this was actually sent a long time ago, but apparently it never made it, so I'm going to repost it, though you may have not seen this one. Here it is:
Ok, here we go ... again. :) I'm playing the same harpstring, I know, but I have more thoughts on Bible translations. First off, I've been using various
Bible translations in order to find something I can stick with. Well, actually, it's more like reexamining some versions to figure out how to reconcile
the translation with my own theological views. In other words, the deal is that some translations sit there and tell you what the passage means according
to them but I happen to hold a different view. For example, In the God's Word translation, Genesis 6:1-4 is translated so that the "sons of God" are portrayed
as mere humans. Well, that's one interpretation, but perhaps what they should have done is left it as is without throwing the word "other" before humans.
How to get around it? Easy. Throw in the fact that when the NT was written, the LXX (Septuagint--Greek translation of the OT) was the standard translation
in use. Well, there, it literally says there in Genesis 6:1-4 "angels", which explains a heck of a lot. :) Yep, we have two interpretations which happen
to both be true simultaneously! In Hebrew, we have one meaning of the text--that of unbelievers and believers joining together perhaps, and in the Greek
we have another one. Now technically, that's a little bit simplified, but hey, I had to do something with it. Another example is in Matthew 24:3 where
the GW has "coming again". Now I tend to take the partial-Preterist view on that passage and the others like it in the other synoptis, Well, ok, granted--the
word "again" is technically unwarranted, but whatever! Perhaps the translators didn't actually mean that in the sense of second advent, but in terms of
how I understand it. In other words, while technically speaking, that translation doesn't quite hit the target exactly, due to translation 2000 years
later, it still works. Here's how. The word there in the Greek is parousia--it means "arrival" or "presence". Well, obviously, if you look at the translation's
wording in the rest of the chapter, it's pretty clear this "coming again" isn't a literal "second advent"-type coming again! Rather it's a coming again
in judgment. Now, admittedly, that's a little wonkey, but yeah, again, I had to do something. third and final example--1 Corinthians 13:8. Here, the
GW has the addition of the phrase "by itself", indicating that the translators used what's known as the classical use of the middle voice. that totally
went over your heads probably, but if you took the equivalency of first-year Greek as I did, or if you took regular first-year Greek, you'd probably know
what that means. Anyway, the point is that, technically, that's actually a bit unwarranted, since we're talking about Koine Greek and not classical Greek.
But, it technically doesn't matter, since obviously, it doesn't impact meaning at all. The technical problem with using the classical middle voice is
that that useage was phasing out, if not phased out completely. It'd be like using Shakespearean grammar and stuff in ordinary speech. A little wonkey,
to put it mildly. But, like I said, it's cool with me. And oh yeah, contractions. Let's talk about that for just a sec. This translation's fantastic,
even if it's in informal English. But, they do raise a good point. Does everything have to be in this formal English? Probably not, actually. Like
right now, I'm writing this in informal English, whereas more technical posts are written in a more formal style. And oh yeah, this translation's great
for anything. It might be a bit awkward being used in liturgical settings, but then, who said anything about liturgical settings? Yeah, I prefer word-for-word
translation--I'd rather have that than a paraphrase, but hey, we need the paraphrases too. Man, the world would be awfully boring without the ability
to take something and put into your own words. In fact, that's how research papers are written. Speaking of which, I'll be posting the rest of my review
of my friend's paper here. She finally got around to sending me a copy of the complete paper. What I had was, obviously, incomplete for some reason.
So, I'll be doing that soon. Oh! I almost forgot my other thing about translations! So, the thought hit me the other day, while I was getting out of
the shower, of all places. Is it me, or does it seem that the more criticism a translation gets, the more of a chance it has of lasting a good, long time?
Like historically, the Revised Standard Version (RSV), and now the New revised Standard Version (NRSV) have gotten and are getting tons and tons of criticism
from the ultraconservatives. In the case of the RSV, it was Isaiah 7:14's "young woman" that pissed them off. And now it's not only that, but it is also
the use of inclusive language. Well, look, I look at this whole issue and I can't help but look at the history of the KJV. You know, the Bible that everyone
wanted was the Geneva Bible. It was basicly the English Standard Version of its day. It had interpretive notes, which were really helpful, since it gave
ppl a chance to read Scripture and actually understand what it meant. Well, the KJV didn't have these notes, and besides, it was one of those Bibles that
was supposed to unite the church under the banner of having agreement on how things were supposed to be translated. Reason for that was the Puritans said
"our Bible says this" and the Anglicans essentially responded with "oh yeah? Well, ours says this!" See, the Anglicans used the Bishops' Bible. Now,
the idea of the KJV was to take the best of both and combine it into something that both sides could use. Way to make argument that much easier! :) So,
yeah, and everybody loved it ... Oh wait. Actually, it was hated from the get-go. Everyone piled criticism on the thing. It didn't catch on at all.
It was a dud--a flop. So, yeah, along comes the next generation and following generations who latched onto the thing like mad. The same ppl that hated
it a zillion years ago now claim it to be the only Bible for English-speakers today. Talk about a turnaround. :) Yeah, so my question to the folks at
Good News Publishing--uh, where do you guys want to see the ESV going in, say, ten years? The rate things are going, with everyone wanting to jump on
the band wagon, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in all likelyhood, I think you guys should start working on ruffling some feathers for once.
Yep, be bold, daring, adventurous. How about publishing an inclusive language revision of the ESV. Call it the ESVI or something. That might actually
guarantee you some future success. See, the more ppl latch onto something in the beginning, the less chance it has of being successful in the long-run.
For example, does anyone have a copy of the Geneva Bible, or a more modern example would be the Goodspeed Bible that they use on a regular basis. Didn't
think so. :) My point exactly! See, I really can't help but wonder what on earth all the hype is about regarding some versions. I mean, so what--the
ultraconservatives have a version to combat the liberals. Big deal. I like the ESV, don't get me wrong--use it all the time. but let's think this through
a little more, shall we? Where's the thing going to be in ten or fifteen years? Probably on some bookshelf gathering dust, or maybe some bargain bin
somewhere at Barnes and Noble or something. Mark
