Earlier today Brian LePort relayed some information about an upcoming joint-venture between The Gospel Coalition and BibleGateway.com about a new forum to discuss Bible translation. Brian expressed some concerns and skepticism about the whole project and we exchanged a few comments. You’d do well to head over there and read them before reading this post so as to get the context of my response below. This started out as a comment in response to Brian’s last comment to me but it became much too long for me to submit in good conscience. So without further ado, here’s my reply:
Brian: Do you remember where you read this stuff? I ask because it seems to me that the most vocal detractors of the TNIV (Grudem, Ryken, Poythress) weren’t the folks you might be thinking of. I have a few books that denounce the TNIV (specifically Ryken’s The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation and Grudem, et al.’s Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation and Fee barely gets a mention in either (Peterson gets no mention at all). When he is mentioned it’s never the ad hominem you’re describing. Moreover, I’ve searched the CBMW site for articles on both the TNIV and Gordon Fee, and came up with results for both but never in connection to each other. In other words, when the TNIV was being criticized for being “gender-neutral” (i.e., removing masculine meaning in the translation that was there in the original), it was never with reference to Fee. When Fee was being criticized for all manner of things it was never with reference to the TNIV. But if this all started with questioning method then where’s the real problem? Folks engage in ad hominem all the time but to my knowledge neither Fee or any other TNIV translators’ character was ever stated as the problem with the TNIV. This issue was over the translation itself and if people thought certain ideological leanings affected translation (which is possible even if not probable) then it shouldn’t be a problem to say so.
But I’m more interested in your suspicions and doubts since I think they’re misplaced. It seems to me, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you read something about TGC and thought it might be a nice opportunity to take a shot at a conservative Reformed group, since as we all know, that’s en vogue these days. While no one can doubt that politics played a part in the underwhelming success of the TNIV (entire denominations denouncing translations is, I think, political), I don’t think that it was only politics. In other words, had there not been a perceived problem with the translation begin with than no one would have raised a stink. And the “hissy fit,” as you call it, concerns deep rooted convictions that the Bible is God’s written revelation to us and it shouldn’t be monkeyed with. Now I personally love functional equivalency translations and think that they are actually more faithful to what a translation should be than formal equivalency translations are, but that’s neither here nor there since philosophies vary on the issue.
But I digress, back to the post, in which you’ve traded fallacy for fallacy, or I should say in the post you’ve committed a fallacy and in the comments you’ve highlighted one. You said, “if I am not mistaken it was the type of people sympathetic with The Gospel Coalition that politicked the TNIV off the printing press.” Even if true this shouldn’t reflect on TGC itself. As other commentators have mentioned already, Carson, a founding member of TGC, has spoken in defense of the TNIV. But it’s certainly a genetic fallacy to perceive fault with TCG because of what “the type of people sympathetic” to it have done with regard to the TNIV. And when you say, “more and more I worry that things like TGC are being used by some as a vehicle for subverting and shrinking the broadness of evangelical views,” I wonder if you note the subtle hint of irony in the statement (it’s kind of like the person who’s intolerant of intolerance). Is not TGC’s view(s) part of the broadness you want to see in evangelicalism? Of course it is, yet it seems (to me at least) that you’d be happier if their view(s) were silenced with regard to Bible translation and translators, or at least you think the discussions merit skepticism before they’ve been had. I can’t really see a problem with a group taking a stand on some issue(s) and defending them voraciously, after all, if something is worth believing then it should be worth defending. That some have (allegedly) gone too far and attacked people personally shouldn’t detract from the root issue of debates about translation. For those folks to whom these issues matter these debates are worth having and even if all we see on TGC’s forum is one view expressed at least we’ll know where to go for that view. I’m sure if it turns out to be that way then an opposing forum will be set up by those who disagree.
To quote Forrest Gump, “And that’s all I have to say about that…”
B”H
Nick,
I think this is just a subjective thing with Brian. He seems to be fighting against his own past Reformed thoughts (note his last few posts). My thoughts at least?
Here is what I wrote on my own blog but I’ll leave it here as well:
Sadly, I will be away from any access to the Internet until Monday other than what I access via my phone. I should have gathered data before running this rant because if people come running her to tell me what a bum I am I’ll be defenseless for a few days. Of course, let me say to any one who comes here from Nick’s post this was a (over) generalization as I said at the bottom of the post I know not all TGC people act this way. I have a few close friends who are affiliated. Likewise, there will be some people affiliated, that are in my circles, that say these things in conversations where I’ve been present and they don’t have anything public for me to provide as an example so there is nothing I can do there.
