Why I Switched to the NIV (Part 1) – A Response to Kevin DeYoung

The book isn’t brand new (a year old), but I’m interested in the little tract (31 pages) by Kevin DeYoung called Why Our Church Switched to the ESV. In it, DeYoung doesn’t attempt to advance scholarship on the translation issues but rather seeks to address why he and his church switched from the NIV to the ESV. My interest in it lies in the fact that I have made the opposite switch for my main English reading Bible.

I used to be convinced by the arguments found in this book and others and so had an ESV-is-best mentality. Soon after I started to seriously study how language creates meaning and worked more in depth with translation, I found the claims of many ESV-is-best proponents, including my own, to be lacking.

In the same way that DeYoung offers thoughts on his own move from the NIV to the ESV (personally and in his church), I want to offer my own thoughts on why I moved from the ESV to the NIV. But in DeYoung’s case, he wants to say that the ESV is the better translation for use (30). I personally don’t want to say that the NIV is a necessarily better translation for use, but more so that the ESV-is-best mentality is false and then offer why I prefer the NIV as my main English reading Bible. The difference is important as I won’t be bound to defend every decision the NIV translators made or even to defend the NIV as the best English version.

DeYoung offers up in his introduction that he thinks God has and can use other types of translations and he complements the NIV. He states that the ESV isn’t perfect but he still wants to say that he hopes it becomes the new standard “used for prayer, preaching, memorization, study, and worship in more and more churches” (8). The fact that he thinks God can use the NIV and other translations isn’t so much a complement, however, since God can use some pretty awful things to bring glory to his name. The issue of whether or not it is a “faithful” or good translation still remains and DeYoung recognizes this otherwise there would be no reason for him to write this book.

DeYoung gives 7 reasons he and his church switched to the ESV:

1. The ESV employs an “essentially literal” translation philosophy.
2. The ESV is a more transparent translation.
3. The ESV engages in less over-translation.
4. The ESV engages in less under-translation.
5. The ESV does a better job of translating important Greek or Hebrew words with the same English word throughout a passage or book.
6. The ESV retains more of the literary qualities of the Bible.
7. The ESV requires much less “correcting” in preaching.

Since the issues underlying these points are massive, I will only offer up 7 counterpoints at the moment with a little bit of substance (so that I’m not just saying the negation of each point), and then as I have time I will fill out the series one by one, responding to them.

My seven counterpoints are as follows:

1. “Essentially literal” translation philosophy provides a modification of a category within a sphere that offers up a false dichotomy (literal vs. thoughts). The modification of the literal notion does not go far enough in addressing the false dichotomy, still insinuating that meaning occurs at the level of words while introducing a vague notion of context. This vague notion of context at least recognizes that the meaning of words are constrained, but it fails to address meaning that occurs beyond the level of the words. After all, “the meaning [of a text] is always more than the sum of individual words” (Thompson, Introducing Functional Grammar, 29).

2. The notion of transparency comes from a false notion, I believe, of glossing rather than a robust notion of languages as systems with their own meaning-making resources. There is some awareness that languages are not codes for each other in DeYoung’s work, but it is also clear that no robust understanding of systems is considered leading to a notion of transparency based on… what? Glosses from our favourite Greek lexicons? BDAG perhaps? The notion of the Greek lexicon itself may be scandalous, however. Confer, in the meantime, John A. Lee’s work A History of New Testament Lexicography and Stanley E. Porter’s chapter on lexicography in Studies in the Greek New Testament. This issue requires a lot more discussion and I have some thoughts here.

3. DeYoung argues that the NIV adds words unnecessarily and so over-translates but this is dependent upon his view of literal translation in the first place which I will argue is not accurate. I am more interested in what stands behind this notion than in whether or not the NIV “got it right” in particular passages.

4. DeYoung argues that the NIV under-translates as well by at times avoiding theological terms and important concepts though he doesn’t provide arguments that this is a bad thing, he only implies it is by calling it “under translation” and attempting to provide a couple of examples. He may be right but whether this is good or bad is another issue. His implication is that it is bad, of course.

5. Consistency in translating words may aid an English only reader in concordance type searches but it doesn’t necessarily aid in the interpretation of meaning in passages, the more important issue. If I had to choose one, I would go for meaning in context rather than consistency in wording. We may have to choose one of the two options for a single translation but both options in separate translations may help the English only reader best.

6. This one kind of cracks me up, as if the literary qualities of a book only exist and are created at the word level! Literary qualities are created at a higher level than simple words and the sum thereof. A dynamic equivalence translation (I don’t like the category but I use it here) may be even better suited for such a task since it is not bound to the level of the words and word groups.

