Translating the Bible

My friend Rick linked to an article by Kevin DeYoung about why his church switched to the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible. Throughout the article, he compared the ESV with the once-ubiquitous (in the evangelical world) NIV. As you may know, the ESV follows the translation philosophy called “formal equivalence,” the same as the King James, RSV, and NASB. In fact, the ESV is itself a revision of the RSV text. The goal is, as much as possible, to preserve the original order of words from the original manuscripts. The NIV uses the “dynamic equivalence” philosophy, which goes thought for thought.

DeYoung argued for the formal equivalence philosophy, arguing that it allowed the reader more access to the original. A comment on Rick’s post linked to an article by the commenter, which made some interesting points as well. One point that he made was that the ESV preserved “archaic words”:

When was the last time you heard anyone use any of the following words in everyday conversation: manslayer, beloved, behold, kindred, O, abhor, abide, abode, adjure, ascribe, chide, confute, convocation, counsel (as both a noun and a verb), entreat, exult, festal, haughty, invoke, kin, ordain, portent, rail (as a verb), rend, revile, sated, shall, smitten, sojourn, stripes, or swaddling?[16] The average person simply does not speak this way anymore. This is “Christianese.” If you have heard these words, chances are it was in a church setting or on Christian radio. Translations should make the meaning of God’s Word clear. God ordained that the NT would be written in Koine, i.e. common Greek. I submit that the ESV is not Koine English.

As Allan Chapple has written, “Something more substantial than style or taste is at stake here, therefore. In my judgment, unacceptable consequences flow from the ESV’s choice of language. In practice, it is an elitist translation. As such, it may well be ‘user-friendly’ for the highly literate. It may also be preferred by older Christians, for whom it will satisfy any lingering nostalgia for the RSV. But I doubt that it will be easily understood by believers under thirty-five or so, especially if they come from an unchurched background and have not already been enculturated into ‘church-speak’. If they have to use the ESV regularly, such people will need to learn two ‘languages’: the great words that speak of who God is and what he has done for us—and ‘high-English’ or ‘olde-English’. They will be glad to learn the first; they should not need to learn the second.”[17] I think Chapple overstates his case, but there is truth in his words.

This would seem to be an important consideration, but I’m not convinced by his point. To me, it would turn on what level of writing the koine was. Did it have difficult words as well? Would dropping the “church-speak” water down the translation too much?

I don’t know much about translation, so I’m curious to know what others think. Also, what philosophies do Catholic and Orthodox translations tend to take, or are there are diversity of those as well?

You can find links to DeYoung’s and the commenter’s articles at Rick’s blog post that I linked to above.

The US and Saudi Arabia: together again?

In May, I noted an op-ed about a drifting apart between the US and Saudi Arabia. Walter Russell Mead, tracing the history of the relationship, writes that recent events have brought the strange bedfellows back together.

Allegorical and literal exegesis in the ancient world

Peter Leithart summarized a paper by Lewis Ayres,  who discussed the allegorical interpretations of the early church fathers:

 Part of the point was to place the early fathers – Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and Tertullian – in their original context, and ask what they were responding to.  Predominantly, they were responding to Valentinian gnostics who read the Bible according to “parabolic” or “enigmatic” methods of reading, derived from the ancient methods applied by Greek critics to Homer.  Valentinians used the gospels to discover metaphysical ideas in Jesus’ teaching, ideas that were not on the surface of the text.

In response, the early fathers developed a method of reading that prioritized the literal.  They still allegorized and found “enigmatic” teaching in the Bible, but they applied a much stricter standard for determining when and how allegories should be derived from the literal text.

In other words: The church fathers didn’t invent allegorical exegesis; it was already around in abundant.  Insofar as they were innovative, they were innovative in their insistence on reading ad litteram.

A while back I was co-teaching a course on the Church Fathers, and during the week that we discussed Origen at least one of the attendees dismissed Origen’s allegorical exegesis. I pointed to Mark Noll’s description of the American commonsense, literal hermeneutical approach to note that we tend to take our way of interpreting the Bible for granted, making other approaches seem ridiculous. Of course, any method of interpretation can get you in trouble, as we see with Origen’s universalism. But it’s important to see the way that Christians throughout history and in our own time have interpreted the Scriptures and the context of the times in which those interpretive approaches were crafted. We can gain a lot from seeing the meanings that our fathers in the faith found in the Bible because they were looking with different cultural eyes than we are.

A persecuted Christian pastor in Iran

A friend shared a link on Facebook about pastor Youcef Nadarkhani’s examination before Iranian judges. Jordan Sekulow writes about the confrontation, which bore a striking resemblance to the few martyrdom narratives that I have read from the early church:

When asked to “repent” by the judges, Youcef stated, “Repent means to return. What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?” The judges replied , “To the religion of your ancestors, Islam.” To which he replied, “I cannot.”

It appears that Nadarkhani is in danger of being executed, although it is not certain yet. Here is an update posted after the one above.