which tribe the church belongs to by the pew Bible: the translation tells the story because Bible translations have become ecclesial politics.​

Thoughts?

This author could often be jumping to a wrong conclusion.

The pew Bibles in a local church may have been purchased to match the Bible that a prior pastor preached from while the present pastor may preach from a different Bible translation, may have been purchased to be in agreement with something in the church's statement of faith from many years earlier, or may have been purchased to be in agreement what the older members prefer. In many present congregations, all the members do not carry the same Bible translation as the pew Bible in their church.

 

[rlvaughn]

In context of the entire article, I do not think McKnight is claiming his system if foolproof, just that you can usually tell a lot about a church by the pew Bible they have. In some cases it might tell us that the church can't afford to change the pew Bibles every time the pastors change their minds!

 

[PeacefulLove]

This author could often be jumping to a wrong conclusion.

The pew Bibles in a local church may have been purchased to match the Bible that a prior pastor preached from while the present pastor may preach from a different Bible translation, may have been purchased to be in agreement with something in the church's statement of faith from many years earlier, or may have been purchased to be in agreement what the older members prefer. In many present congregations, all the members do not carry the same Bible translation as the pew Bible in their church.

I agree with this statement. Even in the IFB churches I have been part of, not everyone has a KJV in their lap. Most folks I know even if they are IFB, will use other translations in their personal study. I am a "KJV preferred" person. From a historical standpoint, it's been in use for 400 years or so. I love the old English prose, and find it easier to memorize for some reason. However, I am not opposed to other bibles. Personally, I own many different translations both hard copy and electronically. I find the NIV easier to read for study, and often use the NASB and ESV also.

I am IFB by theology, as I find the beliefs stated closest to Biblical Christianity. The only issue I have with the IFB (and other churches) is when they choose to get into politics. It is my understanding that the Kingdom of God is not of this world.

 

[Van]

All of our English translations have flaws, so for this group or that group to claim their choice should be the only choice is simply provincial. OTOH, when we come together to study, it is important we share in our understanding of the text. Otherwise you get the study derailed with "that is not how MY bible reads" distractions.

 

[PeacefulLove]

All of our English translations have flaws, so for this group or that group to claim their choice should be the only choice is simply provincial. OTOH, when we come together to study, it is important we share in our understanding of the text. Otherwise you get the study derailed with "that is not how MY bible reads" distractions.

I enjoy studying with others who use different translations...we talk about the word choice, how the meaning MAY have changed or if it becomes clearer with another translation.

I speak, read and write fluently in a couple of different languages...trying to translate from one to the other can get crazy. In one language, word order is different than in English...so a word for word translation would not make sense to either speaker. In some languages, there is a certain nuance to certain words, where if translated literally would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. So...trying to figure out the most "faithful" translation from another language is iffy at best. A good example of this is in Spanish, i would say "el coche rojo". A literal translation into English is "the car red". That makes NO sense at all, right? So, when I translate it, I also fix the word order to fit in English and it comes out "the red car". THAT is one of the main things that precludes a true "word for word" translation...

 

[rlvaughn]

A good example of this is in Spanish, i would say "el coche rojo". A literal translation into English is "the car red". That makes NO sense at all, right? So, when I translate it, I also fix the word order to fit in English and it comes out "the red car". THAT is one of the main things that precludes a true "word for word" translation...

Another issue with this is discerning what people mean when they speak of a literal or word-for-word translation. Often people just mean formal equivalence versus dynamic equivalence. So, in your example, they would consider "the red car" a "literal" translation of "el coche rojo."

As an aside, our Spanish speakers in Texas have adapted any number of common English words into their speech. They would almost always says "el carro rojo" rather than "el coche rojo." And "computador" rather than "ordenador." I think most of our schools now teach "Mexican Spanish" rather than "Spain Spanish" (in general). Language is an interesting thing.

