My friend Bert (BikeBubba) has written a couple posts at his blog about the "New Gelded Version" (his name for the gender-neutral Today's New International Version). In a follow-up post today he interacts with one of his commenters and adds this about paraphrases in general:
Let's consider how the TNIV translators might update the Declaration of Independence, specifically the phrase "all men are created equal".
One might say "men and women," or "people", or perhaps "white male landowning slaveholders", depending on one's point of view, no? One could get a great argument for, or against, any one of these, right?
Which is the central objection I have to the TNIV, and to paraphrases in general; even if they get the "sense" of a passage right, they've made all of the decisions for the reader, and the reader is powerless to use the hints provided by the author to apply the text to other writings.
I agree with Bert in this, that paraphrases necessarily make interpretation decisions for the reader. Unlike him, however, I don't think this is a bad thing, for several reasons: Any English translation, no matter how much it attempts to be word-for-word, is going to contain interpretation on the part of the translator. It is simply unavoidable, because languages are structured differently, do not have perfect overlap in connotation and denotation, and on top of all that our knowledge of contemporary idiom is imperfect. All that remains to be decided about the interpretation in a translation or paraphrases is a matter of degree. Deciding whether a particular version has "too much" interpretation is also something, "one could get a great argument for, or against." The interpretation-less version that would remove this uncertainty, however, simply doesn't exist. Just as there is a scale that goes from little to much interpretation, there is also a scale that goes from little to much readability, and guess what: it's directly proportional to the amount of interpretation. In one's zeal for understanding and accuracy, be sure to not trivialize Scripture's relational aspect. A lot of the books in the Bible were originally personal letters, and I don't think anyone today writes a letter to a friend using NASB style. I currently prefer the NLT, because its readability enhances its devotional usefulness. I once was an NASB man, but no longer--I think paraphrases speak better to the heart, and IMO that is Scripture's most important function. In my concern for accuracy I had forgotten that God was a person instead of a subject. I'm not saying that everyone who reads a version from the word-for-word end of the interpretation spectrum will fall into this trap, but I will say that switching to a paraphrase was part of how I got out of it. A lot of the errors I think Bert is concerned about are easily remedied simply by recognizing that there is interpretation going on. When I have a theological question, I dig out my Nestle-Aland and commentaries, and tread very carefully. Yet much more often I am hoping that God will speak to me through the Scriptures, and in those cases paraphrases are more accessible. I'll end like Bert did: I'd rather someone read the NASB than no Bible at all, but I'd prefer to read something else. There's no "best" translation. Everyone should find their comfort zone on the interpretation spectrum, recognize the potential hang-ups of that choice, and then get reading.
10 comments:
A lot, but not all, of the errors can be remedied. I followed the opposite path from you, going from the NIV to the NKJV and KJV, and have come to love the Hebraisms that are left more or less intact in the more literal translations.
A good example is Leviticus 18 and the phrase "uncover nakedness." In the context, it just means to have sex. However, the phrase reveals something of the Hebrew mindset, and I dare say our own.
The paraphrases remove this, and for those able to understand what's going on, it's a very real loss.
I get the impression that we can agree to disagree here. You love the Hebraisms, I love the contemporary English. For each of us the versions we've chosen are the ones with the least baggage. I'll stand by my assertion that no one version can be called "best" in a vacuum, but that each person can have a preferred version.
Joe, I never said any one version was "the best." I rather said that when one had a number of translations available at the same reading level, one ought to do one's best to choose that which was most accurate.
Or, put better, that which enables the greatest depth of understanding. Is that really a point of contention?
I would concede that I'm suspicious of those who select a translation that is "best for them." It seems to have too much "wiggle room" to more or less choose according to theological bias.
Well, that's the stickler, isn't it: what kind of understanding are you seeking? If you are after illumination of your mind, go for NASB or something like that. If you are after illumination of your heart, I submit that a paraphrase is "more accurate". Just like any other task, you choose the most appropriate tool. What I think this does is move the question from, "What is the better version," to, "What are you trying to accomplish?" Both extremes, doctrine at the expense of relationship and experience at the expense of truth, need to be avoided--and can be, regardless of whaich version you choose.
The more I think about it, the more I see that the real issue here is, everyone has a version that will ahve the least baggage, and they should use that one. Bert, you seem to care a lot about the accuracy of the translation. I care more about the congruence between the writing style and how I speak. I happen to hate The Message, BTW, for that very reason--I don't speak in made-up hyphenated phrases.
This is why I bought a NET Bible. One of the best translations I've ever seen, and it's filled with translators' notes for those thornier passages.
I'm not quite sure that I can go along with paraphrases speaking best to the heart--at least not as a general principle. With a lot of them (like Psalm 8:4 in the NGV), I just say "ewww..."
OK, I guess it speaks to my heart, but not exactly in the right way. :^)
But seriously, maybe it's worth thinking about why one considers modern language to speak better to the heart, and another sees the older language in the same way.
Hal: I agree, the NET bible is a really good one. I remember enough Greek and Hebrew that the footnotes are extremely helpful.
Bert: I think you've reached the same point I have. Can you agree with all of these?
1. Among the wide variety of translations, examples of quality scholarship can be found all across the spectrum from word-for-word to paraphrase.
2. One's personal preference, one's comfort zone on this spectrum if you will, ultimately determines the usefulness of a translation for that person.
I think you can probably see why I objected to your blanket dismissal of paraphrases. As a corollary to 2, there is no objective best translation, just subjective best ones. I know you are no fan of relativism, Bert, but in this case I think you will see that it is not truth that is varying from person to person, but simply one's personality.
That said, I want to reiterate your warning that the more paraphrasey a version is, the more invisible interpretation is going on. That is a good warning to remember.
Joe, you're no relativist; that would require you to state that you acknowledge no objective criteria for choice, a position I know you reject.
Regarding those you propose, I'd almost agree with your two propositions. There are certainly good and poor translations, but more paraphrases simply have more opportunities for mischief, as you note.
And when one looks at those "subjective" decisions, five will get you ten that it's really a function of what the church is using, one's reading level, and so on--in other words, one's own evaluation of fairly objective criteria.
Post a Comment