Style

PART 4 IN A SERIES ON TRANSLATION

There is an Italian proverb that says “Tradutorre, traditore.” That is, “Translator, traitor.” There is no such thing as a perfect translation. Something always gets lost. Sometimes, for instance, the demand for clarity forces a translator to become an interpreter. Translators cannot help but betray the original text.

“Style” is hard to define and even harder to translate. Reading an English version of the Bible, you might not even realize that each of the writers of Scripture has their own unique style.

Luke and Acts, for example, are written in a fussy, florid and deliberately old-fashioned style of Greek. The Lukan author had literary aspirations.

Revelation, on the other hand, was written by a GSL (Greek as Second Language) student. John of Patmos’ grammar is often awkward.

The Gospel of John is written in simple grammar and with a limited vocabulary, yet it frequently achieves poetic effect. I have often said that John wrote Greek the way that Hemingway wrote English.

The writer of Ephesians, on the other hand, wrote Greek the way Faulkner wrote English. Sentences in Ephesians are long, convoluted, and rife with subordinate clauses. In Greek, Ephesians 1:3-6 is a single sentence, 66 words in length. The Greeks of old apparently liked this sort of thing. Most English translations break these verses into several sentences just to make them comprehensible. In the New Century Version, which is rendered into very simple English, I counted 6 sentences.

Translators usually have to subordinate the style of their source text to other concerns. 

So we have a New Century Version style, and a New International Version style, and a New Revised Standard Version style, and a New American Standard Bible style, and a Common English Bible style, and so on and on. It is easier to discern the differences among Bible versions than to discern the differences in the styles of the biblical writers within a version.

Robert Frost said “Poetry is what gets lost in translation.” A writer’s style is often lost in translation, too.

I found Hieronymus Bosch's painting of St. John on Patmos on Wiki.

No Worse Sinners

LESSONS FROM HARRISBURG

Some who were present on that occasion told Jesus about the Galileans whom Pilate had killed while they were offering sacrifices. He replied, “Do you think the suffering of these Galileans proves that they were more sinful than all the other Galileans? No, I tell you, but unless you change your hearts and lives, you will die just as they did.” Luke 13:1-3

When a devastating earthquake struck Haiti on January 12, 2010, Pat Robertson was quick to proclaim that it was a sign of God’s wrath because the Haitians had made a “pact with the devil.” This was really no surprise, as Robertson regularly attributes natural disasters to God’s anger over what Robertson perceives as sins. In 2005, he stated that Hurricane Katrina was God’s judgment on “legalized abortion.”

On August 19, 2009, a freak tornado struck Minneapolis during the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly. Celebrity pastor John Piper was quick to say that the storm was a “gentle but firm warning” to the ELCA which voted in that assembly to approve the ordination of pastors in committed same-sex relationships.

Yesterday (February 29, 2012) a powerful tornado ripped through the town of Harrisburg in my home state of Illinois. Six people were killed, hundreds injured. Pat Robertson and John Piper have been oddly silent. Why is that?

It is easy to define those who disagree with us as other. “They are not like us.” From there, it is a short step to demonizing the other. “They are wrong. They are sinners. They are bad people.” Then, when disaster hits, it’s easy to blame the victims. “They deserved it. It is God’s judgment.”

Jesus wouldn’t go there.

“What about those twelve people who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them? Do you think that they were more guilty of wrongdoing than everyone else who lives in Jerusalem? No, I tell you, but unless you change your hearts and lives, you will die just as they did.” Luke 13:4-5

It’s hard for Piper and Robertson to characterize the 9000 or so people of Harrisburg, Illinois as “other.” They look too much like Robertson’s TV audience. They look too much like Piper’s congregation. “They” are “us.”

I strongly suspect that the population of Harrisburg includes close to the average percentage of homosexuals. And adulterers. And murderers. And drug abusers. And...you get the idea. It is convenient to call a disaster “God’s wrath” when it strikes someone we think is a sinner. It is inconvenient to call it judgment when it hits someone who is just like us.

The fact is, the people of Harrisburg are no worse sinners than you or I. But then, neither were the people of Haiti. The fact is that God does not send earthquakes and tornados to punish sin or warn of judgment. The fact is, natural disasters strike sinners and saints alike.

This does not mean that there are no lessons to be learned from hurricanes, earthquakes and tornados.

I believe that the message of Jesus can be summarized as: Trust God and take care of one another. (The message about Jesus is something else). Jesus used Pilate’s murder of some Galilean pilgrims and the collapse of a tower at Siloam as a call for all people to repent--to “change your hearts and lives.” Natural disasters (and some unnatural ones) are powerful reminders that life is short, precious and fragile. They force us to face our mortality and sinfulness. They call us to repentance and to trust in God.

They also remind us that we need to take care of one another. Pray for the people of Harrisburg, and, if you can spare a few dollars, make a contribution to a reputable relief agency.

I found the photograph of devastation in Harrisburg at this website.  Lutheran Disaster Response is one reputable relief agency that could use your support. Bible quotes are from the Common English Bible.

A Saint and Cynic Talks to God Again

Lord, sometimes I think that I would like to be an atheist. Really.