7.  I think this “correcting” idea comes from a false sense of (again) languages as systems and also how to preach exegetically and what can be carried over from the original text into English. It’s funny that one of the greatest proponents of our day of expository preaching is D.A. Carson and he has used the NIV and TNIV for a number of years in preaching! When I hear him preach I don’t hear him “correcting” the text except to make adjustments based on his scholarship as he would of any imperfect translation (i.e., all of them). Some of the issue here is related to #2.

So much more needs to be said and arguments need to be offered in full. That’s why I will break this up into a series of posts. Given my current schedule I won’t be promising a certain output on a specific schedule, however. But I hope I have said at least enough to get the reader thinking in the meantime.

Now, I said I personally switched to the NIV. I will devote an entire post to this once this blog series is done. But for now, I will say that this move was not because I think it is necessarily the best translation out there. I switched to it because it more consistently tries to translate meaning at the level of the clause where the real meaning-making in the lexicogrammar (lexis and grammar) occurs.

At the same time, I have a certain level of proficiency in Greek so I spend the bulk of my study there and am not bound to English versions (though my Hebrew is not near where it needs to be yet so I am bound to English in the OT). Not everyone has the luxury. Sometimes the fact that the majority of Christians don’t have original language proficiency is used as an argument for the ESV. In my mind, and this will be argued at length later, it shouldn’t lead a person to one translation or the other, but rather to a number of translations. This recognizes that the Bible was not written in English, but in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. No one translation can capture all the meaning of the original in one go, although I get the impression from ESV-is-best folks that it is attainable. I don’t think so.

John 1:14-18 Part 1 – Excursus: Exodus 32-34

We have already seen some parallels and use of the Old Testament in John’s Prologue. It seems to me that these uses of the OT get stronger in the last 5 verses of the Prologue. As such, I have decided to breakdown the analysis into two parts starting in this study with an excursus into Exodus 32-34 and then analyzing John’s text in the next study having already looked at a potential background. This one is a long one but it is a good story so I hope you’ll be captivated.

Exodus Context

Chapters 32-34 of the book of Exodus take us back to approximately 1400 B.C. The book begins its story where Genesis left off. Joseph is now dead (1:6) and many generations have passed since his time. The Israelites had become a large group of people (1:7) and were now under a new king that did not look favourably on Joseph as in the past (1:8). They were oppressed by slave masters and were put through hard labour (1:11).

It is in this time that God raises up Moses. He was raised in Pharaoh’s household (2:5-10) and when he was grown up (2:11) he found himself killing an Egyptian for beating a Hebrew (2:11-12). When it was found out (2:14-15) his life was sought by the Pharaoh and so he escaped to Midian (2:15). A long time passes, the king of Egypt dies, and Moses grows old (2:23).

God then appears to Moses at the burning bush and calls him to go to Pharaoh to seek the release of the Israelites from bondage (Chs. 3-4). Not without a fight Moses ends up going to Pharaoh with Aaron and they seek the release of the Lord’s people. Through several plagues placed on the Egyptians God has the Israelites released into the wilderness (Chs. 5-11) by lastly killing all the firstborns of Egypt culminating in the first Passover (Ch. 12). The Israelites leave Egypt (Ch. 12) and head for the promised land through the desert.

With much grumbling the Israelites continually despise Moses and his leadership since the conditions of the wilderness appear to them to be worse than when they were under slave masters in Egypt. It is in this context that our story in chapters 32-34 take place.

Chapters 32-34

Moses was up the mountain speaking with God and receiving the law. But due to this delay, the people called on Aaron to make from them gods who would go before them (32:1). Aaron tells them to give them their gold and he fashioned it into the shape of an idol, declaring, “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (32:4). They build an altar, call for a festival, and the next day sacrifice burnt offerings and present fellowship offerings, then drinking and indulging in revelry (32:5-6).

This blatant idolatry angers the Lord who tells Moses to go down to his people who have become corrupt (32:7-8). He says to Moses, “I have seen these people… and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

But Moses seeks God’s favour and entreats God to not destroy the people (32:11-13). He cites the promises God had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their forefathers, to make their descendants a great nation (32:13) and God relents (32:14).

Moses then went down the mountain, sees the Israelites wickedness, is fuming angry and so he threw the tablets containing the 10 commandments to the ground and proceeded to burn the calf in the fire, grind it to a powder, scatter it over the water and make the Israelites drink it (32:15-20).

Aaron tries to pass the buck (32:22-24) and Moses then tells all who are on the side of the Lord to rally to him. The Levites rallied to him (32:26) and then they kill about 3000 that day (32:28).

Moses goes back to speak to the Lord and seeks forgiveness for their sin (32:31-32). The Lord says he will blot out of the book those who have sinned against him (32:33) and then tells Moses to lead the people to where they were going in the first place and he would send his angel before them (32:34). But God makes clear that he himself will not go with them since he would have to destroy them on the way due to their wickedness (33:3).

