By Mark S. Krause
Last week we looked at five factors that shape an English translation of the Bible: interpretation, version genealogy, translation theory, audience, and gender-neutral language. This week and next week, we will take a quick look at eight translations.
Popular English Translations
There are too many English translations of the Bible to write about each one, but we will focus on a few. In each case, we will look at the presuppositions behind the translation, its audience, and a couple of test verses: Psalm 8:4 and Matthew 16:18.
Psalm 8:4 is well-known for its ringing question, “What is man?” (King James Version). This is followed by a second question, “And the son of man?” Although we may be tempted to see these as separate questions, the nature of Hebrew poetry parallelism is such that they are the same question being asked twice. The verse thus presents this issue: how will the translators handle the gender issue? “Man” as given in the KJV is not intended to be males only.
Matthew 16:16-18 includes some of the Lord”s comments after Peter”s grand confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” There are two interpretive issues in this verse. When Jesus says, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,” there is a play on words in Greek between the name “Peter” (petros) and the word “rock” (petra). How will this be translated to retain the author”s intent? Some believe the rock upon which the church is built is Peter himself, but others have seen it to be the earlier confession of Peter, that Jesus is the Christ. Second, Jesus says the “gates of hell” would not prevail against it (his church). This has been commonly understood as a reference to the power of Satan, the prince of Hell, but there are two problems with this interpretation. First, the idea that Satan is the king of Hell is not found in the Bible, which instead presents him as one of the denizens of this realm of punishment. Second, the Greek text does not say, “gates of hell,” but “gates of Hades.” Hades is the realm of the dead in biblical thought, not necessarily the place of punishment in the afterlife. The intended meaning of “gates of Hades” is something like the “power of death.” Jesus” words serve as a type of prophecy that even his death (and the deaths of his disciples) would not vanquish the church.
Following is a brief review of the eight top-selling English Bibles (based on unit sales, according to Christian Booksellers Association) in America as of December 2010. We will look at numbers eight through five this week and four through one next week.
8. New American Standard Bible
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) originally appeared in 1971 as the product of the Lockman Foundation. The NASB people were unapologetic in their intent to produce a conservative alternative to the Revised Standard Version (RSV). This can be seen in the original NASB“s retention of archaic English forms (“thou”) in passages the translators believed to be some form of prayer. These old forms were replaced in the 1995 update of the NASB.
The NASB is often promoted as the “most accurate” or “most literal” of all the modern translations by its advocates and the “most wooden” or “most un-English” by its detractors. It has followed the formal correspondence theory of translation consistently, and this has produced a text that sometimes follows conventions of the Greek or Hebrew language at the expense of English.
The NASB appeals to conservative Christians who are not afraid of working with its limitations on the English side to have a better sense of what the original language of the Bible intends. However, some have seen the NASB as less than adequate for preaching and Scripture memorization because of its perceived woodenness.
Our test verses are revealing for the NASB. Psalm 8:4 presents the author asking questions of God, so the translators view this as a prayer. Therefore, the 1971 NASB has “Thou dost” twice in this verse, retaining older English forms; in the 1995 NASB, these forms have been updated to current English usage. Both versions of the NASB retain the gender-specific “man” and “son of man” of the KJV, deciding against gender-neutral terms even though the author is obviously asking about humankind in general, not just men.
The literalness of the NASB serves well in Matthew 16:18, where Jesus” language is given in almost word-for-word fashion. It is left to the reader to interpret whether the rock upon which the church is built is Peter or something else. The “gates of Hades” are predicted to be unable to “overpower” the church, thus avoiding the necessary implication that Jesus is speaking of the forces of Satan.
The NASB seems to have found a solid niche among Christians who desire to study the Bible with a close reading of the text. This audience prefers a more literal translation even if it may seem less elegant and dynamic than some of the NASB“s competitors. If the Lockman Foundation is willing to continue to update the NASB every 20 to 30 years to reflect changes in English, it will likely have a long life.
7. The Message
The Message is not really a translation, but a paraphrase done by Eugene H. Peterson, a professor at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, before his retirement in 2006. This is the product of an individual putting the Scriptures into his own words, thereby reflecting personal interpretive understandings of the text.
