This started life as a comment on John Hobbins’ posts arguing that the ESV was a church translation and the NRSV an academy translation, but it was clearly going to grow too long and so I post it here instead. I do not dispute that in any translation, including these two, there will be some passages they translate well and others badly. I prescind from any judgement about how widespread John’s view might be in the US. It is not my experience in the UK, and I think there are a range of considerations which might suggest that John’s distinction is not the best one to adopt.
A word about the English Anglican context out of which I write. For roughly 20 years we became accustomed to following a lectionary which drew its readings for public Sunday use from four different translations, RSV, NEB, TEV and JB. There was little obvious consistency, although TEV was used for some of the most complex readings and JB invariably used for St John’s gospel. In the same period, the NIV made substantial headway, and as they came out NRSV, REB, NJB and CEV all collected their fans, often seeming better than their predecessors and regularly adopted in their place. Except for NIV (where the non-availability of the apocrypha was an issue for some) none of these translations could easily be associated with clear theological or ideological positions, and the combinations of translations weaned many away from a straightforward association of church readings and “Bible English”.
It is with that background that I make the following points:
- The NRSV is not just a version for those who come out of the Protestant Christian tradition but embraces a wider range of tradition in both the translators and the target audience. It is quite possible to see the ESV tradition as more narrowly intended to preserve a particular Protestant heritage as John argues. It is less clear that this is necessarily a good thing.
- Amongst a surprising number of otherwise well educated people, many of the phrases John claims to be core Western culture are either scarcely known or irrelevant. One might also question whether in the contemporary world it serves the church’s mission to play up the role of either Bible or Church as a bearer of Western culture. For many people this may be a significant barrier to hearing its message, or a serious belittlement of its mission.
- In the UK there was back in the seventies and eighties an attempt to agree on a version of the Lord’s Prayer which said “Save us from the time of trial”. This both predated NRSV, and largely failed. The only churches I have used it in recently have been Methodist! However, the NRSV wording of OT and NT canticles has been adopted for widespread use in the C of E, which suggests it is finding a clearer liturgical role than is the case in the US circles John moves in.
- There is an irony John does not fully point up. The ESV is based on a textual tradition in the Old Testament at least (is it also more influenced than most by TR in the New?), which in a significant number of places may well have originally been different. The NRSV tends to be less trusting of tradition. The irony, of course, is that the inspiration of the original autographs is a far more significant matter to those most inclined to favour the ESV, and comparatively less important to those more inclined to favour the NRSV.
- John has in the past made a number of good points about the importance of literary translation, understood as seeking to convey something of the register and style of the source text in the target language. GNB, CEV and NLT noticeably fail to do this for the more poetic and literary texts of scripture. NRSV and ESV alike (but ESV more so precisely by wanting to – in its own words – sound like the Bible) fail to do this with the more pedestrian and rough and ready texts.
There is no such thing as a perfect translation. Those who want the Bible to sound like the Bible may well prefer the ESV, though they should receive it with caution. Those who want something that reflects English idiom in a non-Christian culture will probably prefer REB, NJB or a more paraphrastic and simpler translation. Those who sit somewhere in the middle, or see both sides of the coin, may continue to prefer (T)NIV or NRSV.
{ 16 comments }
I do not wish here to address your very broad argument, but only to address a narrow point that arises in this argument.
John writes:
The wording of ESV Psalm 23 on the other hand specifically reflects the use of the psalm in both Judaism and Christianity at funerals and other occasions commemorating the dead.
This sort of sweeping claim is, of course, not true — at least as far as Judaism is concerned. First, Psalm 23, like all the Tehillim is almost always recited in Hebrew, not English. Second, while it is sometimes used at funerals, Psalm 23 is used (in Hebrew) every Sabbath as part of the liturgy (in most siddurim at ma’ariv [evening prayers] and also sung at the kabbalistic “third meal” [called by many Sholosh Seudos and by some others Seudah Shlishis].)
There is one sense in which I agree with John — each religion should determine its own liturgy. Arguments over liturgy should be internal to each religious group (excepting, perhaps, the case where the liturgy expressly insults another group.)
As the New Jewish Study Bible remarks on Psalm 23:6: “for length of days.” This refers to one’s natural life, but it has traditionally been understood as referring to the next life (after death), and hence this psalm is customarily recited at funerals or on occasions commemorating the dead.”