I wouldn't want to be one of those obnoxious, in-your-face atheists who tars all religious belief with the same broad brush and makes snide comments about “your invisible friend” almost as a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of God. The kind who mistake cheap shots for bon mots. Who insist that they aren't fundamentalists, but who are really just as bad, just as dogmatic, as the pushiest religious believers.

No, I'd want to be a friendly atheist, like most of the atheists I've encountered. The kind who will gladly discuss their lack of belief with a person but won't insist that they share it. The kind who are intelligent and reasonable and moral. The kind who just see no need for you.

Sometimes I think that it might be nice to believe in nothing that cannot be proved by observation, logical proof, or mathematics. It might be nice to rely on reason alone. It might be nice to have no higher authority than myself.

But of course you know, Lord, that I can't do that. Even though I can't prove your existence...

Is existence even the right word? Didn't Tillich say that existence is the wrong category to apply to you. That you, the Ground of Being, are essence beyond existence? Dear Tillich, you've got to love him. Right, Lord?

Anyway, there is too much of the mystic in me to insist that you exist. The mystic saints have taught us that you are known also as the Deus Absconditus. (That's Latin for “Hidden God” but I'm sure you knew that).

So let's just say that even though I cannot prove your existence, I can't deny your reality. I've tried. But there you are, anyway, tantalizing, mysterious and just out of reach, drawing me to yourself. So, I work my way toward you as best I can, praying, and studying Scripture, and clinging to the cross of Jesus, because that is the only way I've found.

And still, I sometimes think that I would like to be an atheist. To live without the demands of your holiness. To live without the demands of your grace.

It's hard to live by grace, Lord. It's hard to reach the end of my resources and have to trust in you. I'd much rather do things for myself.

You can be so demanding. You call me into account. You tell me to love my neighbors. I mean seriously, Lord, have you met my neighbors? And even while I'm busy failing at that, you tell me to love my enemies, too. That's why I sometimes think that I'd be happier if I didn't believe in you.

But I can't deny you, Lord. I'm stuck again. Stuck with you, with your unprovable reality and your demanding holiness and grace. And I guess you're stuck with me, too. Recalcitrant, unholy, unloving me.

Help me to walk in your grace. Inspire me to be a better person, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Leap Day

CEB GIVEAWAY

For Leap Day, a verse about leaping from the Common English Bible:

Jumping up, he began to walk around. He entered the temple with them, walking, leaping, and praising God.

 The first person to correctly identify the source of the quote by book, chapter, and verse wins a free copy of the Common English Bible. Make your answer in a comment to this post. Give me your name and mailing address so I can forward the information to the publisher. I promise that I will NOT publish your personal information.

Insult the Heretics Like Martin Luther

This has been picked up by a number of bloggers whom I read. I think I first saw it on Joel's site.

Click here for the Martin Luther Insult Generator.

Luther had a sharp wit and a sharp tongue. He often had intemperate things to say about his theological opponents. Some of the things he said are regrettable. Some are, well, just funny.

A Saint and Cynic Talks to God

Sometimes, Lord, I think I’d like to be a Fundamentalist. You know, a biblicist, an inerrantist.

I don’t want to be one of those jerky Fundamentalists that you meet sometimes, the obnoxious ones who tell you what you have to believe what they believe and that you’re going to burn in hell forever if you don’t. As if what a person believes saves them from God’s eternal fiery, wrath. Doesn’t good doctrine teach us that not even good doctrine saves us? Doesn’t good doctrine teach us that we are saved by your grace alone?

No, I would want to be a Fundamentalist like my neighbors up the street. They’re nice people, Lord, bless them. They live their faith quietly and earnestly. They love you passionately and talk about you freely. I can respect that.

Sometimes I think that it would be nice to have their sense of certainty, to have an authority outside of myself that is absolutely infallible, a court of final appeal that trumps all other authorities. I think it would be nice to have the Bible as a kind of divine reference book, God’s Big Book O’ Answers, the font of all knowledge and truth. Got a question? Take the leather bound book down off the shelf, read the right verse, proclaim “The Bible says,” and that settles it. No more wrestling with moral issues. It’s all there in black and white and maybe a few red letters.

But of course I can’t be a Fundamentalist, Lord. That’s not how I’m made. You put this meat computer in my head and I can’t help using it. To be a biblicist would require me to deny too much evidence, too much reality. I can’t help but see that when an inerrantist says “The Bible says” it really means “My interpretation of the Bible says.” I can’t help but see that the Bible is not a single document. It doesn’t speak with a single voice. It raises more questions than it answers.

I can’t help but see that Fundamentalism is a defensive posture, closed and guarded against new information, threatened by contradictory evidence. Frightened. I can’t live my life that way. There is too much wonder, too much delight, too much surprise to guard against it all. Besides, what does it mean to be saved except to be safe? If I am saved by your grace, Lord, why would I need to be on the defensive? I can’t be a Fundamentalist.

I love the Bible, Lord. I read it. I study it. I wrestle with it. I find you revealed in it. But you are not contained in it. It’s not a God-in-the-Box. The Bible is a wonderful, maddening, conflicted, enlightening collection of rich spiritual documents. I’m thankful for it. In it I find the testimony of people like myself: saints and sinners and cynics and believers and doubters and clay-footed pilgrims...and I find that you love them all.

But I can’t surrender my brain to the Bible...or to someone’s interpretation of it. I can’t be a Fundamentalist. The cognitive dissonance would undo me.

