One English translation which since its introduction to the English-speaking world in the 1980s (1984) has outsold every other English translation including the KJV, ESV, and NASB is the New International Version (NIV). Like it or not these are simply Publisher facts and reality. Unfortunately this English translation, whether popular or not, has been the whipping post for some in conservative evangelical circles and even in Fundamentalist churches since this time. It is the purpose of this thread to evaluate the theology, understandability, and other related issues of this top-selling English Bible translation. To do this, several issues must be addressed, including its adherents and attackers (to include what is their strongest arguments) against it. But before we start I really want to challenge folks: what drives Bible translation? What is the motive for Bible translation? Consider some options concerning translations (1) is the purpose to rigidly adhere to and be scrutinized by how well you follow a particular translation philosophy (2) or better yet, is the purpose to put the Bible (God's word) into the language of the people so they can understand what God says and requires of them (Justification, Sanctification, etc...). And yes, this second point can run wild especially when translations are produces by individuals and not by committees providing accountability across denominational lines.
My Argument
So here's the following plan of offense/defense (to use an Army understanding):
First, what is the purpose of a Bible translation. The question is not what you think the purpose is or is not. Nor is the question what translation philosophy you think is best (which ultimately serves as a straw man) to attack other English translations not matching your selected choice (word for word, thought for thought, etc...). So here's my stab at a working definition for Bible translation, and hopefully not to commit a fallacy of definition hedging. Definition: The PURPOSE (emphasis mine) of Bible translation is to put the original languages (by God's sovereign choice) (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic) into any and every spoken language possible (in the most understandable manner) that any and every language may know who God is and what he expects of them (in their own language). Consider the Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of translation, "the art and practice of rendering the Bible into languages other than those in which it was originally written." Note the similarity, we are taking the words in one language and "rendering" them in another different language.
Second, and related to the first point above, the vast majority of attacks thrown at the NIV (outside the KJV-only) camp is to attack the translation philosophy employed by these men. Perhaps even a sidebar ad hominem attack at them or other issues. These we'll address with facts and their own words in defense. If the goal of translation, as stated above, is to understand the underlying Greek and Hebrew text, then what would you do? Consider your options: (1) keep a wooden word for word order (no one consistently does this); (2) keep a thought for thought; (3) or perhaps do your best to explain faithfully idioms, phrases, and the meaning the best you can? How about denominational or theological bias? To be clear and to be academically honest, all English translations employ these concepts. And yes it might even surprise you that your favorite English Bible translation even dips into the world of gender-neutral translation (regardless of whether its cool or not). Again, concerning translation philosophy, Jesus, the four gospels, and all the epistle writers (55 times total) quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), freely and without reservation. How good was that translation or the philosophy behind it?
Third, the text and translation issue, as much as I appreciate the motive, intent, and product of pastors and laymen to free people from the grip of false teaching in this area, I am concerned that we are creating artificial standards to poke fun at or criticize English translations we personally don't want to use, or don't want others to use, either in translation philosophy (see above); associations (a major whipping post), or later on how they translate hotly charged gender issues (as if that is the new standard of conservative translations). And yes we will address these issues showing how they are used to misrepresent the theology of this particular English translation. I would challenge anyone to read the personal motivation behind the writing of the NIV.
Conclusion
So again the plan of attack is to address these three issues. By way of reminder (with slightly different wording):
(1) Is there a potentially false understanding of what Bible translation actually is or what makes or is necessary to be a good translation (even by men who are well-intended) battling against the grip of false English only positions? Avoiding one extreme only to embrace another extreme is not helpful. Neither is it helpful to paint these issues as "either...or" arguments.
(2) Is there a potentially false understanding of which Bible translation philosophy is best, more accurate, or more God-pleasing? Or are these standards artificially designed to limit or to self-profess which English translations are authoritative? Typically this takes the form of labeling certain translations and "conservative" and others not.
(3) Is there a possibility for fundamentalists to use the same strategies used against music, denominations, or other issues to paint these same "guilt by association" tactics against the most well-read and most sold English translation? Is it possible even for conservative evangelicals could borrow a page from this play book to attack gender issues or a combination of the above points?
(4) I also wish to show from the text itself, that no orthodox theological doctrine is lost. No cardinal fundamental of faith is skewed or hidden in the NIV. This includes every category of systematic theology found in any reputable theological textbook.
(5) Finally, the vast majority of churches, denominations, and even well-known pastors (which you listen to already) use the New International Version occasionally and you probably didn't even know it when you listen to their sermons. Sadly, personalities tend to be more important than actual facts.
Read. Enjoy. Comment. Be informed.
No comments:
Post a Comment