Every time a major new translation is announced on in the blogosphere, the usual grumps (including, sometimes, me) chime in with the now tired rhetorical question "And do we need yet another Bible translation?"
But let us take the question seriously. I argue that the answer is definitively "YES". Viewed purely from a market view, if there was not a need for further translations , they would not be introduced. Clearly, publishers, both the for-profit publishers and non-profit publishers are mindful of the bottom line. Moreover, while it may require the sale of zillions of Bibles for the Nelsons and Zondervans of the world to recoup the cost of a Bible translation, it is not so hard for a smaller publisher (that charges more for its volumes and has lower overhead) to recoup development costs. The fact that so many publishers are willing to spend money on developing new translations is evidence of our appetite.
Let us just review some of the exciting English Bible translations (rather than "more-of-the-same") that have appeared in the last six months:
-
The New English Translation of the Septuagint -- a true pearl
-
The Orthodox Study Bible (with an alternate new Septuagint translation)
-
Robert Alter's The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary
-
New volumes in Israel Drazin and Stanley Wanger's ongoing Onkelos [Targum] translation series (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus).
-
Mayer Gruber's Rashi's Commentary on Psalms.
-
The single volume (and revised) edition of The Inclusive Bible -- clearly the best of its genre.
-
The Women's Torah Commentary (which includes a revised English text of Scripture).
-
A new translation into English of Hirsch's German translation of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Leviticus) -- entire set to be completed this year and including both commentary and a translation of Scripture
-
The latest volume of Matt's Zohar translation; the Zohar is (on the surface) an extended paraphrase and commentary on the Torah.
Ten highly innovative translations in six months.
I am sure this list is highly incomplete. But even looking only at my list, it is clear that we are hardly near tapping our creativity and excellence in Bible translation.
Now what accounts for the discrepancy between the list above and the widespread complaint? Well, perhaps it reflects the fact that much of the biblioblog world (and many of the statistics, e.g., of the "Christian Booksellers Association") are aimed at Evangelicals. And with the notable exception of The Manga Bible, none of the above translations was aimed at the Evangelical market.
Now when one goes to one's local Barnes and Noble (much more dramatically, one's local Walmart), it is a different picture -- one sees plenty of brightly covered packages, plenty of implicit promises that the Bible will be a magic talisman that will cure all your ills (men's Bibles, women's Bibles, teenagers' Bibles, substance-abusers' Bibles, etc.) How many different ways does one need the NKJV and NIV packaged? (And why do all Zondervan Bibles look so similar in content? I am not speaking of layout and typography here -- although that is also tediously redundant!) We may very well have a distribution problem with Bible translations -- there is a disconnect between the creative world (producing fantastic new translations) and the distributors (peddling the same-old-stuff). But if we look at the total market, and not just the Walmart-view, we have not saturated our thirst for creative and informative Bible translations.
Some on the blogosphere -- often those associated in some way with Bible translation societies -- argue for the need for more translations into obscure languages. I can neither speak to nor against those needs. But English, my native tongue, is still an important language: as a first language, it ranks number three in the world, and as a second language, it ranks number one. It is the language of international commerce and science. In contemporary Judaism, it is second only to Hebrew in importance. It has become an important language for all three branches of Christianity. So, I would not quite give up on English yet.
So, bring on more translations -- plenty more translations. I am especially eager to see new translations that either show freshness and creativity or improve on the flaws of previous translations.
We do not have enough Bible translations in English today.
7 comments:
Now this is a great post!
Iyov, I believe that we will see more English translations published in the next decade. However, I would be willing to predict that most of them will be translated by evangelicals, marketed and sold to evangelicals simply because evangelicals are bible readers, hold a very high view of scripture, and generally read it on a more regular basis than non-evangelicals.
Kevin --
I am sure -- with ten translations in the last six months -- that we will see more in the next decade. So I agree with you there.
"most of them will be translated by evangelicals"
Well, this depends on what you mean by "most". If you mean different instances of translations, then I am quite sure you are wrong -- since there are large number of translations which are appearing from all sorts of different groups. If you mean in terms of numerical unit [or dollar] sales, then you may have an argument. But even then, I think the point is debatable (see my comments below.)