So, I guess I’m stuck, Lord. Stuck with ambiguity. Stuck with a Bible that is not just black and white, but also full of grays. Yes, and red letters. Yes, and also orange, and yellow, and green, and blue, and purple.

I guess I’m stuck trusting in your grace, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

A Winner!

CONGRATULATIONS...

...to Victoria, whose comment on this thread amused me somewhat more than the Anonymous Armenian's comment. My amusement, after all, is what matters.

Victoria, if you would be so kind as to give me your address in a reply to this thread (I promise that I will NOT publish your personal information) I will forward it to the publisher, and soon you will receive a fresh, new paperback copy of the Common English Bible. (Sadly, you may find a few books missing, as it is a Protestant edition. The CEB does publish an edition with the Apocrypha, it just doesn't happen to be the one they are giving away).

Anonymous Armenian, I have a consolation prize for you. Come to text study Tuesday morning to collect it! And don't despair of getting a Bible. I'll be giving them away at the rate of one a week for the next 11 weeks.

God bless and thanks for playing!

Belated Ash Wednesday

I don't usually do this. I don't usually post my sermons on my blog. I believe that preaching is an oral event; sermons are preached not written. But, I am trying to post more frequently during Lent, and a certain assistant to the Bishop "strongly encouraged" me to do this. So, for those who may be interested, here is my Ash Wednesday sermon....

 

Return to the LORD, your God,

for he is gracious and merciful,

slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love,

and relents from punishing.

     Joel 2:13b NRSV

Somehow, through the centuries, our culture got hold of Christmas and began adding all sorts of things to the Church’s celebration of the birth of Christ. Now we have trees and presents and Santa and Rudolph and Frosty the Snowman.

Somehow our culture took the Church’s 12 day season that begins on December 25, and stretched it out to nearly two months and pushed it back to the day after Halloween, and filled it with an expectation that we will all be merry and jolly.

And, I’m not complaining. I actually like a lot of that Christmas stuff. But I am observing that a lot of our celebration of Christmas has more to do with our culture than our Church.

Easter, too, though maybe to a lesser extent, has been taken over by our culture. Now we have egg hunts and bunnies and bonnets and parades and jelly beans and marshmallow chicks....And a lot of those things are good things. I mean, I like marshmallow chicks, but what do they have to do with Jesus’ resurrection from the dead? They’ve got more to do with our culture than our Church.

Don’t even start me on Valentine’s Day or St. Patrick’s Day. They barely even belong to the Church anymore.

Today is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. And this is one Church holy day that the culture just doesn’t want.

Fat Tuesday? Yes. Whether you call it Mardi Gras or Carnival or Farewell to the Flesh, with its parties and parades and general debauchery, it’s the kind of celebration that our culture loves. But, as Nadia Bolz-Weber has pointed out, you’ll never see a Peanuts TV special called “It’s Ash Wednesday, Charlie Brown!”

This day belongs to the Church and to the Church alone. The culture doesn’t want it. In fact, Ash Wednesday is profoundly counter-cultural with its confession of sin and its frank recognition of mortality. These are things our culture prefers to deny.

So why do we do this? Why do we gather in church tonight to confess our sin and remember that we must die?

Let me say that it is not just to feel bad about ourselves. There is no sense in that. It is, rather, to be honest with ourselves.

We confess that we are sinners, because, when we look at ourselves honestly, we know that we do things that are wrong--whether we want to or not. We incur guilt and we want, we need, to be forgiven.

But more than that, we are sinners because we live in a state of sin--a state of separation from God and from one another. We go about our daily lives mostly ignoring, and by our actions even denying, the reality of God in our lives.

And this is why we not only confess our sins, but also remember the fact of our mortality. Tonight we remember that we are dust and will return to dust. We remember that we are frail flesh and, though our culture would prefer to deny it, we will all one day die.

We remember, in short, that we are not God. We need God. Our help, our only help, is in the name of the Lord who made heaven and earth.

Now some people practice self-denial during Lent. They give up chocolate or caffeine or alcohol. Or they try to lose weight or something. Some of us treat lent as a kind of self-improvement program or a New Year’s resolution that only lasts forty days.

And of course there is nothing wrong with self-improvement. We could all use a little self-improvement. I know I could. But just becoming a better person is not the point of Lenten discipline. Whether we give something up or take something on for Lent, the point is to grow in right relationship to God.

The point of self-denial is to remove from our lives those things that come between ourselves and God. The point of taking on a discipline like prayer, or Bible study or some form of service is to attend faithfully to the God whom we sinners tend more naturally to ignore.

In fact, I believe that Lent is all about growth in relationship to God. That’s why we begin with confession and a remembrance of our mortality--because this is how we grow. Jesus reminded us that a seed has to be planted before it can sprout.

Lent is not about the self. That’s why I say it’s not about feeling bad about yourself and its not about self-improvement. Lent is about our relationship to God. So on Ash Wednesday, we look at honestly at our sinful, mortal nature, and we also look at God’s nature.

We remember that God is gracious, merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing.

So we begin Lent remembering that we are sinners AND remembering that God loves sinners.

We begin Lent remembering our mortality AND remembering that the immortal God embraced our mortality in the cross of Christ.

We begin Lent trusting that our hope is in the name of the Lord who made heaven and earth--The Lord who is gracious, merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.