Fortunately, Peterson is a very good scholar with great respect for the Bible. The result is a dynamic, readable, even dramatic version that appeals to folks looking for a fresh way of hearing God”s Word. Its niche seems to be with mature believers who have a good knowledge of the Bible, but want a fresh translation. It is billed not as a “study Bible,” but a “reading Bible.” Peterson claims no particular translation theory, but I would put it at the far end of the dynamic equivalence category.
For our test texts, we find mixed results. In Psalm 8:4, Peterson translates “man” as “my micro-self”(?!) and “son of man” as “us.” He thereby moves the somewhat impersonal sense of the original text to a version focused on the person asking the questions while avoiding gender-specific language. This does add dynamism to the reading, but represents a shift that will make some readers uncomfortable.
For Matthew 16:18, Peterson goes an extra step to say, “Peter, a rock. This is the rock on which I will put together my church.” For Peterson, Peter himself is the rock/foundation of the church, although this interpretation is not universally accepted. Disappointingly, Peterson retained the KJV“s “gates of hell” in this verse.
My subjective analysis: I like the moving, exciting language of The Message, but sometimes it feels like a preacher explaining the text to me. A very good preacher (Peterson) to be sure, but it is still a step removed from the Bible itself. This version will likely have a good run, but its dynamic language will make it obsolete in a few years, something like the J. B. Phillips translation of the New Testament that was so popular in the 1960s. If you like The Message, enjoy it while you can.
6. Holman Christian Standard Bible
The circumstances that gave rise to the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) are unique. Broadman & Holman, the respected publishing house of the Southern Baptist denomination, wanted a modern Bible translation that could be used in its publications, and therefore sponsored this work. Originally conceived as the Christian Standard Bible, this translation”s title now includes the name of the publishing house.*
This translation claims to follow a theory called “optimal equivalence,” as opposed to the two dominant ones (formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence). To me, however, it seems to be a slight variation of the formal correspondence method, with some freedom for less literal translations when judged necessary.
An innovation should be noted here. The HCSB“s website draws attention to its translation of the divine name of God as “Yahweh,” rather than “Jehovah” or “the Lord.” For example, in Exodus 15:3, the KJV reads, “The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name,” while the HCSB reads, “The Lord is a warrior; Yahweh is His name.” Problem: the Hebrew term that the KJV translates as “the Lord” is used twice in this verse. Why does the HCSB translate it “the Lord” the first time and “Yahweh” the second time? Such inconsistency is bothersome to say the least.
In our test verses, we find rather predictable results, given the conservative nature of the HCSB“s intended audience. In Psalm 8:4, the traditional “man” and “son of man” are retained without any attempt at gender inclusiveness. Peter and the rock of the church are not overtranslated in Matthew 16:18, leaving the choice of the identification of the rock to the reader. However, the “gates of hell” in this verse is given as the “forces of Hades,” a curious reading. The substitution of “forces” for “gates” seems to personify this, leaning toward spiritual entities under the power of Satan, so while “Hades” is correctly given, the sense of this being the power of death is lost, and we are left with another way of saying “forces of Satan.”
It is too early to judge the staying power of the HCSB, given that its first year of publication for the entire Bible was 2004. Since it is the translation of choice for the publishing arm of an influential denomination, it will likely be popular among those who use Broadman & Holman products. Whether it will find favor outside this group remains to be seen.
5. English Standard Version
In 2001, Crossway Books released the English Standard Version (ESV), promoted as a revision of the RSV and based on its last update (1971). The translation was welcomed by some and greeted with suspicion by others because Crossway was seen as a key player in the gender-neutral language controversy at the turn of the century. Crossway Books had earned this reputation for publishing books that attempted to debunk what had become known as “Evangelical feminism.” Crossway”s major publication in this area, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, was seen as the definitive statement against so-called “egalitarianism” in the Christian community. Therefore, the ESV was seen by both sides of this debate as having an agenda beyond providing a new English translation of the Bible, and also as a reaction to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), introduced in 1989 as a moderately gender-neutral translation.