Along the way Moses meets with the Lord at the “tent of meeting” where he would speak to the Lord “face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (33:11). He uses this friendship to entreat the Lord, saying, “You have been telling me, ‘Lead these people.’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me…. If you are pleased with me, teach me your ways so I may know you and continue to find favour with you. Remember that this nation is your people” (33:12-13).

God answers by assuring him that his presence will go with him and he will give him rest (33:14). Moses responds by saying that if God’s presence doesn’t go with them he doesn’t want to be sent: “How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?” (33:15-16)

Then Moses asks to see the Lord’s glory (33:18) and the Lord responds by saying he will cause all his goodness to pass in front of him and proclaim his name, the LORD, in his presence (33:19). But, the Lord goes on to say, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (33:20).

The Lord has Moses return to him in the morning and he then passes in front of Moses and declares his name: “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children from the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (34:6-7).

Moses responds by bowing and worshipping the Lord. He says, “if I have found favor in your eyes, then let the LORD go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance” (34:8-9). The Lord then makes a covenant with Moses and tells Moses that those he lives among will see how awesome the Lord is (34:10).

When Moses returns from the mountain, his face is radiant from speaking with the Lord (34:29).

Summary

This passage of Scripture shows the grace of God in not wiping out his people though he had ample reason to do so. The Israelites were called to trust in the one true God but they continually went astray earning them the moniker, a stiff-necked people. Moses as the one who had found favour in God interceded on their behalf and God was pleased to honour his own promises to their forefathers through these actions.

A glimpse of his glory is also seen here as the climax of the story comes in 34:6-7. God reveals himself as “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.” His grace, love and faithfulness would continue on throughout the entire Old Testament period.

This has now set the background for us to evaluate better John 1:14-18 in the next study.

*all direct quotations are from the TNIV

The Profit of Employing the Languages

A new Themelios journal has just been released. The issue contains an article by Jason DeRouchie entitled, “The Profit of Employing the Biblical Languages: Scriptural and Historical Reflections.”

He asks why the church needs some in it who can skillfully handle the biblical languages and gives 4 reasons:

  1. Using the biblical languages exalts Jesus by affirming God’s wisdom in giving us his Word in a book (God’s Word as foundation).
  2. Using the biblical languages gives us greater certainty that we have grasped the meaning of God’s Book (studying God’s Word).
  3. Using the biblical languages can assist in developing Christian maturity that validates our witness in the world (practicing God’s Word).
  4. Using the biblical languages enables a fresh and bold expression and defense of the truth in preaching and teaching (teaching God’s Word).

Why Four Gospels? Review

In writing Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels, David Alan Black has put what has become a minority opinion in scholarship into popular form. Working off of the ideas of Bernard Orchard and his own, Dr. Black has made a case to return to the majority opinion of the historic church: that of Matthean priority. The position is known as the Four-Fold Gospel Hypothesis.

The book weighs in at only 78 pages of text, consisting of three main sections. The prose is very readable making it an enjoyable read. Student and layperson alike will benefit greatly from this initial exposure into the world of the origins of the Gospels.

In his first section, “The Development of the Gospels,” Black has written a narratival reconstruction of how the Gospels were first constructed, including their circumstances. He breaks the development into four phases, wherein each of the Gospels finds a home. The four phases are the Jerusalem Phase, the Gentile Phase, the Roman Phase, and the Johannine Supplement. You can perhaps guess where each of the four Gospels fits and if you can, you will notice that the order of writing he proposes is Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, not the common proposal found today (priority often goes to Mark).

The narratival reconstruction is engagingly written but he says some strange things, at least they were strange to me. There were numerous occassions where I had no idea how he would justify, what I thought to be, a fanciful historical fiction. Black claims that Luke was written second, commissioned by Paul for use in his gentile mission, but not published until after they could get it authenticated by Peter in Rome, who then lectured in five sessions using both Matthew and Luke and his own recollections, which was immediately copied by competent scribes, including his assistant Mark, and in due course became the Gospel of Mark. I had decided ahead of time to read only the first section before going to bed one night but I had to hear more from him on it, so I proceeded to read section 2: “The Origins of the Gospels.” How on earth would he justify the story?

In the second section, Black sets forth his arguments to support the reconstruction he gave in section one. It is at this point where I started to see the pieces of the puzzle come together: he didn’t create a fanciful historical account! He actually bases his reconstruction on patristic evidence. As I now thought back to section one and saw the patristic evidence in front of me, I kept wanting to open my Bible and ask, “Does that work?” Indeed one of the best blessings of this book was the excitement to move back to the Bible to test and explore what I was reading for the first time.