God bless you in this Lenten season and grant you growth in your relationship with God.

Amen.





Preaching is not only an oral event but, I believe it is also a team activity. A sermon lives in the interaction of the preacher, the congregation and the Holy Spirit. In my case, the Holy Spirit gets considerable assistance from several quarters. Let me acknowledge my Tuesday morning pastor's text study. My colleagues there challenge my thinking, sharpen my faith and improve my preaching in countless ways. For this sermon I must also acknowledge Nadia Bolz-Weber whose blog provided me not only with the sermon's best line ("It's Ash Wednesday, Charlie Brown") but also some key thoughts about how culture has absconded with some of our Church holy days. Also,workingpreacher.org where innumerable good preaching ideas are born. The photo illlustration came from wiki.

Translation Time

PART 3 IN A SERIES ON TRANSLATION

I studied Spanish in high school. I remember just enough of it to order lunch from the tolerant wait staff at a local Mexican restaurant. Should I ever find myself lost in Guadalajara, I could  ask a helpful native for directions to the library. I would not, however, be able to understand the answer.

Back in those high school classes, we used to recite little practice dialogues, like this one related to time.

¿Qué hora es?

Son las ocho menos cuarto.

A very literal translation of that dialogue would be:

What hour is [it]?

They are the eight minus [a] quarter.

While the Spanish is perfectly acceptable, the English is not so great. This is because Spanish has different idioms for time-telling than English. Put on your translator’s hat and think for a moment about how you would render that dialogue into good English.

While I think that the question “¿Qué hora es?” would almost universally be translated as “What time is it?” several options present themselves for the reply “Son las ocho menos cuarto.”

It is seven forty-five.

It’s a quarter of eight.

It’s quarter to eight.

Or, where I grew up:

Quarter ‘til.

In each case, the basic meaning of the reply is unchanged. How is a translator to choose among these possibilities?  Context might be a guide. Formal writing has different requirements than informal speech. If the dialogue is spoken, who is the speaker? Would a BBC broadcaster reply in the same way as a Jersey Shore cast member?

One reason that we have so many English versions of the Bible is that there are so many ways a given word or phrase can be translated. Here, for comparison, is 2 Corinthians 5:16 in four translations. Each has something to commend it:

New King James Version

Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

New International Version

So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

New Revised Standard Version

From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way.

Common English Bible

So then, from this point on we won’t recognize people by human standards. Even though we used to know Christ by human standards, that isn’t how we know him now.

Does one of these translations speak to you more clearly than the others? Is there another translation that you like better? If so, why?

I am going to try to blog more regularly during Lent. We’ll see how that goes. I’m still trying to give away a copy of the Common English Bible through this post. Doesn’t anyone want to play?

The illustration is Salvador Dali's 1954 painting Soft Watch at the Moment of First Explosion. I chose it because Dali is Spanish and it's about time and...well...I just think it's cool, that's all.

An Idiot Looks At Idioms (With Footnotes)

PART 2 IN A SERIES ON TRANSLATION

An idiom is a figure of speech which is readily understood by the native speakers of a language, but which, if taken literally, may not make sense to a non-native. Every language has them. They pose particular difficulties for translators.

The following is a true story.

I was out for a bicycle ride with friends on a fine late-summer day. We were riding our mountain bikes on country back roads through northern Illinois farmland. As we rounded a particular corner, we saw a 5 gallon plastic pail in the middle of the road about fifty yards ahead of us. It was lying on its side, rolling back and forth in the breeze, creating a small hazard. I could see that the bucket was empty, so I sprinted ahead of my companions, and as I came alongside the pail, I booted it off into the ditch.

When the others caught up to me, my friend Tim said, “Now I can tell everyone that I saw you kick the bucket.”

To “kick the bucket” is, of course, an English idiom meaning “to die.” If there is any humor in that anecdote it resides in the disjuncture between the literal and figurative meanings of the expression.

Think for a moment about how you might translate that story meaningfully into another language, one that doesn’t have the same idiom.

One possibility might be to find an equivalent idiom in the target language and change the situation to fit it. According to the cartoon above, “kick the calendar” is a Polish idiom for dying. As a translator, you could change the bucket in my story into a calendar. That would preserve the idiom, but it is probably, in this instance, the least satisfactory solution. It's hard to picture a calendar in the road causing a hazard for bicyclists.

A second possibility would be to translate the meaning of the idiom and footnote* its literal sense. Like this:

When the others caught up to me, my friend Tim said, “Now I can tell everyone that I saw you die.” (1)

(1) lit. “kick the bucket.”

A third possibility would be to translate the idiom literally and footnote its figurative meaning. Thus:

When the others caught up to me, my friend Tim said, “Now I can tell everyone that I saw you kick the bucket.” (2)

(2) “Kick the bucket” is an English idiom meaning “to die.”

In the case of this particular story, the third possibility commends itself, but in other instances, one of the other strategies might serve better.

A curious idiom in New Testament Greek is the use of the word σπλάγχνον (splanchnon) which literally means “bowels” but figuratively means “loving concern or sympathy, commonly rendered heart”**

The venerable King James Version of the Bible tended to render the meaning of σπλάγχνον literally, with sometimes amusing results. For instance, Philippians 1:8:

For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.