It is extremely tiresome to argue with you, Theo. You, an orthodox Jew, wish that those not of your kind keep their noses out of your religious business. All the while you are busy sticking your nose in their religious business. By adhering to this double-standard, you are not representing your faith well.
For the record, I’m fine with your meddling, so long as it occurs according to accepted canons of decor. Unfortunately, that is not always the case with you. On the other hand, if you wish to live by the sword, fine. Just be prepared to die by the sword.
No, John, I reject your characterization of my religious beliefs.
It is a pity you did not bother to read my comment.
Thanks for all the threats.
You are most welcome, Theo. As for your religious provenance, that’s easy to grasp, though you wish to occult it, by anyone who has read your comments on Jewish sites.
Ah, now it is clear why the Word of God is likened to a sword
Doug,
Thanks for a very interesting re-set of the discussion. Here are some thoughts.
(1) That the NRSV is a product of an originally broad-based and wide-ranging but now declining, has-been religious coalition is an interesting fact. The ESV on its part is a product of a less broad-based but vibrant religious coalition experiencing significant growth. Another interesting fact.
Arteriosclerosis affects the health of one coalition. The other is “young and restless.” That being the case, reasons for ill-will between the two camps, to put it mildly, are legion.
I continue to wonder whether your approach to the subject at hand is a function of your choice of camp, though I wish to be proved wrong. Regardless, I respect your choice of camp. I’m hoping you will accord my location in a third location, a meta-choice, similar respect, rather than conflate my location with the ESV camp.
If instead you also are attempting to formulate a meta-choice (one that transcends that of both camps), please say so, and I will treat you as a comrade-in-arms, no matter how much we differ in the content of our meta-choices.
That an originally broad-based, wide-ranging coalition saw fit to baptize RSV in the waters of the then-powerful ecumenical movement with very limited revision to produce the NRSV is an extraordinary political fact. The RSV especially but also the KJV before it, embodies, after all, an almost straight-up Protestant construal of the Bible in general and the Gospel in particular.
The fig leaf of having what is rightly termed in the context of the NRSV “the Apocrypha” within the same covers hardly obscures this naked fact.
I see it this way. At the moment of baptism, the majority of baptizers, since they had become a-confessional in ethos through the magic of “the movement” as it was called at the time, were desensitized to the particular DNA set the baby they baptized represents.
I take that back: the evangelicals on the translation team, including the inestimable Bruce Metzger, knew exactly what was going on. The others were, objectively speaking, fellow travelers.
I suppose it’s possible that a few of those fellow travelers saw what they were doing as a form of co-optation. If so, they widely under-estimated the vitality of their co-optee.
A very different trajectory led to the embrace of RSV with minor revisions by the coalition behind the ESV. But that is a story I know less about. (For the usual reasons, I do not for a minute regard as objective the telling of the ESV story by ESV haters.) That’s because I grew up in a liberal Protestant RSV environment.
(2) I disagree with the thrust of your point. I encourage you to take a look at Mark Noll’s latest book, The New Shape of World Christianity. He proves to my satisfaction that the whole idea of a non-central role of the specifically American revivalist evangelical template in the future development of Christianity is a nice example of liberal wishful thinking. But he also nuances that insight greatly, with the reward in the nuance.
If what you are saying is that the conveyor belts of western cultural dominance are no longer Milton, Shakespeare, and KJV English, of course you are right. Bu they do include things like the music and lyrics of Johnny Cash, books by Tolkien and Lewis, not to mention the most viewed film ever, the “Jesus” film, and distant but vital seconds like the Passion of the Christ and the Prince of Egypt. These and many other media serve as pedagogues into the particular religious culture at issue here. Your apparent indifference to that culture’s fate may be part of a larger indifference to the fate of the Western Christian heritage; if so, I hardly share it. If instead you treasure that heritage, but see the carriers of it by agents other than the ones under discussion here, it would be interesting to know what alternative vectors you have in mind. The potency of the classical vectors should not be underestimated. The Communist government of China has banned the performance of Handel’s Messiah. I don’t think that government has a chance against the broader work of the Holy Spirit, but that was a very smart move on their part.
(3) That’s very interesting. How about NRSV’s “but rescue us from the evil one”? What would it be like for the NRSV-using segment of the Christian family to recover the concept of spiritual warfare, without a doubt a key element in the spirituality of the historical Jesus, the early Christian movement, and all the most vital elements of global Christianity today?
I think liberal Christians would rather drop dead than make that recovery. They may get their wish.
