The Bible is a collection of books written over a period of centuries in languages most don’t know. It’s authors lived in ancient times and their lives were so profoundly unlike ours and their Weltenschaaung so dissimilar that it is virtually impossible for Postmoderns to enter into it.
So in response to the ’strange and foreign world of the Bible’ along come modern translations which try to ‘bridge the gap’. It seems a good idea- indeed – it seems a necessity. But the very act of translating is also an act of distortion. In fact, the less ‘wooden and literal’ a translation is, the further it takes the reader from the ‘world of the Bible’. The more modern the translation, it seems, the more it is no longer translation at all, but pure commentary.
There should be something shocking, something disconcerting, something unsettling about entering a foreign world, an alien environment. We should feel jolted when we read the Bible. It should make us uncomfortable. It should challenge our preconceptions about God, the world, and ourselves. And that is precisely and exactly where modern translations do their evil: instead of keeping us at a proper distance from the world of the Bible they pretend to take us back in time to the very desk of the author/editor.
When the Bible becomes too easy to understand, what has happened is that instead of ourselves being conformed to the thought world of the Bible, we have bastardized it and conformed it to our own world of thought.
Wooden translations, then, are better because they maintain the proper distance between ourselves and the Biblical authors. If you can walk hand in hand with Jeremiah, you don’t rightly understand Jeremiah. He should annoy the devil out of you- because he would have if you had been his contemporary. If you can snuggle up to Jesus as you read the Sermon on the Mount, you have a grossly inacurrate conception of the ethical message of Jesus.
The Bible really is a strange and foreign world. Translations that make it comfortable, misrepresent it, and its authors. And its Author. If you don’t read Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic and wish to read a good translation (i.e., one that keeps a proper distance between you and the foreign field of the Bible), take up the American Standard Version, or the New American Standard Version. Both are quite literal and therefore quite good. Clarification is for commentaries. Bridging the gap, that’s what they are to do.
[...] Jim West [...]
By: Quote of the Day « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth on June 20, 2008
at 12:53 pm
I bought an American Standard version when I first believed, but I understand they are hard to find now.
In reference to your analysis, you assume that ancient culture give “the proper context” to a believer. And that they, by nature should disturb us, because they call us to be like the ancients. A Christian “standard” is not the question, but the appropration of it is!
In sociological terms, a structuralist view is at odds with an interactionist view. One assumes that the structure is “in place”, while the other assumes that we become, as we interact with society and in specific situations. I believe both! And that is why when addressing the needs of the individual, one has to assess the specifics of the situation, in understanding what was known and what actually happened.
In doing my reading for my thesis, Carol Gilligan assumes a distinctly “feminine” voice in relation to moral decision making. Lawrence Kohlburg, on the other hand, determines his morality in a developmetal formalism that is stage based.
While I am not dismissing Kohlburg, because I believe that he is right, as far as understanding the need for public justice. Gilligan’s care model makes situational distinctions. Therefore, I do not believe that there is “one way” of understanding what even Scripture attests to…We can come to some conclusion about what the text meant at that time and what the situation was at that time…but bridging the gap between the ancient and modern is indeed the problem. And I do not believe in a separated sectarianism that specializes in “sermonizing” over “absolutes”, which again is a “masculine attribute”, while dismissing the most important and humane attribute, and that is, the individual.
By: Angie on June 20, 2008
at 1:47 pm
jim, a few comments:
1. very well said.
2. i agree, there is no translation without interpretation. translations lose the power (and, i believe, the intentional ambiguity) of the classic hebrew, aramaic, and greek words. this is also my beef with memorizing bible verses (in a modern language). while it has a great benefit for learning the text (of which, unfortunately, far too many xns are ignorant), it does away with what i believe to be the more important and valuable discipline – that of learning what the ancient words meant and why they were chosen.