But it is not as though Black is reading patristic writings that have been lost to every other scholar. So why the difference in opinion today? The problem is they have been dismissed and/or overlooked. The majority opinion is that Mark wrote first and so the patristics’ testimony must be explained away. But Black is reluctant to lose their testimony. In his preface (to the 2nd edition) he claims that they are necessary for this task. But, he says, “it is not that the fathers of the church solve the synoptic problem. It is that any approach to a solution that rejects their testimony is, by definition, illegitimate” (ix).

So what becomes of internal evidence? The sad truth is that internal evidence has not yielded the results expected of it: i.e. the priority of Mark is not proven by internal evidence. Just about any order can be justified by the internal evidence but with a guide like the evidence of the Fathers present, a more likely approach to the internal evidence is found.

Black’s final section returns to the story of the development of the Gospels by discussing each of their respective compositions. It was by the end of this section, and the end of the book, that I had the full picture in my head that bewildered me only 70 pages earlier. Only having studied Matthew and Mark heavily in the Greek (Luke much less so), I had not yet given much thought to the historical order of the Gospels besides the popular majority opinions. I now feel equipped to return to the study of the Greek Gospels with a viable hypothesis (indeed very viable) to test as I read through.

Given the target readership of the book, I have no criticisms. As I said above, it is readable and engaging. As for further study on the issue, I would love to see how the divisions of Mark’s Gospel into the five lectures of Peter proposed work with a discourse analysis approach to Mark’s Gospel. For example, can a division break be justified between 3:19 and 3:20? The text as we have it seems seamless. If so, should we attribute some redacting to Mark as well?

To read the reconstruction that at first bewildered me but gripped me, and later made perfect sense, get a hold of the book. At a very reasonable $10.19 (Amazon.com price as of 03/03/11), you can’t go wrong. It will expand your horizons, expose you to the historical majority viewpoint of the church on this issue, and help you read the Gospels with new vigour. No matter what your training, this book is worth reading. And more than that, I think Dr. Black has made a convincing case for Matthean priority. One I want to inspect more for myself now.

Thank you to Dave and Energion Publications for providing this book for review.

Reading Linguistics and Greek Grammar (in Light of Cancer)

The subtitle here is important since without it this would be a fairly easy post.

The reason I’m studying what I’m studying (biblical studies/New Testament with especial focus in Greek and linguistics – and I mean informally right now) is simple: because I feel called of God to study and teach the Word and these items I’m especially passionate about. That’s an easy question for me. Why these disciplines are important can be highlighted another time.

But the subtitle adds something I haven’t yet brought up on this blog. I have cancer.

On December 23, 2011 (yes, the Friday before Christmas), I was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. How close to death I was, only God knows (but likely a few weeks). The chemotherapy started two days after Christmas and managed to put me into remission by the end of January (less than 5% leukemic cells in my bone marrow) and I remain in remission right now, going through cycles of chemotherapy while I await a match for a stem-cell transplant. The day to day is currently easier than it was in January, but it still has its challenges. The doctors are treating me with the intention of curing me.

I have had outlets for talking about what I’m going through. I mainly used Facebook to share the gospel through my illness in late December and onward. I purposely decided to start the blog without mentioning it at first and the reason for the blog was to exercise my gifts in teaching since I can’t commit to teaching in the church setting at the moment when I don’t know if I’ll be in the hospital or not on any given week. I can’t really plan much more than a week to two weeks ahead; somethings I can’t plan a few days ahead. But blogging can be done from the hospital or at home, easy enough.

That’s actually preamble to what I wanted to talk about, though it gives the necessary background since most of the readers won’t have heard it yet.

So, in light of my cancer, why do I continue to read linguistics and Greek grammar books? In light of the possibility that I don’t have long to live (and I don’t know what God’s plan actually is) why am I not running the streets telling everyone about Jesus and only reading the Bible?

Well, I am reading the Bible lots (both in English and in Greek) and I’m trying to use the gift God has given me (yes, cancer has been a gift) to glorify him and share Jesus through it to as many as will listen. I have been doing that on my Facebook, through my church, and other things like TV interviews and the like. Bringing glory to God is my number one goal and purpose in this time of cancer.

But, I haven’t stopped reading linguistics and Greek grammatical material. Why not? Well if I knew I only had a few months to live I would probably at least drop the mind boggling linguistics books! But I find that even in the face of death, I want to continue to grow in my knowledge of the Word and that requires continuing to understand the language of the Word. For that reason I continue to study these disciplines and apply them to the Bible. I’ve seen my knowledge of Jesus grow immensely in this time and I want to get to know him better and better and proclaim him better to those around me. For these reasons it seems reasonable to continue reading what I’m reading. That’s not everyone’s path but I believe it is mine.

Now that I’ve broken the ice with this post, I may write a bit on how my theology of suffering prepared me for this time, how this cancer has been a gift to our family, and things like that. And in the midst of this, I want to continue to try to share what I’m learning about the Word and teach it to those who will listen, so that, in the words of the apostle John, “you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing may have life in his name.”