 

[PeacefulLove]

As an aside, our Spanish speakers in Texas have adapted any number of common English words into their speech. They would almost always says "el carro rojo" rather than "el coche rojo." And "computador" rather than "ordenador." I think most of our schools now teach "Mexican Spanish" rather than "Spain Spanish" (in general). Language is an interesting thing.

I speak "Spain" Spanish. It's what I learned growing up (I am of Latino descent). I'm first generation born in the US. What you're talking about is "Spanglish" which is pretty common in the US. When I moved to the southwest USA, it started rubbing off on me. Yes, Spanish has different dialects, same as in the US or almost any other country. I'm originally from the south...and use phrases that are pretty much unheard of elsewhere in the US. Even those have to be "translated" into a more understandable idioms elsewhere. Same with how certain words are pronounced in different parts of the US. A favorite one of mine is the word "oil". Most folks pronounce all three letters...I don't. It comes out like "oll". Same with some other words. A "house" is a "hoose". Then there's understanding how "y'all" can be used. "You" is one, "y'all" is more than one and "all y'all" is a bunch of people.

 

[Van]

I enjoy studying with others who use different translations...we talk about the word choice, how the meaning MAY have changed or if it becomes clearer with another translation.

I speak, read and write fluently in a couple of different languages...trying to translate from one to the other can get crazy. In one language, word order is different than in English...so a word for word translation would not make sense to either speaker. In some languages, there is a certain nuance to certain words, where if translated literally would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. So...trying to figure out the most "faithful" translation from another language is iffy at best. A good example of this is in Spanish, i would say "el coche rojo". A literal translation into English is "the car red". That makes NO sense at all, right? So, when I translate it, I also fix the word order to fit in English and it comes out "the red car". THAT is one of the main things that precludes a true "word for word" translation...

Try addressing a word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation effort. The meaning of "the car red" in the source language is the same as "the red car" in the target language.

And the claim, "precludes a true word for word translation" needs to cite a Greek NT verse as illustration.

 

[PeacefulLove]

I think I'm not making my point very well...to me, a "word for word" or literal translation is exactly that. Word for word. If I were translating "word for word" from one language to another, I would not alter the word order, the gender of the word (common in many languages), etc. MOST translations are not this way, they'd make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even with the "word for word" that is talked about above where the word order is changed...it still isn't "word for word" or literal.

Truth is, translations lose a lot in meaning. A joke in one language isn't funny at all in another even if you translate it "word for word". The songs my mother sang to me as a child make no sense whatsoever in English. Yes, they can be translated but they make no sense at all. My mother used to tease me about the "cucuey" in the basement. There is no direct "word for word" translation for this...it could be a ghost, a boogeyman, a monster...whatever. I can think of a dozen words that have no direct translation from Spanish to English...making that alleged "word for word" translation darn near impossible if you want to really get the "flavor" of the word.

 

[Dave G]

I speak, read and write fluently in a couple of different languages

I wish I were fluent, but for now I only have a working knowledge of both Spanish and French,
and can recognize Italian and Portuguese when I see them written.

Italian, Spanish and French I can also recognize when I hear them spoken...
Portuguese is more difficult, as I often mistake it for Spanish ( like I do Dutch with German ) until my familiarity with some of the words makes me realize that it's not Spanish.

Catalan?
That sounds even closer to Spanish and I can actually understand a few words when I hear it spoken.

.trying to translate from one to the other can get crazy.

I agree.

In one language, word order is different than in English...so a word for word translation would not make sense to either speaker.

Again, I agree.
For example, grammar in Latin-based languages puts the noun first and then the adjective, as you've described.

So...trying to figure out the most "faithful" translation from another language is iffy at best.

I maintain that it can be done, as "iffy" as it may seem.
To me, it takes fluency in both languages to make it happen.

But I do understand your point, believe it or not.

 

[Dave G]

A good example of this is in Spanish, i would say "el coche rojo". A literal translation into English is "the car red". That makes NO sense at all, right?

I think that you gave a good example with "el coche rojo" ( el carro rojo? ), "the red coach / car", and there are many.
But in other places it carries directly over to the English.