Some have seen the ESV and the NRSV as cousins, both coming in the line of KJV → American Standard Version (ASV)→ RSV. Actually, it would be more accurate to see them as brothers (or sisters). The ESV translators refer to their translation approach as being “essentially literal,” explained as being primarily word-for-word. We would not be mistaken to put it into the formal correspondence category.
In our chosen verses, we see the lack of gender-neutral choice in Psalm 8:4, where the ESV retains the “man” and “son of man” from the KJV. In Matthew 16:18, the ESV also retains the basic language of the KJV, leaving “this rock” to be determined by the interpreter, and retaining the KJV“s “gates of hell.”
As with the HCSB, the staying power of the ESV has yet to be seen. When it first appeared, it was accompanied by attractive pricing and a high level of technological application, allowing significant market penetration at an early date. Crossway continues to make the ESV available in electronic formats with few strings attached, so it is included in most Bible search websites.
It certainly has an audience among those Evangelicals who dislike gender-neutral philosophy in Bible translation. Because the ESV has made its rejection of gender-neutral wording one of its hallmarks, it is difficult for me to see how it will retain its usefulness in the long run, given current trends in the English language.
Next week we will look at the four most popular English Bibles: the New Living Translation, the New King James Version, the King James Version, and the New International Version.
________
*Editor”s Note: The company agreed to the longer title as a result of a binding-arbitration dispute with Standard Publishing over use of Standard”s trademark “Christian Standard.” The ruling allowed Broadman & Holman to keep “Christian Standard” in the title, as long as it was also accompanied by “Holman.”
Mark S. Krause is academic dean and professor of biblical studies at Nebraska Christian College in Papillion, Nebraska. He is also a regular contributor to Standard Publishing”s Standard Lesson Commentary.
I had a different impression of the ESV and its approach to gender language. In the preface to the ESV, the publisher wrote, “In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original. For example, ‘anyone’ replaces ‘any man’ where there is no word corresponding to ‘man’ in the original languages, and ‘people’ rather than ‘men’ is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words ‘man’ and ‘men’ are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew.” It doesn’t seem to be opposed to gender inclusive language when such language is in the original Greek or Hebrew.
Thank you, Mark, for your especially helpful articles.
Terry, while the preface to the ESV does seem to present a balanced and helpful approach to gender language, the text itself doesn’t bear this out. The first place gender language is an issue (Genesis 1:26-27) is a case in point. Moving to the NT, translating Matthew 4:4 as “Man shall not live by bread alone” is retained, though no “male meaning component is part of the original Greek.” See also Mark 2:27 & Revelation 21:3. Other examples abound.
I appreciate the stated intention of the ESV people, but as Dr. Miller points out, it is not always evident in the resultant translation. Some of this has to do with opinions on the gender inclusivity (or non-inclusivity) of certain Hebrew and Greek terms in their context. I think that the ESV is driven by a certain gender ideology based on the sponsors of the translation, and that this is true of all of the modern translations.
“The Message” is not a translation or a paraphrase. Peterson called it a “translation of tone,” and that is all it is: a vivid expression of one man’s idea of the gist of the meaning of the inspired text. Casseroles, canaries, telescopes, microscopes — these things are not in the Bible! But they are all in “The Message.” I am amazed that so many reviewers, such as Dr. Krause, have given Peterson a pass despite the reckless liberties he has taken. Compare, for example, Peterson’s rendering of Matthew 10:28 to the Greek base-text. Let’s have some discernment here! A Bible that is impossible to use to establish doctrine is not really a Bible. Is it too much to expect that readers of Christian Standard, instead of being gently informed about the looseness of “The Message,” should be clearly warned against using it as a Bible?
Does Dr. Krause believe that “The Message” should be used as the basis for establishing Christian doctrine? I hope not — and, if this is the case, doesn’t that imply that “The Message” should not be used (or listed) as a Bible?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
I’m confident Mark Krause does not believe “The Message” should be used as the basis for establishing Christian doctrine. To go a step further, none of the versions he surveyed should be used as the basis for establishing Christian doctrine. “Establish” is a strong word. It has connotations of creating, proving, rooting in a sure foundation. Only the inspired biblical text rises to the occasion of establishing Christian doctrine. And only the text in its original languages can be labeled inspired, strictly speaking.