For comparison, here is the same verse from the more idiomatic Common English Bible***:

God is my witness that I feel affection for all of you with the compassion of Christ Jesus.

Sometimes translating an idiom literally makes the meaning incomprehensible. Here's 2  Corinthians 6:12 from the KJV.

Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

And again from the CEB:

There are no limits to the affection that we feel for you. You are the ones who placed boundaries on your affection for us.

One thing that sets English versions of the Bible apart from one another is the way that they deal with idioms.**** I'll have more to say on the subject of translations in future posts. The cartoon at the top of this blogpost came from this website.


FOOTNOTES

*I like footnotes.

**Danker, Frederick William, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, University of Chicago Press, 2009, p. 326.

***To win a free copy of the Common English Bible, see this post.

****Did I mention that I like footnotes?

Babelfish and Bible Translation

PART ONE OF A SERIES (PLUS A BIBLE GIVEAWAY!)

If you’ve never played with the internet translation engine called babelfish, it is kind of fun and occasionally useful. You plug in a block of text in the source language, choose the language filter you desire, and it gives you a crude translation in your chosen target language. For an example, here’s Psalm 23:4 from the Common English Bible:

Even when I walk

through the darkest valley,

I fear no danger

because you are with me.

Your rod and your staff—

they protect me.

And here is how babelfish translated that verse into French:

Même lorsque je marche par la vallée la plus foncée, je ne crains aucun danger parce que vous êtes avec moi. Votre tige et votre — de personnel ils me protègent.

I don’t happen to speak French. Nor do I think I’ll ever try. (I was traumatized by a Parisian waiter once). Still, I think I see a little problem in babelfish’s result. Let’s translate it back into English and see what happens:

Even when I walk by the most sunk valley, I do not fear any danger because you are with me. Your stem and your — of personnel they protect me.

Translation is as much an art as a science. If translation were a science, babelfish would work better. Maybe one day, with advances in Artificial Intelligence, a translation engine will give better results.

One difficulty in translation, whether done by a computer or a human being, is that words have a range of meaning. The English noun staff can mean a shepherd’s crook or it can mean personnel. In this case, babelfish chose the wrong meaning.

Consider the verb “to spike.” (Never mind the noun)! You can spike a fever. You can spike a volleyball. You can spike the punchbowl at Senior Prom. Arguably these three meanings are related, but they are far from the same thing. Now, imagine the difficulties of translating the wordplay in the following English sentence into another language--any other language.

After she drank the spiked punch, she began to spike a fever and could not spike the volleyball.

Let’s see how babelfish does. In French:

Après que elle a bu du punch enrichi, elle a commencé à une fièvre et ne pouvait pas spike le volley-ball

And back into English:

After she drank the enriched punch, she began a fever and could not spike volleyball.

Not bad. The meaning is mostly preserved, but the repeated use of “spike” is lost.

There are perhaps as many as 500 translations of the Bible into English. This is the first of a series of blogposts dealing with translation, and what distinguishes all those Bible versions one from another.

The Common English Bible is sponsoring a second Blog Tour beginning this Wednesday, February 22. As a participant, I’ll be able to give away a free paperback copy of the CEB each week for the duration of the tour. If you would like to win this week’s free copy, cut and paste your favorite Bible verse (any English version) into the babelfish engine. Translate it into the language of your choice and then back into English. Post the results in the comments to this thread, and the one that amuses me most gets the Bible. This contest ends at 11:59 p.m. Central Time, Saturday February 25. You'll need to check back next week to see if you've won. Decision of the judge (me) is final and completely arbitrary, but play along. It’ll be fun!


Babelfish takes its name from a creature described in Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The illustration of the babel fish was taken from this website. A good description of the fish, and how it proves, or disproves the existence of God can be found here.

 

I Don't Believe In Evolution...

BUT...



Two participants in a comments thread over at Living Lutheran were disagreeing about a point of biblical interpretation when one of them asked the other “Do you believe in evolution?”

A quick Google search shows that this question, in these terms, is not uncommon.

The question was not addressed to me but it arrested my attention, mostly because it was a non sequitur. It made me think, though, that my own answer to this question would have to be “No.”

I do not believe in evolution. I do, however, think that the theory of evolution accurately describes the processes of speciation and the origins of humankind. In other words, I find the evidence for evolution compelling and the arguments against it, well, not so much.

Still, I don’t believe in evolution.

In his recent book Speaking Christian (see chapter 10), Marcus Borg states that until the 17th century, the verb “believe” always had a person as its object, as when parents tell their children, “We believe in you.” Borg also notes that, at its roots, the word believe is closely related to the word belove. Believing, in this sense, connotes a relationship of fidelity and trust. This is the kind of belief that we confess when we recite the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.

It is only since the Enlightenment that the word believe has taken on the meaning of “intellectual assent to a proposition.” The difference here is between believing in someone and believing that something is true. One believes in God. One believes that God exists. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one.

The question “Do you believe in evolution?” confuses the issue. It puts belief in evolution on a par with, and usually in opposition to, belief in God. It reduces belief in God to an intellectual assent to the proposition of God’s existence. I won’t go there.

I believe in God. I believe that the theory of evolution is true.

