As I mentioned before, I’ve been participating in the Tyndale Blog Network, reviewing products that I receive from Tyndale. This time I’m a part of one of their virtual book tours, the Mosaic Bible blog tour. This Friday, October 16, The Kitchen will be hosting the tour, with Kevin O’Brien doing a Q&A session about the book.
In addition, Tyndale will be giving away a copy of The Mosaic Bible to one of the readers of this blog. On Friday, leave a comment indicating that you would like to be in the drawing for the giveaway.
Today’s stop on the blog tour: life. caffeinated.
A few months ago, we spent some time discussing versions of the Bible. I discussed, among other things, the theory of dynamic equivalence. This is the theory behind many of the Bible translations that have come out in the last 40 years or so.
Recently, I’ve been reading some articles by Leland Ryken (yeah, him again) that seek to promote “essentially literal translations” as being superior to those translated using dynamic equivalence. He makes some convincing arguments, some of which can be seen in the following articles:
On Bible Translations, Part 1
On Bible Translations, Part 2
Bible Translation Differences
I’ve had to admit that Ryken touches on some things that have bothered me over the years. Sometimes I find that “dynamic equivalence” translations seek to explain too much, that they try to pin a passage down to one certain interpretation, when the original is ambiguous enough to allow several translations. A prime example is the Greek word sarx, which the NIV translates as “sinful nature.” The word actually means “flesh,” “the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood.” I prefer a literal translation that gives us room to determine the metaphorical sense the author is using.
In many settings, I favor a “simpler” version, especially for the person who is just beginning to read the Bible. But we can’t be overly dependent on such translations. As I said before, we need to use multiple versions in our serious study of the Word. (Does that conflict with yesterday’s post?)
Do some reading on Ryken’s arguments and tell me what you think of what he has to say. (He has an entire book on the subject, but I haven’t had a chance to look at it.) How literal should a translation be?
The category mistake he makes, that I find so prominent among modern translators (especially those of the more conservative ilk) is the perpetuation of the (false) distinction between “content meaning” and “lexical meaning”. Lexical meaning is not a distinct kind, analytically separate from content, but rather simply a conventionalized “agreement” (by someone or some group). He also assumes that meaning inheres in words (or other syntactical units) when, in fact, meaning never exists except in communities who do things with words. Thus, as Wittgenstein and Austin properly noted, meaning is use. Just my quick two minutes worth. The illusion is that there is a proper analytic distinction between DET and “literal” translations.
Chris,
I see your point, yet I also understand where Ryken is coming from. I’ve found myself having to “backtrack” many times when teaching from a DET, having to say, “OK, here’s what your translation says, but the original says this and the actual meaning is probably more along this line.” That can get frustrating when you have to do it too often (like the NIV with sarx).
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I just stumbled across your blog. You may be interested in a review of Dr. Ryken’s latest book that I wrote last month.
–Joel
Thanks Joel for providing the link. Your review is thorough and informative. I had wondered about Ryken’s credentials.
I think that DET has its place, and that more literal translations are also useful. For public reading, etc., I prefer a more readable version. For in-depth study, I think a more literal version is generally more helpful. (though no single version can suffice for serious study)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I glad it was helpful.
-Joel
He makes some good arguments. However, I still have a little more difficulty reading the ESV, NASB, and NKJV in public (or in private, for that matter). The NIV continues to have an advantage for me because the language and grammar of the essentially literal translations do not flow very easily in many spots. It seems that they use phrases and words that make it unnecessarily more difficult to understand the meaning of a passage at times. However, if the updated NIV happens to move a little closer to an essentially literal translation without losing the more natural flow of its prose, I would not complain.
Terry,
I hope you’ll read the post for today (Wednesday). I refer to a blog that says the same thing about oral reading of Scripture.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
A prime example is the Greek word sarx, which the NIV translates as “sinful nature.” The word actually means “flesh,” “the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood.”
No, that it is only one of the meanings of sarx in the original Greek New Testament. The NIV attempted to accurately convey one of its meanings that has nothing to do with body tissue. It is appropriate for us to debate what would be a better translation for those passages where sarx does not refer to body tissue. But it is not appropriate to dismiss accurately translated translations as Dr. Ryken does by confusing one of a word’s meanings with some of its other meanings. Today we need to determine what the word “flesh” means to the majority of native English speakers and then, if that does not have the biblical meaning, we have to find another English word that more accurately expresses the biblical meaning. This is *not* Dynamic Equivalent translation. It is simply accurate translation.
OK, Wayne, good point about the meaning of sarx. I hurriedly grabbed the easiest translation, that from Strong’s.
I don’t question the intention of the NIV translators, but the insertion of the adjective “sinful” clouds the meaning, in my opinion. Even saying “human nature” would have been more acceptable.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer