"Son" or "Child"?

It's always slightly odd singing the song “Father God, I wonder”. In the chorus, there's a line with two different versions. It's either “Now I am your child, I am adopted in your family” or “Now I am your son, I am adopted in your family.” And there are some people who will always insist on singing “child”, and some people will always insist on singing “son”, regardless of what the hymn book / song sheet / screen says.

The arguments goes to an interesting issue in Bible translation, especially Romans 8:14-17 and Galatians 4:4-7. Here's Galatians in the 2011 NIV:

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’ So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

The words “Son”, “sons”, “adoption to sonship” and “child” are all basically the same word – huios. Here's the same passage in the NASB:

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

Why does Paul say “sons”?

It's important to remember that these verses in Galatians 4 come just a few verses after Paul has made his famous declaration that there is no male or female in Christ Jesus, because we all clothe ourselves with Christ through faith.

Adoption as sons, not just as children, really matters. In the Roman world which Paul was writing to, daughters did not have proper inheritance rights, but sons did. To be a “son” was to be a “top status child”; to be a daughter was to have a lesser status. So for Paul to declare that all the Galatian Christians: male and female, black and white, Jew and Gentile, gay and straight, slave and free were sons was an incredibly egalitarian thing to say. He was using an illustration from his time, of Roman family law, and making a powerfully egalitarian statement from a powerfully non-egalitarian structure.

Why should we translate it as “children”?

But that's not the situation today. The situation today is that sons and daughters are equal, and inherit equally, but that there's a lingering suspicion of gender bias hanging around in society. In that culture, to insist that we're all sons is to suggest that being a daughter isn't good enough, which it wasn't in Roman culture, but it is with Jesus.

When we retell Bible stories into contexts where some elements are unfamiliar, we often change the details and idioms so that they fit better. I understand that where bread is not the staple food, the Lord's Prayer sometimes reads “Give us today our daily rice” for example.

This even happens with the people who wrote the Bible! For example, in Mark 2:4, a paralysed man is brought to Jesus by his friends, who dig through the roof. That makes perfect sense in the original context, where houses were made of mud and wood, and it makes sense in a story told by Peter or Mark, who grew up in that world. But when Luke, who was from a much more “developed” urban background, tells the story in Luke 5:19, the friends lower the man “through the tiles”. Those are the roofs that Luke and his readers are used to, so he accommodates the story to the readers, even though it's still set in a village in Galilee.

In writing Galatians 4, Paul uses an analogy from his day – the analogy of adoption into a noble family as a son. If we're just trying to translate his words into English, then I guess it's correct to translate as “sons”, like the NASB does. But if we're trying to translate the analogy and get a Bible that is readable and makes sense to people who haven't studied Roman inheritance law, then it makes more sense to translate the whole analogy into present thought and use “children” throughout, as the NLT does:

But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law. God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children. And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, “Abba, Father.” Now you are no longer a slave but God’s own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.

The NIV goes for a weird middle route, but tries to explain it with a footnote:

The Greek word for adoption to sonship is a legal term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture.

Back to the song

But when we're singing “Father God, I wonder”, we don't have that explanation. All we have is a song. And without the explanation, I think it makes far more sense to sing “child”.

"Discipline" - an unhelpful translation?

Here's a passage which I find really unhelpful when you're going through a hard time, but which shouldn't be...

And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,

‘My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.’

Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined – and everyone undergoes discipline – then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
Hebrews 12:5-11, NIV

So what? We're meant to endure hardship as discipline? Try telling that to the woman whose child has died – that it's God disciplining her! How's that a “word of encouragement”? It's stupid, pastorally insensitive, and just plain wrong. We don't live under the law. We don't believe in a God who gives us petty material rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience. Maybe that's the way it worked in Leviticus, but not for the Christian.

There are two problems here. The first is the word “discipline” - most translations seem to use it in Hebrews 12, but I don't think it's warranted.

Discipline: the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment to correct disobedience.
παιδεια: upbringing, training, instruction.

The Greek word which we translate as “discipline” doesn't quite mean that though. “Training” would be a better translation – it's the idea of an adult training a child. Sometimes that involves punishing disobedience - we suffer because we do things wrong. Sometimes, like with hard physical training, it's difficult and painful when we do it right as well. The word used for "discipline" here carries both ideas - it's the same word translated “training” in 2 Timothy 3:16. The passage isn't saying that all hardship is discipline. It's saying that God uses hardship to train us, like any kind of training can be hard, but we respect it and work with it.

The NIV translators generally did a great job – it's just about the best translation of the Bible into modern English. But they had a shocker when it got to Hebrews 12:7, and most other translations didn't do a lot better...

“Endure hardship as discipline – God is treating you as his children.” (NIV)
“It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons.” (ESV)
”Be patient when you are being corrected! This is how God treats his children.” (CEV)
”Endure what you suffer as being a father's punishment; your suffering shows that God is treating you as his children.” (Good News)
If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons;” (NJKV)

The NRSV is probably the most helpful of the major translations here, except that it still uses “discipline”; “Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children...”
I think Eugene Peterson pretty much nails the sense though in the Message:

God is educating you; that’s why you must never drop out. He’s treating you as dear children. This trouble you’re in isn’t punishment; it’s training, the normal experience of children.

The idea is that we should endure difficulties and hardship because God uses them to train us. God is our Father. He hasn't let go of us; he isn't leaving us to the ravages of chance or punishing us for our own weakness. He knows what he is doing, and he is training us to trust him, even in and through the difficult times. Now that's a comfort, and an encouragement to keep going!

Anyone / everyone / each one - Colossians 4:6

There's an important difference between "anyone", "everyone" and "each one".

When I see a shop advertising "everything £1", I sometimes think of trying to get the entire contents of the store for only £1, because that's what they are offering. Likewise, when Paul says in Colossians 4:6

Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (NIV 1984)

what the passage clearly means is that somehow we are enabled to come up with a clever answer that will work on everyone. Except that isn't what the Greek says.

What the Greek says is literally translated as "how it is necessary for you to answer each one", and that is very different. That means that each individual is distinct, that some people will need one answer and others another and that God will equip us with wisdom as to how to answer each person well. That's what the passage really means.

The "every" is there in the Geneva and the KJV, but I don't know if it meant exactly the same there. Among modern translations, it's in the NIV (and the new NIV!), the NRSV and the Good News. The ESV, the NKJV, and the HCSB get it right though. But then, so did Wycliffe back in the 1300s!

NIV 2011

The NIV has changed. The version that seems to be in most healthy churches is no longer supported. They tried doing it a while ago with the TNIV, which made some minor improvements where the NIV was a weak translation, and switched to gender-neutral language where appropriate. It came under a lot of flack for that, though after listening to women who felt excluded by older language, I concluded it was best to use the TNIV for churches if buying a new set of Bibles.

Now the NIV 2010/2011 has come out, and seems to be replacing both the NIV 1984 (the familiar version) and the TNIV. It's already the default search on Bible Gateway... So I thought it would be worth making some general comments and then looking at how it fares with regards to some of my personal favourite difficult passages for translators...

Here's a helpful summary graph from John Dyer who has logged all the changes.

As you can see, 60% of the verses in the Bible are identical NIV 1984 / TNIV / NIV 2011, and Dyer reckons about 91% of the words are identical - the changes affect a very small proportion of the words, and even of the verses that have been changed, most were only a word here or there.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood don't like it, but it's interesting how all their objections are to do with how it fits with their theology which is based on existing translations rather than on the Greek / Hebrew. The simple fact is that Greek allowed for gender-neutral language and modern English uses gender-neutral language, but the old NIV (along with the KJV, ESV, RSV, etc) did not.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

A woman [or wife] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; [or over her husband] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women [she] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
NIV 2011 (square brackets for footnotes)

11 A woman [or wife] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; [teach a man in a domineering way; or teach or to exercise (or have) authority over a man] [or over her husband] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women [she] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
TNIV

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women [she] will be saved [or restored] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
NIV 1984

A genuinely controversial passage this one, with so much about church life hanging on whether the words mean "woman" or "wife" (same in Greek) and "have authority", "domineer" or "assume authority" (very rare word - we're not sure exactly what it means). CBMW think it should stay as the trad reading. I'm pretty sure they're wrong - it is genuinely controversial how to translate the passage, and I think the translation should show that, as both TNIV and NIV 2011 do.

I should probably say though, I prefer the TNIV on this one because it keeps the ambiguity over what the "assume authority" word means. Unless there's been new work on that that I'm unaware of.

Romans 8:5-9

5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man [or the mind of the flesh] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind [or the mind set on the flesh] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
NIV 1984

5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind controlled by the sinful nature [or mind set on the flesh] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The sinful mind [or mind set on the flesh] is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature but are in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
TNIV

5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
NIV 2011

5 For those who are according to the flesh think things of the flesh, but those according to the Spirit [think] the things of the Spirit. 6 For the thought of the flesh is death, but the thought of the Spirit is life and peace. 7 Because the thought of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not keep the law of God, for it can't. 8 Those who are in the flesh can't please God. 9 But we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in us. If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not [Christ's].
John's Clunky Literal Translation

My problem with the NIV 1984 reading is described here. TNIV tackles it a bit, but the NIV 2011 wins hands down for translating it so the problem goes away, though I'm a little uncomfortable with the introduction of "realm" in v9.

Hebrews 2 / Psalm 8

A bit of explanation here. The phrase translated "son of man" is used both as general way of speaking about any person, and also as a specific title for Jesus, because he is the Truly Human One. Psalm 8:4 is an example of using it to talk about people in general, but Hebrews 2 picks it up and uses it to talk about Jesus. Gender neutral translations really struggle with this (except for the NLT which translates Ps 8 differently in Psalms and Hebrews).

what is mankind that you are mindful of them,     human beings that you care for them? [or what is a human being that you are mindful of him, / a son of man that you care for him?]
Psalm 8:4, NIV 2011

It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But there is a place where someone has testified:
   “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, 
   a son of man that you care for him? 
7 You made them a little [or for a little while] lower than the angels; 
   you crowned them with glory and honor 
 8 and put everything under their feet.”
   In putting everything under them, [or him] God left nothing that is not subject to them. [or him] Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. [or him] 9 But we do see Jesus...
Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV 2011

Not bad. They footnoted the more literal translation in Ps 8, then quoted that in Hebrews 2. They also correctly kept the ambiguity in v8 about whether we see everything subject to man or to Jesus, though they had to use footnotes to do it. Clearly better than the TNIV, but still a bit awkward.

1 Kings 12:10

The young men who had grown up with him replied, "Tell these people who have said to you, 'Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter'-tell them, 'My little finger is thicker than my father's waist.'"
NIV 1984, NIV 2011, TNIV

My little one is thicker than my father's loins.
literal

Here's my earlier discussion of the verse. Looks like the Bible translators still don't have the balls to do a decent translation that doesn't conform to people's unhelpful stereotypes of the Church.

Other Verses and Issues

NIV 2011 still ascribes a masculine gender to the Holy Spirit, despite the fact that the pronouns used in the original are masculine, feminine and neuter, depending on the gender of the word used to describe the Spirit.

Galatians 2:17, the NIV 2011 keeps the TNIV's unhelpful addition of the word “Jews”.

NIV 2011 has undone some of the difficulties arising from pluralisation in the TNIV (see Rev 3:20). I personally think that we should just accept that “they” can be a gender-neutral singular pronoun, but my English teacher wife disagrees!

NIV 2011 has also addressed some of the problems with NIV 1984 - that it always translated the same word as "teachings" if it was in a positive sense and "traditions" if it was in a negative sense. There's now some crossover (e.g. 1 Cor 11:2), but it's still not quite fair.

Conclusion

I should say, I don't care whether the translation fits with my theology or not. I want a translation that fits with the original text in a way that makes its meaning clear to speakers of modern English.

The TNIV was already my translation of preference because it is important not to alienate people who speak more modern English unnecessarily. Pretending that “he” is still gender-neutral does that, even though most churchy people are comfortable with slightly more traditional language.

The NIV 2011 seems to be an improvement on the TNIV. It isn't perfect yet, but translations aren't. However it's a very good translation, and it would probably now be my first choice translation for use in a church where the reading age was high enough to cope.

Yet More Wordle

Continuing on from my last post, here are some more Wordle images from the text of the ESV translation of the Bible. I'm using the ESV because it's fairly literal - so it gives you a good idea of what the underlying words are in Hebrew and Greek. Although I'd rather use a translation which is gender-neutral when the underlying text is gender-neutral, the ESV is much more readily available in electronic format than the NRSV.

Anyway, here's a Wordle image for the gospels:

And here's Paul's letters:

Here's one for the rest of the New Testament:

Which can be subdivided into the General Letters:

And Revelation:

Here's one for the whole NT:

R.I.P.

It seems odd to me how in popular culture funerals have become an occasion to speak to the dead person. I'm aware that the popular mood (and quite possibly the default human position) is in many places pantheism, but I wonder how much of it is down to not learning Latin properly...

I'll explain. The traditional prayer for the departed goes something like this:

May he rest in peace and rise in glory.

In Latin, the first half is requiescat in pacem, which is famously shortened to R.I.P. It isn't talking to the deceased person; it's actually a prayer to God, or conceivably if used by non-Christians, a declaration of what you hope will happen. Technically, it's a third person singular present subjunctive, meaning "may he/she/it rest in peace".

However, the practice of praying for the dead was suppressed at the Reformation, because of the abuse of the (false) doctrine of Purgatory. far as I can tell, it was a good idea to get rid of the doctrine of Purgatory, but a bad idea to suppress praying for the dead completely.

Anyway, my point is that the main way the prayer was then remembered by the general populace was via the inscription R.I.P., which then got translated as "Rest in Peace", which is a second person imperative, looking like it is talking to the dead rather than the Latin which means "May (s)he rest in peace". And so (this is the speculative bit) it seems possible that the traditional practice of praying to God for the dead turned into talking to the dead, in part because we can't speak Latin properly and in part because of the Reformation overreaction against Catholic excesses.

Yes, I'm being speculative as to the causation, and I can also understand why people would want to say goodbye to their loved ones. It does, however, seem ironic if this idea is true, that in rejecting the Catholic idea that it is possible to pray for the dead and ask the dead to pray for them, the Protestants ended up talking to the dead which the Catholics didn't.

James 5 - praying for the sick

One of the most difficult passages in the New Testament in some ways is in James 5. Here's the NIV...

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
James 5:14-16, NIV

Any attempt to argue that this passage doesn't say that anyone who is sick will be healed sounds either like special pleading or like finding contradictions in the Bible. Of course, part of the problem is the translation, and pretty much no English translations manage the same nuances as the Greek...

Is anyone in you weak/sick (the Greek can mean either)? Let him call the elders of the church and let them pray on him, anointing with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the wearied / ill person (the Greek can mean either); and the Lord will raise him...

It looks to me as if the first bit is a general statement which is deliberately ambiguous. It might be talking about physical sickness; it might be talking about physical or moral weakness or weariness. And the promised help is salvation / raising, which might be talking about physical healing, or it might be talking about final salvation.

There is then a clear application to the case of people who are ill because of sin (for example because they rightly feel guilty, and the guilt has led to all kinds of stress-related problems), and they will be healed. By verses 19-20, the passage is all about bringing people who have sinned back.

My conclusion from this passage is that the passage itself does not promise immediate physical / medical healing for everyone who gets the elders to anoint and pray, except in the case of sickness that is directly due to sin. Of course, God still does sometimes heal physically and medically in other cases, but he doesn't promise here that he will do so. What is promised is something far better. What this passage promises is that God will sustain and keep his people going when they are weak and get the elders to pray for them, and that they will finally be saved and raised from the dead; if they ask the elders to pray for them then like this then no sickness or weariness or sin committed in the past can stop them from being saved.

Sexist Bible Translations?

This is something where my opinion has shifted with time... Here's what I thought last year. Here's a big, big problem with the TNIV and NRSV. Here's what I recommended for translations 6 months ago.

The basic problems are as follows:

• Greek has three main words for adult human, which are aner (man), gune (woman) and anthropos (person).
• English used to use "man" as the normal word for a male person or for a person of unspecified gender.
• Modern English doesn't, but a lot of Bible translations (ESV, NIV, NASB) still do.
• Greek follows the way of older English when it comes to pronouns. A person of unspecified gender is usually referred to as autos (he).
• The same is true with a few other words - masculine plurals can include both males and females.

What has changed my interpretation of these data is this:

Most women who are used to reading older English tend to see themselves as included by the language of the ESV (for example). Most women who are not used to reading older English see themselves as excluded.

"Brothers"

Here's an example. The Greek word for brother is adelphos, and for sister is adelphe. "Brothers" is adelphoi, which could also mean "brothers and sisters" or "siblings", and is often used in the Epistles by someone addressing a whole church. The NIV and ESV translate adelphoi as "brothers", which to a modern reader looks as if it excludes the women. The TNIV and NRSV have "brothers and sisters", which is better, but looks as if it might be addressing two groups. Some of my friends have suggested using something like "brethren" which could be understood as gender-inclusive.

I think this issue is so important that it over-rides the fact that the TNIV really messes up Hebrews 2, Psalm 8, etc. Adelphoi includes women. "Brothers" does not.

"Son of Man"

The biggest problem facing gender-neutral translations, like the TNIV and NRSV is the phrase "Son of Man", where "man" translates anthropos, the gender-neutral word for person. In the Old Testament, "Son of Man" is often used as a general term for an individual (male) human, sometimes as a representative human. Ezekiel gets it used of him a lot, Daniel 7 has it used of a figure seemingly representing Israel, Psalm 8 has it used of someone who is given authority by God.

All of that baggage is carried by Jesus when he uses the phrase as his own title in the gospels. So it won't do to translate some of them as "mortal" or "people" and not others, which is what the TNIV and NRSV do, which is why they end up in such a mess in Hebrews 2. My somewhat radical suggestion, if doing a new translation from scratch, would be to translate the phrase consistently as "Human One", or something like that, which means pretty much the same as the original. It also has the advantage of being able to point out that Jesus is the only truly Human One, which is part of the significance of the use of the phrase anyway. But it breaks with 500 years of English Bible translations, which is why people are understandably reluctant.

Puzzlement

What puzzles me is why a fairly new translation like the ESV consciously decided not to go down the inclusive-language line, at least in part. Why translate anthropos as "man" rather than "person", for example? Was it just a bit of old-fashioned bloody-mindedness? And if so, does that mean it is sexist?

I still like the ESV in a lot of ways though - it's still the main translation I use in my own study, and it's still great for listening to.

Which Translation to Use?

So here's an update of my earlier list:

• Bible translation I'm most used to: NIV
• Translations I use for my own reading: ESV, Nick King's translation, LXX.
• Translations I consult when studying a passage: ESV, NKJV, NASB, Nick King
• Translations I've preached from: NIV, TNIV, NRSV, GNB
• Translation I'd choose for pew bibles: TNIV if there's a moderate level of literacy; NLT is there isn't. I'd be strongly inclined to use my own translation for a lot of passages and have it printed in the service sheet.
• Best translation for keeping poetry sounding poetic: NIV, NKJV

Obscurantism and Meaninglessness

If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.
1 Corinthians 14:11, NIV

I thought it was worth doing a post on one of the great landmark papers in the history of science and philosophy - the well-named Transgressing the Boundaries - Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. It was written by Alan Sokal, Professor of Physics at New York University. Sokal comments on it here.

The paper is especially notable, because it was deliberately written as a load of rubbish and was submitted to and accepted by a peer-reviewed journal. Sokal himself wrote of it:

Nowhere in all of this is there anything resembling a logical sequence of thought; one finds only citations of authority, plays on words, strained analogies, and bald assertions.

And it was accepted by a peer-reviewed academic journal. My point is this:

Rule 1 - If someone is not clear in what they are saying, it is quite possible that what they are saying is actually a load of rubbish.

Rule 2 - If we are not clear in what we are saying, there is a high chance of everyone else writing it off as a load of rubbish.

But then again, they might think it's really clever. But it's better to be understood and disagreed with than to have people think you're clever. If Rule 1 was more widely appreciated, it would help clarity of communication greatly.

Ryle - Definitions and Disputes

It may be laid down as a rule, with tolerable confidence, that the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy. If men would only define with precision the theological terms which they use, many disputes would die. Scores of excited disputants would discover that they do not really differ, and that their disputes have arisen from their own neglect of the great duty of explaining the meaning of words.
J.C. Ryle, Knots Untied

Bible Translations and Handling Media Rights

An interesting thought:

One of the reasons I am coming to use the ESV so much is that of the fairly literal translations, it is so readily available and easy to use. Whoever owns the copyright has let publishers of free Bible software use it; it's on Bible Gateway, it's free on e-Sword and even on Gnomesword. I therefore use it a lot, and am more likely to get my church to use it and to buy copies, because I use it more for my own reading as well.

Compare that with, for example, the NRSV. Leaving aside translation issues, the NRSV is in some ways quite similar to the ESV. They are a similar age (came out within 10 years of each other) and had similar remits. The NRSV is the official translation for my course, and yet I hardly use it. Not because of translation issues, but because the publishers are so restrictive with its use. The NRSV is, as far as I know, only available online at this site, and isn't available free, as far as I know, for any software.

So when I write essays for my university course, I quote the ESV not the NRSV, because it's a lot easier to copy and paste. And over a year in, no-one's complained yet.

Criticising Bible Translations

I don't actually like criticising Bible translations, for the simple reason that it dents people's confidence in reading the Bible, and makes them think they should learn Greek or something.

It's therefore worth saying that something like the NIV (probably the most common translation today) is at least 99% accurate to what the original says; I just get disproportionately annoyed about the 1% because I'm a bit of a perfectionist by inclination and Bible translation is really important.

Here also are my recommendations for Bible translations:

• Bible translation I'm most used to: NIV
• Translations I use for my own reading: ESV, Nick King's translation
• Translations I consult when studying a passage: ESV, NKJV, NASB, Nick King
• Translations I've preached from: NIV, TNIV, NRSV, GNB
• Translation I'd choose for a church: ESV if there's a fairly high level of literacy; NLT is there isn't, maybe NIV if in the middle...
• Best gender-inclusive translation: NLT, because it's the only one I can find that doesn't mess up Hebrews 2 (it translates Ps 8 differently in Psalms and when quoted in Hebrews, but footnotes the "son of man" translation in Psalms)
• Best translation for keeping poetry sounding poetic: NIV, NKJV

NIV Sucks Again - Romans 8:5-9

Last night, I was meant to be writing a Bible study on Romans 8:5-17, for a not-especially-educated group using the NIV. Here's the NIV of verses 5-9:

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

And I couldn't understand the passage. My problem was roughly as follows:

• All Christians have the Spirit (v9)
• Everyone who has the Spirit is controlled by the Spirit (v9)
• Therefore all Christians are controlled by the Spirit.
• But I sin, and I know the people in the group I'm meant to be leading sin too. And Paul does too (Romans 7).
• That suggests we aren't controlled by the Spirit, and therefore aren't Christians. And neither is Paul.

My last-night solution was to hold 8v9 in tension with chapter 7 and try to believe that both were true, then look for a resolution.

But today I looked at the Greek, and realised quite how badly the NIV has mangled the passage, not only to insert the word "controlled" out of nowhere, but also to hide all the "in God" / "in the flesh" language, which is a hugely important metaphor-thing.

Nick King's translation is much much better, but also copyrighted. Here's My Literal Translation of v5-9:

5 For those who are according to the flesh think things of the flesh, but those according to the Spirit [think] the things of the Spirit. 6 For the thought of the flesh is death, but the thought of the Spirit is life and peace. 7 Because the thought of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not keep the law of God, for it can't. 8 Those who are in the flesh can't please God. 9 But we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in us. If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not [Christ's].

Much better (if a bit clunky), much easier to fit together with chapter 7, much closer to the genuine Christian experience - the emphasis is on our status (being in the Spirit or in the flesh) rather than our actions, which are less dependable, as highlighted in Romans 7, which are being conformed to our status and for the time being, we groan with the tension (8v23) as we wait for the redemption of our bodies, which are now bodies of death (7v24), whose deeds we are to put to death in the present (8v13). So why does the NIV get it so wrong? And why doesn't the TNIV correct the NIV's mistakes?

TNIV - Worst Bit Ever

The other day, I came across what I suspect is probably the worst-translated bit of the TNIV. Whoever translated this one should probably be shot or something.

Hebrews 1 is all about Jesus and how much greater than angels he is. The author continues into Hebrews 2...

5Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. 6It has been testified somewhere,

"What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
7You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
8putting everything in subjection under his feet."

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 9But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Hebrews 2:5-9, ESV

That was the ESV, which is a pretty good translation. It's talking about Jesus, saying that the world to come will be subject to him; we don't see that yet, but we do see him crowned with glory and honour.

Now here's the TNIV, same passage:

It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But there is a place where someone has testified:

"What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
7 You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor
8 and put everything under their feet."

In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Hebrews 2:5-9, TNIV

I understand why they've done it, but it is really really stupid. It's because of two bits of translation philosophy, both of which they've mucked up big time.

The first is the idea of gender neutrality. If the original word translates as "person" rather than "man", they've tried to keep it gender-neutral in English. One problem with this is that they often do it by pluralisation rather than just using "they" as a third person singular pronoun, which is what modern English does. So in the quote from Psalm 8, the "Son of Man" has become "human beings".

The second is that where the OT is ambiguous, they don't allow the NT to influence translation choices, or they didn't in this case. So Psalm 8, treated without Hebrews, could be about people generally, or it could be about the Messiah. I've argued briefly that Psalm 8 should be understood as Messianic, even without the New Testament. But interpreting it as about people generally is not the Christian way to understand the Bible (I argue that from Patristics here). As Christians, we know it's about Jesus. So where there's two possible translations of the OT, and the NT makes one of them more plausible (as "Son of Man" in Psalm 8), then that's the one we should use.

Even given those, a better translation of Psalm 8 would be "What is a human that you are mindful of them, the mortal one that you care for them?" (with "Son of Man" footnoted as an alternative) Even then, Hebrews 2 could appear to be talking about Jesus rather than going off on what looks like a bizarre tangent about the authority of people that isn't anywhere in the original. The author of Hebrews thought that Psalm 8 was about Jesus. I'm not going to argue with them. But the translators of the TNIV seem to want to...

The translation of Hebrews 2 and Psalm 8 in the TNIV is not a Christian translation. (Oh, the NRSV does it too.)

Why Don't Bible Translators Have The Balls?

1 Kings 12:10 says this:

The young men who had grown up with him replied, "Tell these people who have said to you, 'Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter'-tell them, 'My little finger is thicker than my father's waist.'"
1 Kings 12:10, NIV

Except it doesn't.

A literal translation of the Hebrew of the end of the verse is this:

My little one is thicker than my father's loins.

I think it's pretty clear what that actually means. Here's Iain Provan's (restrained) comment on the verse:

If the "little one" is a finger, this is the only place in the OT where it is so. Given the location of the loins in the lower part of the body, and the fact that power and sexual potency were very much associated in the Ancient Near East, it may well be that the "little one" is in fact the male sexual organ. It is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that young men might respond to a challenge by using language containing fairly basic sexual imagery. Whatever is the case, the claim is that Rehoboam is a bigger man than his father - a power to be reckoned with.

Iain Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (NIBC)

So why do Bible translators avoid sexual imagery when it seems to be there in the Bible? The Bible wasn't written by a bunch of prudish ivory tower academics, so why do we make it sound as if it was? Are we trying to be holier than God?

Here's the offending question in lots of different translations:

My little finger is thicker than my father's loins! (NASB)

My little finger is thicker than my father's waist. (Message)

My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. (Amplified)

My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist! (NLT)

My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. (KJV)

My little finger is thicker than my father’s thighs. (ESV)

Compared to me, my father was weak. (CEV)

My little [finger] is thicker than the loins of my father. (Young's Literal)

My little finger is thicker than my father's waist. (TNIV)

If I was going for a non-literal translation, I might go for something like "I've got the balls to do stuff my father could never do." For a literal translation, how about Provan's "My little one is thicker than my father's loins"? At least it leaves the probable innuendo in.

Why don't translators have the balls to translate the Bible properly? It might help people realise that the Bible is about God interacting with real people in the real world.

The Gender of the Holy Spirit

Here's one that surprised me...

For years, I've been taught that the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. Not a physical person, but a person in the way that God the Father is a person. The Holy Spirit isn't an inanimate substance. And there's been plenty of evidence given for that, much of it very good - like the fact that we're told not to grieve the Holy Spirit, for instance. I still agree with all of that.

And there have been several consequences spelt out for this - like the fact that we shouldn't say we want more of the Holy Spirit, because we can't have more of a non-physical person. We can get to know them better, we can surrender to them more completely, but we can't have more of them. Also fine, and a helpful corrective to some of the garbage that passes for theology these days.

But one of the big pieces of evidence I've heard cited and one of the big consequences I've heard time after time turns out to be wrong. It's this....

I've been told that the correct pronoun to use for the Holy Spirit is "he". And indeed, it's the pronoun that the NIV uses, that the ESV uses, etc. The problem, as a friend pointed out to me, is that it's not the pronoun that the Greek uses (or the Hebrew, for that matter). Take John 14:17, for instance, which we were looking at at church tonight.

even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
John 14:17, ESV

In Greek, the pronouns are implied most of the time, but there's one pronoun in there where the gender is clear, which is the one translated "whom". In Greek, it's neuter.

Now, I can kind of understand why it was translated "him" in English. Because there are so few impersonal nouns with masculine or feminine genders in English, we tend to think of "he" and "she" as personal and "it" as impersonal. That's not true in Greek - there's no real distinction between personal and impersonal pronouns. And the noun "Spirit" is neuter, so it gets the neuter pronouns. Now I can see why the translator did it - the early ones wanted to make the point that the Spirit was personal not impersonal, and male was the default gender then. I guess the NIV and ESV translators would say they're just following tradition. My Hebrew isn't good enough yet to check, but I'm told in the OT, the word for Spirit is feminine and takes feminine pronouns....

Interestingly, of the supposedly gender-neutral translation, both the NRSV and the TNIV have "him" in John 14:17. Nick King however craftily repeats "Spirit" so as avoiding using any gender-specific pronouns.

Of course, when the Greek word for the Holy Spirit is παρακλητος ("helper" / "comforter"), which is masculine, you get masculine pronouns too like in John 14:26; 15:26 and 16:13-14. But it seems very much that the Holy Spirit does not have a gender which imposes itself on the pronouns used.