Last weekend was the Clergy Letter Project’s seventh annual Evolution Weekend. Though my signature is attached to the Clergy Letter, we did not observe Evolution Sunday in my Church. We never have. I don’t foresee that we ever will. Here’s why: even though I am convinced that the theory of evolution is the best available explanation for the phenomenon of speciation, and even though I do not think that the theory of evolution contradicts either the reality of God or a good understanding of the biblical texts, I’m not called to proclaim the theory of evolution. I’m called to preach the Gospel.

Or to break that down a little, I believe that evolution is true, but I believe in God.

 Good news! There will be a second Common English Bible Blog Tour beginning Ash Wednesday, February 22. I'll be giving away more free paperback copies of the CEB. Stay tuned!

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 6

SYLLOGISMS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the early days of Christianity, when the Church was more a movement than an institution, there was an outstanding female apostle named Junia. The Apostle Paul sent her greetings in Romans 16:7. Since the time of Martin Luther, Bible translators have tried to translate her out of existence. In earlier posts in this series, I’ve looked at three strategies they have used. The reasoning behind those strategies can be expressed as syllogisms.

A syllogism is a form of logical proof made up of three statements. The first two statements are called premises. The third statement, the conclusion is derived from the premises. If the premises are true, and the syllogism is constructed correctly, the conclusion will also be true. But, as I’ve said before, the most rigorous logic will yield false conclusions if it proceeds from faulty assumptions.

An example of a syllogism might be:

A. All Cretans are liars.
B. Bruce is a Cretan. Therefore,
C. Bruce is a liar.

If the premises, A and B, are true then the conclusion, C, is also true.

The first attempt to translate the female apostle away expressed as a syllogism would be:

A. A woman cannot be an apostle.
B. Junia is an apostle. Therefore,
C. Junia cannot be a woman.

On the basis of reasoning like this, the feminine name “Junia” was translated as a masculine name, “Junias.” The problem with this solution is that the name “Junia” is well-attested in ancient times, and the name “Junias” is did not exist. So the first solution to the Junia problem has largely been abandoned in favor of a second solution which can be expressed as follows:

A. A woman cannot be an apostle.
B. Junia is a woman. Therefore,
C. Junia cannot be an apostle.

At least three recent English versions of the Bible have adopted this solution, claiming that Junia was not “prominent among the apostles” but only “well-known to the apostles.” This translation, however, requires an unnatural reading of the Greek, one that was never, to my knowledge, used until the twentieth century. So, the second solution is unconvincing and brings us to the third.

A. A woman cannot be an apostle.
B. Junia, a woman, is called an “apostle.” Therefore,
C. “Apostle” cannot mean “apostle.”

So a footnote in the Holman Christian Standard Bible suggests that Junia was not an apostle but a mere “messenger.” The Greek word ἀπόστολος (apostolos) is translated as "messenger" in two other verses (2 Cor 8:23, Php 2:25). Context argues against this understanding of ἀπόστολος in Romans 16:7. If Junia is only a messenger, whose messenger is she?

I have stated these three solutions to the Junia problem as syllogisms to show that they all rest upon the same assumption, namely that a woman cannot be an apostle. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) Junia herself puts the lie to that assumption. The premise is false and any conclusion based on it will likewise be false. Junia just can’t be translated out of existence, and I think that honesty requires Christians of every ilk to recognize that.

Churches that would deny women leadership roles can still do so, of course. They can argue that Junia may well have been an apostle but the age of apostles is past. They can argue that it has been the tradition of the Church for many centuries to reserve positions of authority for men. They can argue on the basis of other Scriptures--Scriptures that were written when the Church was on its way to becoming an institution--that women should be silent and submissive. (Of course this last argument will be difficult for those Christians who teach that the Bible speaks with a single voice.)

What they cannot do, at least not convincingly, is deny that when Christianity was young there was a woman named Junia whom the apostle Paul said was “prominent among the apostles.”









I am proud to be a part of the stream of Christianity that recognizes that both women and men can be gifted for ministry.  “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

The illustration for this post is a detail from a mosaic at the Basilica of St. Appolonaire in Classe near Ravenna, Italy. I found the picture at this website.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 5

THE FEMALE APOSTLE LOST AND FOUND IN TRANSLATION

My study of Romans 16:7 has led me to the conclusion that Paul referred to a woman, Junia, as "prominent among the apostles." I have also concluded that "apostle" here means a person in a position of authority. Junia has often been translated out of existence, either by making her name masculine "Junias" or by making her "well-known" to the apostles. In the chart below, I look at Romans 16:7 in 24 English versions of the Bible. A few of the versions listed are actually significant revisions of earlier versions (e.g. NASB 1e and NASB 2e =New American Standard Bible 1st and 2nd editions).

I have tried to restrict myself to translations that were produced by committee.

The Versions are listed by year of publication. Multiple versions published in the same year are alphabetized. "X" indicates the reading of the main text; "f" indicates a variant reading included in a footnote. So, for example, the New American Standard Bible, 2nd edition uses the masculine name "Junias" in its text and relegates the feminine name Junia to a footnote. NASB 2e further calls "Junias" a "prominent apostle" and takes no notice of the variant translation "well-known to the apostles."

A few ancient Greek texts have a variant reading that replaces the name "Junia" with "Julia." This is not a significant, but is footnoted in some translations and is so noted in the last column of my chart.