For example, FR " je suis fatique" / ESP "estoy cansado" = ENG "I am tired",
or "mi espanol es muy terrible" ( my Spanish is very terrible ) which I get to practice quite often.
Then we can throw it all out of whack when we add " que me grites " to " estoy cansado" and it changes the whole thing to " I am tired that at me yelling" ( I believe I got that right ), which means " I am tired of you yelling at me", because the "of you" and "at" are more implied through context than outright spoken as words.

While I believe that "word for word" can be achieved ( for the most part ),
I also know that it is very hard to completely carry out when translating.

But one thing I cannot abide by is Dynamic Equivalency, which takes the closeness of word-for-word and replaces it with "close enough" in the target language.
To me, Bible translations should be performed with an eye towards carrying the source language ( whether Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek ) over to the target language with as little variance as possible, and there should be no room for "close enough".

Rather, "as close as possible" should be the rule because we are dealing with God's words, not man's words.

That is why I take paraphrases like the NLT in English and completely dismiss them as the word of God, and Dynamic Equivalency translations such as the NIV in English and treat them in much the same manner.


There should also be no politics and no agendas other than a direct carry-over with as much accuracy as possible, either.

 

[Dave G]

Proponents of 20th and 21st century English Bible versions may be unwilling to ultimately make exclusive claims for their favorite version. However, two Bible translators have noted a tendency to “rally in groupie-like fashion around one and only one” Bible, and that “Bible translations have become ecclesial politics." In Jesus and the Gospels, Craig Blomberg writes:

Who would have imagined twelve years ago the balkanization of the Bible reading public into clumps of vociferous supporters of their favorite English translations, often accompanied by vitriolic rhetoric against other versions? That was then a distinction of the almost defunct King James Version only movement! Today, not only has that movement actually revived but it seems that far too many scholars, professors, pastors, and theological students, not to mention quite a few laypeople, rally in “groupie-like” fashion around one and only one of the NASB, NIV, NRSV, NKJV, NLT, TNIV, NET, HSCB, or ESV! Meanwhile, most of the people of the world continue at best to have only one reasonable translation of the Scriptures in their native tongues, while non-Christians in English-speaking countries too often assume that none of the translations is reliable or else we would not keep making new ones and quarreling over existing ones! (Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 2nd Edition, Broadman & Holman, 2009, p. 4)

I'd never thought that anyone outside the United States would look at it that way, but I guess that I'm not all that surprised.
In some countries even today, it's nigh on to impossible to even get a Bible, much less one in one's own language.

 

[Dave G]

The politics of Bible translation is a sad case of colonizing the Bible for one’s agenda. There is lots of stone throwing about translations as if one is wildly superior to the others, but often that is about tribes and not the translation. Each group has its Bible, has its translation, and you declare your allegiance to your tribe by carrying and citing the Bible of your tribe. Show your cards by exposing the Bible you use and you will be telling us which tribe is yours...When I visit a new church I can walk into the sanctuary (or auditorium) and know which tribe the church belongs to by the pew Bible: the translation tells the story because Bible translations have become ecclesial politics.
Thoughts?

I'll have to disagree a bit with the author here, as to me, Bible translations have more under the surface than simply preferring one over the other...at least in the case of "Received Text" versus "Critical Text" differences in their New Testaments.

But in my case, I'd have to concede a bit of agreement as well...
My "tribe" is "TR-Only / KJV-Preferred Calvinist", and there aren't that many of us running around.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'll have to disagree a bit with the author here, as to me, Bible translations have more under the surface than simply preferring one over the other...at least in the case of "Received Text" versus "Critical Text" differences in their New Testaments.

But in my case, I'd have to concede a bit of agreement as well...
My "tribe" is "TR-Only / KJV-Preferred Calvinist", and there aren't that many of us running around.

Preferred or Only?

 

[gb93433]

I would say that some of this issue revolves a financial issue of using a translation they have not done. The SBC translated their own because of NIV royalities.