Whilst I was reading for an essay this morning I came across this opinion by Tom Wright. Tom Wright writes of his enthusiasm when the NIV translation of the Bible was originally published because it claimed to translate exactly what was there. However, after using it for a while, he writes:
Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do no not know what version of scripture they use at Dr [John] Piper's church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.
Now that's quite a strong claim, but it set back into motion something I was thinking about a while ago. I used to be (before learning New Testament Greek oddly enough) an ESV purist - in other words, the literalness of the ESV meant that it was better than the NIV and more paraphrased versions. However, lately I've become a little less dogmatic on the issue, mainly after listening to New Testament scholar Gordon Fee who claims that most literal modern translations are not written in English, but Greeklish; in other words, your average human being would struggle to recognize the language and sentence constructions. Having heard that I thought: "fair enough, maybe a paraphrase is better than literal since it's more understandable."
But Wright's observation got me thinking about Bible translations in general. I don't have an answer on the issue and so would like to hear what people who have no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek think about this. Is it better, in your opinion, to have a literal translation which is harder to read, or a paraphrased one which is easier to read but will already be an interpretation by the time it reaches the stage of translation?
To give you a bit food for thought, here are a couple of instances (off the top of my head - I am sure there are more pertinent ones) in the Bible which most modern translations obscure slightly:
Galatians 3.10a
Literal: "For as many as are from the Law, are under a curse, for it has been written..."
ESV: "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written ..."
(The difference is that the literal translation seems to imply that there are a group of people who are "of the Law" [i.e. Jews], whereas the ESV broadens it).
1 Peter 5:6
Literal: "Be humbled therefore under the mighty hand of God..."
ESV: "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God..."
(Difference being active humbling and passive humbling)
I have no particular judgement on the matter, but wondered what people thought. What is better: easier readability or literalness. The two aren't completely exclusive, but readability a lot of the time necessitates more interpretation before translation.
From someone who's a pedant and a pathetic biblical scholar, I tend to use both. I don't just mean that as a cop-out. I read the NIV first because it the only paper-copy translation I own, I find it easy to read, and it's what I've grown up with. It was never an active decision, just the default.
ReplyDeleteI think that the NIV, while a paraphrase, quite clearly and acurately outlines the gospel and is certainly true enough to guide people in their walk with God. But if I hit a tricky passage when it seems blurry or ambiguous, I will always consult the ESV because it is more precise. But if I just read the ESV I think I would lose the overal sense of the message.
I read fast and the NIV is better for bedtime (when I'm tired) or traveling (when people's elbows are in my face) because it better tuned to my brain. But when I want to study closely and properly, when there's a question of semantics or sutble distinctions then it's ESV all the way.
I don't mind that the NIV isn't as pure because the holy spirit does a lot of work in revelation too. Even if it's a bit loose on paper, God guides in spirit.
preference NRSV
ReplyDeletebecause of a larger range of tradition of the composing comm, therefore one is less likely to encoutner Wrights problems with the NIV. I also think those with the ability to understand greeklish should damn well learn it.