I think that the chart shows graphically that the masculine name "Junias" was not used in English translations before the late 19th century. It was widely used through much of the 20th century but has now largely been abandoned. Three recent doctrinally biased English versions have adopted the suspect reading "well-known to the apostles." The chart shows that this is a new translational strategy.

Following the chart is a key to the abbreviations used for the various versions, including my own remarks about each one.

Click the chart to enlarge it.

* * *

ANNOTATED KEY TO VERSIONS

GENEVA BIBLE: Historically significant as the first mass-produced English language Bible available to the general public. The Geneva Bible's marginal notes reflect Calvinist theology and have a decidedly anti-monarchical and anti-ecclesiastical bent.

KJV: Commissioned by King James I on his ascension to the throne of England, the Authorized or King James Version was intended to combat the popularity of the Geneva Bible. Slow to catch on, the KJV came to rule as the English Bible for about 300 years. Its influence can hardly be overestimated. KJV Onlyists make extravagant claims for this translation. Changes in English usage and discoveries of many ancient biblical manuscripts have rendered the KJV nearly obsolete.

ASV: The New Testament of the American Standard Version was based on Westcott and Hort's critical edition of the Greek New Testament. The ASV retained the archaic language of the KJV. Never widely popular, the ASV has largely lapsed into disuse. A curious feature of the ASV is its use, in the Old Testament, of “Jehovah” to render the name of God.

RSV: A bestseller when first published, and the center of considerable controversy, the Revised Standard Version was based on the best critical Greek and Hebrew texts available. This academic translation was made by an interfaith team of scholars that included Jews and Christians. The RSV rendered the Scriptures in modern English but retained archaic forms (“thee,” “thou,” “hast,” etc.) in poetic passages. The RSV was criticized by some for (rightly) rendering the Hebrew 'almah as “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 and (again rightly) omitting interpolated verses (like Acts 8:37) that had appeared in earlier translations. The RSV is the version that I heard read in church as a child and I have a special affection for it.

NEB: The New English Bible, a British translation into thoroughly modern English, was printed in single-column format with verse numbers relegated to the margins. It looked, and in some measure read, like a modern novel. The NEB has now largely been replaced by the Revised English Bible (REB).

GNT: Formerly known as the Today's English Version (TEV), the American Bible Society's Good News Translation was made according to the principle of “dynamic equivalence.” Idiomatic and highly readable, the GNT has now grown a bit long in the tooth.

NASB 1e (also second edition): The New American Standard Bible was translated according to a strict principle of “formal equivalence” which often makes its English renderings forced and unnatural. Each verse is printed beginning on a new line, meaning that there are no paragraphs in the NASB. The second edition represents a considerable revision of the first. I rarely consult this version.

NIV (also NIrV, TNIV and NIV 11): The all-time bestselling English translation of the Bible, the New International Version was in some ways, an Evangelical response to the popularity of the RSV. The NIV has been criticized for its doctrinal bias (e.g. it renders 'almah as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14). For many people raised in Evangelical churches, the NIV is the Bible. The translation style steers a middle course between dynamic and formal equivalence. The NIrV (New International Readers' Version) is a closely related translation into simplified English. The Today's New International Version adopted more inclusive language and was the focus of sometimes vituperative controversy. The original NIV and the TNIV have now been replaced with a 2011 revised New International Version (NIV 11). Because of its inclusive language and more academic bias, the NIV 11 has been rejected in favor of other translations by some of the old NIV's supporters.

NKJV: The New King James Version is something of an oddity, a fresh rendering of the texts behind the KJV into more modern English. This is the Bible distributed by the Gideon Society. A formally equivalent translation, I find the NKJV useful for checking my own, rough translations from the Greek.

NRSV: The New Revised Standard Bible is my go-to Bible and the one I read in worship every Sunday. A revision of the old RSV, the NRSV uses more inclusive language. It is frequently quoted in scholarly publications. Though no translation is perfect, the NRSV is as good as any and better than most. It is, however, written at a fairly high reading level.

NCV: Written at about a third grade level, and originally intended as a children's Bible, the New Century Version is a very readable translation.

CEV: The Contemporary English Version, another publication of the American Bible Society, is rendered in simplified English and avoids using theological terms. The CEV is an easy read.

GW: The God's Word translation was largely the work of Lutheran Church Missouri Synod scholars, though it is not officially a publication of that church body. (The LCMS keys its publications to the ESV, see below). Rendered according to a dubious translation philosophy, GW never seems to have achieved much popularity.

NASB 2e: See NASB 1e above.

NLT 1e (also Second edition): Based on the style of Ken Taylor's popular Living Bible paraphrase, the New Living Translation is a pleasure to read. Highly idiomatic, the translation sometimes shows doctrinal bias (e.g. at Isaiah 7:14 'almah is rendered “virgin” though “young woman” is a footnoted). The second edition of the NLT (NLT 2e) was a substantial revision.

NIrV: See NIV above.

WEB: Here's a curiosity. A public domain translation based on the old ASV. Its textual basis for the New Testament is the Byzantine Majority text, closer to the KJV's underlying text than the ASV's Westcott and Hort Greek text. The World English Bible is a work in progress though the New Testament is said to be complete. Where the ASV translated the name of God as “Jehovah” in the Hebrew Scriptures, the WEB uses the more correct “Yahweh.” Personally I prefer the convention of rendering God's name with Lord printed in small caps.