For the rest, in the UMeth Hymnal, we have a PC version of the Psalter, with the yucky passages mostly removed, and the language cleaned up to the satisfaction of the language police. But this Psalter, I assure you, is dead in the water, no matter how often it is mouthed. The Fanny Crosby hymns and Gaither tunes are sung with a certain gusto; the faux Taize stuff is of interest only to a few religious aesthetes.
(4) The irony is only apparent. The ESV camp is not budging from its commitment to the Masoretic text, now or never. The emphasis on the autographs among many evangelicals, IMHO, is a piece of scholastic sophistry when it comes to OT text criticism, and a baneful influence, when it comes to NT text criticism. The ESVSB concludes (rightly) that the pericope of the adulterer was not in the original gospel of John. It concludes (wrongly) that it should not be treated as Scripture. The damage an insufficiently robust doctrine of the Church does in evangelical circles is immense.
In any case, insofar as NRSV is a church Bible, its choice to depart from the Masoretic text here and there as the muse suggested is indefensible. There is a little bit of this in ESV, too, but not nearly as much.
(5) I agree, as you know. I’m convinced that ESV and NRSV might be improved in various ways in terms of improving fidelity in the more literary sections of the Bible as well, and have some hope that in the case of ESV, improvement will take place. There is much work to be done in this field.
Finally, I don’t think that even in the C of E, the shifting sands of Bible translation politics are going to budge based on your final considerations. Translations are “carried” by living faith communities for whom they have iconic value. The iconic value ascribed to ESV among conservative activist Protestants is already great, and seems destined to continue growing.
John, excuse me for presently picking up just one point form this reply.
You reflect early on about my choice of “camp”. This is your metaphor. I wish to resist the tendency to be placed in one camp or another, just as I wish to resist the idea of a war. I want to be able to criticise or praise a Bible translation without those who like or dislike it imputing to me a whole range of views I may not hold, or impugning my character and my morals.
That’s fine, Doug. Please feel free to move on to other things. It’s a wonderful thing when people avoid casting aspersions on others, and the work of their hands over which they have labored with great care. I could not agree more.
Just remember how you started this conversation: by singling out ESV, TNIV, and NLT as seriously flawed.
I did my best to respond in the same register, and with the same degree of confessional loyalties playing a part. Once again, I note your unwillingness to be placed in a camp, but that doesn’t mean, objectively, that you don’t belong to one.
John, as I’ve said to you in another context:
“My mention of a “serious flaw” was confined to the omission of the Apocrypha, which I continue to regard as (however its canonical status is conceived) an essential part of the Western Christian tradition of biblical transmission and interpretation (The question looks a bit different in Eastern contexts). You, I know hold these books in high estimation, so I assume, at some level you regret that these translations don’t provide an integrated translation of them, even if you would not describe that as a flaw.”
John, I appreciate that you enjoy talking about your personal beliefs, and I respect that. We might even say it is appropriate to your position as a pastor.
However, I prefer to stick to the issues and not talk about my personal belief system.
Be well.
I will be a little bit better once you remedy a couple of things. I’m sure I do not need to elaborate.
For the rest, I simply ask for a level playing field. Once again, I trust your intelligence and do not feel I need to go into details.
John,
You do not offer others a level playing field.
I am certainly aware that you do not see eye to eye with others about what makes for a level playing field. You have criticized the biblioblogging community in aggregate for the same thing you criticize me for. I am just one of many with whom you are in disagreement about that.
“You have criticized the biblioblogging community in aggregate for the same thing you criticize me for.”
One more thing tbat is not true.
I think I’ll call an end to this particular “he said”, “she said” spat. Thanks.
Doug,
Thanks for the clarification with regard to the sense in which you regard narrowly Protestant Bibles as flawed.
With respect to what books a translation of the Bible should include, I have gone on record that it should include everything found in editions of NRSV, plus at least 1 Enoch and Jubilees (non-marginal constituents of the Ethiopian Orthodox canon with a long history of reception in ancient Judaisms and Christianities).
So I might as well one-up you and say: yes, Protestant Bibles are more useful when they include the Apocrypha – it’s time to turn back the clock to the days in which true-blue Protestants read and knew the Apocrypha well, and Josephus, too – but even the wide selection of books found in NRSV Bibles is not wide enough.
Of course, Protestants are not going to be preaching from Susannah, Bel, and the Dragon anytime soon. Nor I do expect to hear a sermon from 1 Enoch, unfortunately, since I would go listen to one gladly, if I knew where to hear one.
Comments on this entry are closed.