Interestingly, Grudem cites those verses as breaking the "rules" of Greek grammar in giving the Spirit a masculine gender (which is what I'd heard happened too). But actually it's just referring to the masculine noun παρακλητος.

I'm fine with the theology here - I just find it surprising that so many people have just taken it on trust that only masculine pronouns should be used...

Bible Translations

Quite a few things have got me thinking about this recently.

One of the TNIV translators (randomly) got back to my comment on the translation of Galatians 2:17. I still think I'm right, for the simple reason that the NIV, ESV, etc say what the Greek says and the TNIV doesn't.

Mark Driscoll and the folk at Mars Hill have switched from the NIV to the ESV.

And Psalm 8, which is a critical passage in Bible translation, has been knocking around in my head for a while.

Type of Translation

The main types of translation are the near-literal translations (ESV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV, Nick King often but not always), the dynamic equivalent translations (NIV, TNIV) and the paraphrase translations (CEV, NLT, Message). Mark Driscoll also lists distortions like the JW one.

As far as I can tell, this should simply be a question of readability versus accuracy. You should go for the version that is as literal as possible to the original while still making sense. For me that means near-literal as often as possible, though in a church context I'm happy with dynamic equivalent and in a culture with low levels of literacy I'd happily go for paraphrase.

The people who are big fans of the dynamic equivalent translations sometimes try arguing that the advances in scholarship mean that we have a greater understanding of what the original writers meant, so that we can put that into better English than a literal word-for-word translation. One problem with that are partly that so often the dynamic equivalent translations lose a lot of the subtleties of the Greek - for example the use of the morphe stem in Philippians, which is key to some of the meaning of the book. The other problem is that what you're actually reading is what the translator thinks God is saying whereas at least with the near-literal translations you have fewer layers of interpretation added onto the text.

Gender Language

One of the big contentious issues in translation is gender neutrality in language. It used to be that "a man" could mean either "a person of indeterminate gender" or "an adult of male gender". But that isn't necessarily true any more. In addition, Greek has three words - aner: "an adult of male gender"; gune: "an adult of female gender" and anthropos: "a person of indeterminate gender" (but it takes masculine pronouns). The old translations all used "man" and "he" for anthropos as well as for aner. Several newer ones (NRSV, TNIV) try to translate anthropos in a gender-neutral way and tend to use "they" for the pronoun. That's good; it's gender neutral in modern English, which the original is too.

The problem comes with some of the translations. For example "Son of man" is huios tou anthropou, so some of the times (like in Psalm 8) when it doesn't clearly refer to Jesus, it's translated in a gender neutral way - "mortal humans" or something. The problem is that Hebrews then picks up Psalm 8 and does apply it to Jesus.

Another problem is the problem of pluralisation. The gender-neutral translations tend to pluralise because it's easier to be gender neutral then. That's a problem in Psalm 1 for example, where there's a clear distinction between the righteous person and the wicked people. But you can't see that at all in the NRSV / TNIV. Gender neutrality where the original is, good. Mangling the Bible, bad.

I think, for example, that the phrase "son of man" needs to be translated consistently. The problem is that to do that in a gender neutral way would mean changing one of the best-known titles of Jesus.

Summary

I think it's important to be clear that any of the following translations (and some others) are great and will give you a very good idea of what the original is saying at least 95% of the time. ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, NRSV. If you're fussy about meaning, it's a good idea to have two from different backgrounds to compare - I'd probably go for ESV and TNIV and say that between them you've pretty much always got a good translation.

Galatians 2:17, Sinfulness and the TNIV

Last week, we had a Covenant Renewal service at college. In principal, I don't think I have any objection to them, but I've never been to one I found helpful.

My main problem with those things is that they often expect people to promise what they know they can't fulfil. In this case, I think we were expected to promise never intentionally to sin again. Now, I know I can want to do that, but I know equally well that I am not perfect and that I do all kinds of stupid stuff. I know that I am a sinner in continual need of God's grace. And I have no intention of promising anything I can't fulfil.

So I am quite happy to promise that I "intend to lead a new life" or to say that I surrender to Christ. I'm happy to offer my soul and body as a living sacrifice, but I know that I'm a sacrifice that just keeps trying to crawl off the altar.

So this led me back to wondering how on Earth I could be a Christian. How can I seek to follow Jesus, when I know that I'll fail? That's a painful path, but it's one I've trodden before and I know the way now.

So I turned to Galatians 2:17, which in the NIV reads

"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
Galatians 2:17-19, NIV

In other words, the fact that I go on sinning even after putting my trust in God only goes to show that I am a sinner and that I keep on needing God's grace. And that's the normal Christian experience. It reminds me not to be complacent, but that I need to keep coming back to Jesus to seek forgiveness and to recognise that I need him.

Except that the Bibles we have in chapel are TNIVs. I'm usually fine with the TNIV, but this verse really annoyed me.

But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn't that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
Galatians 2:17-19, TNIV

The addition of the word "Jews" totally changes the meaning away from the meaning that I found so helpful when studying this as an undergraduate. So I looked it up in the Greek, and "Jews" isn't there. It seems to have been added in as a totally unhelpful and incorrect addition for no good reason whatsoever.