"because evangelicals are bible readers"
Well, I disagree with this rather strongly. It is safe to say that some Evangelicals are Bible readers, but I have to say that most Evangelicals I meet have such a weak knowledge of Scripture that I very much doubt that they are Bible readers. Now, there are certainly large numbers of devoted Evangelical Bible readers, but are most Evangelicals Bible readers? (For example, have they actually read the entire Bible in translation? Could they pass a simple test? If I give them a quote from Scripture, could they identify from which Book in the Bible it came from? For most Evangelicals, I think the answer is clearly "no.")
"hold a very high view of scripture"
This is certainly true. But it is hardly the only religious group that does so. The same can be said of Jews and Catholics. Indeed, devout Muslims memorize the Koran (in classical Arabic) -- how many Evangelicals do you know who have memorized even a single chapter of the Bible (other than the 23rd Psalm) in translation?
(Similarly, I have met quite a few Jews who have memorized the entire book of Psalms in Hebrew.)
"and generally read it on a more regular basis than non-evangelicals"
Well, this is the sort of claim that I often hear Evangelicals make; but I haven't actually seen any objective evidence to validate this. I do believe that some Evangelicals read the Bible in translation with some regularity -- but of course, Catholics who go to Mass daily are reading the Bible in bits and pieces, and Jews who go to synagogue (even only weekly) are hearing the Torah on an annual basis.
Iyov, I agree there are more translations now coming from non-evangelicals. But most bibles that are going to be marketed and sold, are going to end up in evangelical hands simply because evangelicals are bible readers. And I will defend this. When I say that evangelicals are “bible readers”, I would say that many evangelicals do read their bibles on a regular basis because of their personal spiritual piety. Evangelicals are taught and encouraged from the pulpit and Sunday School rooms to read their bibles regularly. This does not generally happen often in liberal mainline churches. Of course, then there are always some evangelicals who might pick up their bibles once a year during spring cleaning in their homes. But on the whole, we can generalize that many evangelicals are bible readers in comparison to liberal mainline Christians.
When I refer to non-evangelicals, I would generally be referring to those who are theologically liberal. I have seen in my experience of liberal non-evangelical church members, I have found them to be greatly lacking in bible knowledge and do not attend church regularly either, if ever, therefore, I would not generalize them as bible readers. If we had to give non-evangelical and evangelical church members a litmus test that you referred to, I would bet that a higher percentage of evangelicals could quote and identify more passages of scripture than non-evangelicals. We must compare apples with apples.
However, I would agree that Jews and Roman Catholic clergy do hold a high view of scripture, but not necessarily their parishioners. Perhaps, not necessarily of scripture, but a high view of ecclesiological powers. And I think it would be safe to say that both Muslim imams and adherents hold a high view of scripture because, like evangelicals, they are devout and value piety. This is where devout Muslims and evangelicals have something in common—piety. Piety is a big factor that determines whether a group are readers of scripture and hold a high view of scripture.
Now onto oranges. Clergy and scholars from liberal mainline churches are expected to know their bibles just the same as clergy and scholars from conservative evangelical churches. I have found that clergy and scholars from both sides know their scripture quite well, given their calling/profession. We must compare oranges with oranges. I will also defend that liberal mainline clergy and scholars generally do not hold as high a view of scripture in comparison to evangelical clergy/scholars. That is the nature of liberal theological scholarship. However, orthodox theology is in the nature of conservative evangelical scholarship, unlike liberal theological scholarship.
Kevin --
I reject the liberal/conservative dichotomy you propose. I consider myself to be quite conservative in religious matters, but open to discussion with others in an academic setting.
Thanks as always for your careful thoughts. I can see that you are proud of your fellow Evangelicals.
One difficulty is that your comments are based on anecdotal evidence and we have no way to really analyze them. For example, observant Jews systematically, work their way through the Torah and most of the books of the Hebrew Bible in a single year -- multiple times, and in Hebrew. Does this count as reading the Bible? Certainly! Similarly, observant Catholics will work their way systematically through the lectionary, and thus over a several year period. Similarly I know some (but not many) Evangelicals who use a reading plan to work their way Scripture on an annual basis.
Another difficulty I have is in determining how well different groups actually read the Bible. Now, for example, can the average Evangelical recite the legal passages from the Torah? Of course, the average observant Jew can.
Similarly, pretty much everyone can understand the narrative portion of the Gospels and Acts. How many can really understand the different views assigned to the Epistolatory literature?