3. agreed, modern translations of bible are oversimplified. i believe the reason for this is the desire of translators/committees to communicate a perceived ‘plan of salvation’ to the readers rather than communicating the thoughts and reflections of the early writers about the life and teachings of a very complex jesus and the vast diversity of early xnty. too many modern teachers/ preachers/ scholars/ religious leaders are focusing on ’saving’ people (or offering them what they believe to be a systematic plan of salvation) rather than communicating the life and teachings of jesus and the early church. the truth is, it is much easier to package and sell ’six steps to salvation’ in simple english than it is to ask the reader to invest the time and personal sacrifice required to learn about the world of the bible, its languages and their meanings. the focus is upon evangelism (making more xns) and quality is being sacrificed for quantity. easy xnty is preferred because it brings in more converts, while said converts have to change very little about their existing lives in order to join.
this is why i do not consider myself an ‘evangelical’ (in both connotative and denotative senses of the word). those who really want it will invest the necessary time to study. this is one of the problems with the emergent church (and methinks your biggest beef with it). they come off as simple, sacrificing required study and sound beliefs for cool clothes and rah-rah jesus stuff. true emergents (of which i consider myself) are focused upon social justice. the emergent church needs to blend a sound study of the text with the social actions necessary to bring about effective change in the modern world. too often, the study (and shocking significance) of the text is sacrificed for simplicity. this is not just a problem with emergents, but with the whole of evangelical xnty.
and the entire cycle is fed by consumers who want quick and dirty xnty just like they want quick and easy diets and sound-bite news. in this sense, faith is little more than a crash diet for the soul, or a 10-minute jiffy lube for the conscience. people want to invest as little change (both meanings intended) as possible for their ’salvation’. and modern translators oblige.
By: robert r. cargill on June 20, 2008
at 2:38 pm
Is the meaning of “the ethical message of Jesus” carried solely by the specific words recorded by the Biblical authors? And do those words have semantic value that can be equally expressed in a variety of languages and cultural contexts?
By: ElShaddai Edwards on June 20, 2008
at 2:58 pm
Where else will we find the ethical message of Jesus? In fortune cookies or on billboards or written in the sky on lightly tinted angels wings?
Words may have equivalent semantic value but their expression in a modernized form may mean something COMPLETELY different. Think of the word ‘gay’ as one simple example. What did it mean 50 years ago and what does it mean now?
Thus, when Jesus talks about Torah it’s kind of silly for translators to use some ‘dynamic equivalent’. How do they know it’s really a dynamic equivalent to the thought world of Jesus’ hearers? Or are they really just trying to say something to their contemporaries and using the Bible as a jumping off point (the way far too many preachers do, I might add).
By: Jim on June 20, 2008
at 3:04 pm
Jeremiah should annoy you, but through the content of his message, and not through his language. People should walk hand and hand with his language so that they can be deeply challenged by his message. If your translation of Jesus’ mountain sermon makes you want to snuggle up then it’s just as problematic as one that leaves you bewildered. But not every modern translation has to do that. It’s hard, but it is possible to translated something both in a way people can understand the language, and in a way they can understand the message, and then be challenged or encouraged or listen to whatever else God wants to say.
By: Dannii on June 22, 2008
at 5:40 am
[...] few days ago Jim West, never one knowingly to understate his case, [...]
By: MetaCatholic » The perennial translation playground fight on July 1, 2008
at 12:01 pm
[...] Jim West: Why Modern Translations of the Bible Bungle it [...]
By: Beg to differ « Lingamish on July 2, 2008
at 11:22 am
[...] this is too much fun to pass up since plenty of bloggers within the biblioblogosphere have recently been posting on translation (and for those I didn’t link to you can check out the most recent [...]
By: Translating the Bible « Random Bloggings on July 8, 2008
at 11:21 am
[...] have been weighing in on translations of the Bible. I believe this began with Dr. West’s Why Modern Translations of the Bible Bungle It. David Ker brought his two cents in Beg to Differ; he also has a good list at the end of his [...]
By: God’s Long Nostrils « Scotteriology on July 11, 2008
at 9:52 am