So God is good, but the TNIV translators are dumb and just as much in need of God's continued grace as I am.

Ecclesiastes and the Meaning of Life

Ecclesiastes is one of my favourite books of the Bible (it's in the top 66 anyway), but it's also one of the most misunderstood. Even a good, generally evangelical commentator (in this case Tremper Longman, NICOT) argues that because the message of the main part of the book isn't Christian, Ecclesiastes is actually another author doing long quotes from a book he disagrees with.

Ever since I became a Christian, the book always had some resonances, but I wasn't entirely sure how it fit with the rest of the Bible. I guess the turning point came when I read this post by Hebraist Chris Heard, which got me thinking about translation issues.

The key phrase in Ecclesiastes can be seen in the second verse.

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
Ecclesiastes 1:2, ESV

"Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."
Ecclesiastes 1:2, NIV

Smoke, nothing but smoke. [That's what the Quester says.] There's nothing to anything—it's all smoke.
Ecclesiastes 1:2, Message

Clearly there are some issues in translation. The key word is הבל / hebel, which is translated "vanity" (more "literal" translations), "meaningless" or "smoke". It usually means something much closer to "breath" in Hebrew. Oddly, given that no-one uses that translation, it seems to make more sense translated that way. Well, to me anyway. Everything is just a breath - it's "meaningless" because it's ephemeral.

In addition, as Heard argues, the longer form of hebel is also frequently mistranslated.

I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
Ecclesiastes 1:14, NIV

I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
Ecclesiastes 1:14, ESV

I've seen it all and it's nothing but smoke — smoke, and spitting into the wind.
Ecclesiastes 1:14, Message

A more literal translation of "and a chasing after the wind" is "a neighbour of wind". It makes more sense too! The point of Ecclesiastes isn't that everything is meaningless - it isn't. The point is that everything "under the sun" - everything in this life is ephemeral - it passes away, therefore it doesn't make a long term difference, in a sense it's futile. It's just a breath, the neighbour of wind.

So then, what's the point of Ecclesiastes? To remind us of the fact that things in this life pass away. It's exploring what meaning can be found in life when that life is transitory.

In the following quotes, remember that "meaningless" is referring to the idea that it's only a breath - it will soon pass away. This is what Ecclesiastes says about the purpose of life.

What does the worker gain from his toil? I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.
Ecclesiastes 3:9-14, NIV

Whoever loves money never has money enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income.
This too is meaningless.
As goods increase,
so do those who consume them.
And what benefit are they to the owner
except to feast his eyes on them?
Ecclesiastes 5:10-11, NIV

Be happy, young man, while you are young,
and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth.
Follow the ways of your heart
and whatever your eyes see,
but know that for all these things
God will bring you to judgment.
So then, banish anxiety from your heart
and cast off the troubles of your body,
for youth and vigor are meaningless.
Ecclesiastes 11:9-10, NIV

Remember your Creator
in the days of your youth,
before the days of trouble come
and the years approach when you will say,
"I find no pleasure in them"-
before the sun and the light
and the moon and the stars grow dark,
and the clouds return after the rain;
when the keepers of the house tremble,
and the strong men stoop,
when the grinders cease because they are few,
and those looking through the windows grow dim;
when the doors to the street are closed
and the sound of grinding fades;
when men rise up at the sound of birds,
but all their songs grow faint;
when men are afraid of heights
and of dangers in the streets;
when the almond tree blossoms
and the grasshopper drags himself along
and desire no longer is stirred.
Then man goes to his eternal home
and mourners go about the streets.
Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
or the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
or the wheel broken at the well,
and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher.
"Everything is meaningless!"
...
Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
Ecclesiastes 12, NIV

It's about the futility of trusting in wisdom, riches, power, sex to bring meaning to life and the importance of being content with what you have and of fearing God, because what God does lasts forever, unlike what we do (Ecclesiastes 3:14).

As book recommendations go, the best one I've found on Ecclesiastes (so far; I've skim read quite a few) is the NIV Application Commetary by Iain Provan.

Coming next - Ecclesiastes and the New Testament.

Nick King and the New Testament

One of the books I was (very kindly) given for my birthday was the New Testament as translated by Nick King.

That was odd, because I know Nick King - he's a Jesuit priest who has been teaching me Greek this term. Nice guy too. His translation seems fairly good as well - I'm currently reading the gospels in Greek, ESV and Nick King's, and comparing the three. Where NK is less good English than the ESV, he's closer to the Greek. This isn't a dynamic equivalent like the NIV; this seems to be a translation of idiomatic Greek into idiomatic English with the idiom somewhere between English and Greek. And in general it works. When I want to check my translations from the Greek against an English which makes sense, this is really helpful - slightly more helpful even than the ESV.

Flicking ahead to the epistles, he seems to try to keep the sentence structure the same as in the Greek (which often has very long sentences), but he uses bullet points to keep clarity with subordinate clauses. There are a few things I'm not overly keen on - the Greek of Romans 3:22-25, for example, seems to fit much better with the ESV or NIV than with NK's. Part of me might suggest that's because he's got a commitment not to translate it in a way that disagrees with Roman Catholic doctrine, but the rest of me would assume he'd just had a hard time marking someone's work.

All in all, I'm finding it quite helpful and an interesting take on translation.