Another point corresponds to translations. One of the most popular Evangelical "translations" of the Bible is a paraphrase, The Message. Have people who read this actually read the Bible? (I would say "no".) Similarly, various "watered down" translation such as the (T)NIV, NLT, etc. are popular. Now the Evangelical movement has produced at least one contemporary translation that is a careful translation of Bible: the NASB (particularly the earlier 1977 edition). This is a sophisticated, accurate translation. But how many Evangelicals read this?
As to the question of piety -- you are on to something here. But doesn't the woman who goes to Mass twice a day have piety? Doesn't the Hassidic Jew who prays thrice daily with teffilin have piety?
Here are my general observations:
(a) Most Christians seem rather unfamiliar with the Old Testament.
(b) Reading the Bible is hard, and requires a fair amount of knowledge about ancient civilization. Not everyone who reads the Bible understands what he is reading.
(c) Reading the Bible regularly is a significant part of the "Evangelical" message. Thus, the potential is certainly there. (Howevever, other parts of the "Evangelical" message -- e.g., those dealing with temperance, with concern for the poor, etc, are selectively applied by some congregants, so I expect the same is true of Bible reading.)
Iyov, yes, I agree that observant Jews can recite large parts of the Torah. Judaism, especially orthodox Judaism, is a very scripture based-religion. Whereas, Roman Catholicism is largely based partly on scripture, but also on the theological interpretation of scripture by ecclesiastical hierarchy and early church fathers. Catholics did not get personal access to the bible until 50 years ago and had to rely on the church to properly interpret scripture. Judaism, on the other hand, and as you likely know, has always been much more scripture-based than Roman Catholicism.
Due to the Reformation, Christians since the 16th c. have gained access to the open bible. In a way, evangelicals have carried on the great spirit of the Reformation because they have continued to defend the open bible, whereas, liberal mainline churches have not. I hate to say it but they have denigrated those who want to open the scriptures to the masses. It may sound like I’m bashing liberal academia but it’s partly justified. It has been a disservice to the multitude of Christians who want and need the open bible. I think it is ironic that many liberal mainline churches have moved more towards tradition and interpretation by ecclesiastical authority, and away from scripture as the sole authority of personal faith and practice. This is a move backwards into pre-reformation era. This is another reason why I defend that evangelicals are bible readers. I know I sound like one-sided conservative but I admit that I’m molded in the tradition of the evangelical reformation.
I would disagree with your argument that: evangelicals who read the Message bible, NLT, etc. are not actually reading the bible. Such dynamic translations have actually given the whole Christian community as great service because it has opened the scriptures to people who do not have a high reading level. You may be an academic and value scholarship, but you have to keep in mind that the majority of Christians out there are not as privileged to be in the same shoes as ourselves. I also appreciate formal translations like the NASB, ESV, and NRSV, and N/KJV but such formal translations is the reason why I did not want to read the bible when I was an uneducated 13 year-old. When I complained as a teenager that I didn’t understand what the KJV said, my mother asked someone from church to get me a GNT (the one with pictures). It was then that I began to read the bible almost daily due to the evangelical piety ingrained by my parents and the church. My start from such easy-to-understand dynamic translations gave me the start I needed to appreciate the bible. So I thank God for the Reformation. The reason I give you this personal example of mine is because it is typical of many Christians today who are not as educated as we are.
a) I would agree that most Christians are unfamiliar with the Old Testament. Some denominations do preach from the O.T. more than others. I have noticed that churches that follow the lectionary tend to preach much less from the O.T. Evangelical-pentecostal churches tend to preach from the O.T. more often.
b) I don’t believe that reading and understanding the O.T. requires someone to know much about ancient civilization and read from an historical context of the writers. This is a privilege, not a necessity. As long as they understand the bible’s moral principles, they can build their faith from a simple understanding. Ask yourself if academics increased in their faith from knowing the historical-critical method? It hasn’t done anything for me personally. These are merely tools to build one’s understanding and interpretation of scripture but doesn’t help the average “Joe” who wants to understand the basics of scripture.
c) In my experience as an evangelical, I have learned a lot from scripture about temperance, concern for the poor, and other social-humanitarian issues without a clergy’s interpretation of scripture. I believe most, if not all, evangelical churches understand such issues. This is really based on one’s Christian worldview and philosophy, not on whether one reads or is taught about social concerns. When it comes down to praxis, it depends whether we want government sponsored social welfare, or the personal responsibility of individuals to be generous in their giving to the poor.
Another recent translation of the New Testament is "The Better Life Bible", which is geared to people who have never (or rarely) read the Bible. It's available Online at BetterLifeBible.com.
Post a Comment