I want to be wrong about this. I do. So I’d be happy to eat my words if it turns out to be beneficial to all.
Fr. Robert: That might have a little to do with it. Like I said, it’s considered cool to take shots at conservatives these days, and I do think he seized this as an opportunity to do so. But I’m confident that he really feels the way he says he does.
Brian: I hope when you do get back online you can track down some of those references to where you read the things about Fee and Peterson (although I’m much more interested in Fee). And I will be honest in saying that I think gathering a bit of data before ranting would have been helpful here. The rant itself doesn’t seem well thought out which isn’t really like you (from my limited experience).
Agree, which is why I did not see it as a righteous search for truth. Note he even called it a “rant”. I am an old man! Can I use just being cranky? lol
[heresy]I think there are already way too many English translations of the Bible, and there should be a moratorium on producing any more for a good 20-30 years at least.[/heresy]
Agree Sean…it’s really been all about money. It even keeps the translators going from job to job.
I live and work with a language group of about 74M people that has basically one translation of the Bible, one of William Carey’s. It’s reasonably good, and it really simplifies things when everyone is using the same translation. (A few American easy-reading versions have been translated, but no one really likes them.)
[The actual point of the post:] The proliferation of English Bible versions (and study Bibles!) is a sign of too much disposable income and too many idle resources. The Kingdom would be much better served if all the energy and money spent producing (or fighting) the last few had gone to other works. My basic thought on English versions is that the major standard versions are quite adequate for most people. If one needs a “better” (good luck with that) translation, one really needs to learn Greek and Hebrew and just read it in that. Conversely, if one feels the better “easy-reading” translations are too difficult or that they just “don’t speak to me,” one needs to work on improving one’s reading comprehension skills, which will help in other areas of life as well. What no one needs is another “Today’s” or “Contemporary” or “Really Really Revelant” version of the now. The Bible isn’t a piece of MicroSoftware; the church doesn’t need to be sold an upgrade every five years.
Fr. Robert: Well, rants, even ones with misplaced suspicions, are allowed every now and again. :-)
Sean: Variety is the spice of life. ‘Too many’ is always going to be a better problem than ‘not enough.’
Fr. Robert: I don’t know that it is really about money. Sure, businesses want to make money, but you have to look at what Bible publishers do with their money. Most of the big ones that I’m aware of put it to good kingdom use.
Sean: Ideally we’d all be able to pick up our Hebrew and Greek Bibles (even there we have variety and options) and translate in our heads. Unfortunately, most of us can’t, and will never be able to. Sure, we don’t need more English translations, but that doesn’t mean we won’t use or appreciate them once produced.
I provided a more detailed response to your last comment on my blog. I wanted to avoid personal stories but I think I found a way to say it where it shows from where I am making my rant without defacing anyone involved. I hope it clarifies things a bit.
Brian,
Have ya ever heard an real Irish rant? lol You know by now I am a conservative, and both politically and in my Judeo-Christian theology & understanding. And yeah, we all have our misgivings and suspicions. Btw, I have a nice copy of the TNIV…the black renaissance leather. But when I do use the NIV, I find myself using the old NIV Study Bible. But, to be very honest, I am looking forward to the New NIV in 2011. I will no doubt buy a nice leather one. I am just one that knows people on the inside of the translation world, and they are not always happy people. We are always gonna have both theological & translation difference in approach and philosophy. This really should be a battle for the real experts. I can read both Hebrew and Greek, but I don’t consider myself an expert. The real problem is always theological in translation debate, for even the translators are fallible sinful men!
Robert,
No disagreement there.
Brian: Thanks. I just read it and responded.
Agree Sean…it’s really been all about money. It even keeps the translators going from job to job.
In as much as large quantities of money that come from selling English translations funding minority language translation projects, then yes, it is about the money. Part of the money from every NLT sale goes to Wycliffe Bible Translators. A large chunk of the money made from the NIV family goes toward minority language translations too. In fact, this is true for most English translations with the strange exception of the ESV…which sets aside funds from their sales to support the distribution of the ESV in countries where English is, at best, a trade language and thus is often the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th language of the nationals with no guarantee that they actually know it well enough to use the ESV beneficially…
Mike: Thanks for elaborating on my point.
Pingback: It’s OK Brian, I’m skeptical too… |