ESV: Less a translation and more a doctrinally biased “correction” of the old RSV, the English Standard Version was greeted with undeserved enthusiasm by some sectors of Christianity. The ESV's translation team was made up predominantly of Calvinists and complimentarians. I think that it was intended, at least partly, to give Evangelicals a viable alternative to the NIV. As you may have inferred, I do not like the ESV. Still, because it is stylistically so close to the RSV that I was weaned on, I can't help but enjoy reading it.

HCSB:The Holman Christian Standard Bible is published by the Southern Baptist Convention's Holman Bible Publishers. When the HCSB was first published, SBC president Al Mohler said, “This is an important thing for Southern Baptists to do, if for no other reason than that we will have a major translation that we can control.” The HCSB steers a middle course between dynamic and formal equivalence. Among the recent doctrinally biased translations that make Junia “noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles” the HCSB is alone in footnoting the (correct) alternative “outstanding among the apostles.” I quote here from the online text of the HCSB. The text in my copy of the Apologetics Study Bible varies.

NLT 2e: See NLT 1e above.

NET: The New English Translation has a liberal copyright policy. It is largely a product of the Dallas Theological Seminary and reflects that institution's “conservative” theology, especially in its thousands of translators' notes.

CEB: Published in the 400th anniversary year of the KJV, the Common English Bible reads at the same grade level as the USA Today newspaper. I have enjoyed reading this “academically rigorous” translation. Some of its idiosyncratic translational choices are enlightening (e.g. “the Human One” for “Son of Man”). A few are just strange (“DNA” for "seed" at 1 John 3:9). Overall, this is a worthwhile translation.

NIV 11: See NIV above.




Readers: I would appreciate your help and feedback. If you have any corrections or additions for the chart above, please make them in comments to this post. I would particularly like to know how Romans 16:7 is translated in some versions I don't have access to, in particular the Revised English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible. Thanks!

Last Chance...

...FOR A FREE CEB BIBLE

First reply to this post gets it. Give me your name and address so that I can forward them to the publisher. I promise not to publish your personal information.

I'm grateful to the publishers of the Common English Bible for the opportunity to participate in this Blog Tour. I know that I have helped to promote their product, but, frankly, it has been reciprocal. They have also promoted my little blog and have not interfered, in any way, with what I have written here. I have enjoyed giving away Bibles and, I have to say I like the CEB overall. It is as good as most English versions of the Bible, and better than many.

I've been working on Part 5 in my series on Junia. It looks like it will be a long one dealing with how Junia has fared in various English translations. Watch for it soon.

 

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 4

WHEN IS AN APOSTLE NOT AN APOSTLE?

Making a man of Junia didn't work. Claims that she was not “prominent among the apostles” but only “well known to the apostles” are unconvincing. There remains a third possible solution to the problem that is Junia. A footnote to Romans 16:7 in the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) reads:

“The apostles” is not always a technical term referring to the 12; cp. 2 Co 8:23; Php 2:25 where this word is translated as “messenger.”

Etymologically the word “apostle” means “one who is sent.” Close synonyms for “apostle” include “ambassador,” “representative,” “messenger,” and “delegate.” The HCSB footnote is right in saying that “apostle” has a technical meaning. In this sense it refers to certain important leaders in early Christianity—those who were sent by Christ—though not only “the 12.”

Luke 6:12-16, and parallel passages, tell how Jesus designated twelve of his disciples as “apostles.”

At daybreak, [Jesus] called together his disciples. He chose twelve of them whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter; his brother Andrew; James; John; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus; Simon, who was called a zealot; Judas the son of James; and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. (Luke 6: 12-16 CEB)

In the first chapter of Acts, after the death of Judas, the eleven remaining apostles seek a replacement to fill out their number. Peter says:

“Therefore, we must select one of those who have accompanied us during the whole time the Lord Jesus lived among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when Jesus was taken from us. This person must become along with us a witness to his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22 CEB)

Paul refers to himself as an apostle (see Romans 1:1 among other places) and apparently means this in the technical sense as he defends his right to the title in 1 Corinthians 9 and Galatians 1-2. Perhaps Paul needed to defend himself because he was not one of the twelve and had not “accompanied [them] during the whole time the Lord Jesus lived among [them].”

The HCSB footnote is right, however, that there is a non-technical use of the word “apostle.” It can refer to a messenger or delegate who is not a leader of the church, a representative of someone other than the Christ. A look at the two passages referenced in that footnote is instructive. First, from Philippians:

I think it is also necessary to send Epaphroditus to you. He is my brother, coworker, and fellow soldier; and he is your representative [“apostle” in Greek] who serves my needs. (Philippians 2:25 CEB)

This Epaphroditus was apparently sent from Philippi to assist Paul in some way. Now Paul is sending him back. I think that Paul is being playful when he calls Epaphroditus “your apostle.” He means something like “Just as I am Christ's apostle to you, Epaphroditus has been your apostle to me.” Clearly, though, Paul does not mean that Epaphroditus is an apostle in the technical sense. Now, the passage from 2 Corinthians:

If there is any question about Titus, he is my partner and coworker among you. If there is any question about our brothers, they are the churches’ apostles and an honor to Christ. (2 Corinthians 8:23 CEB).

Here Paul is presenting the credentials of a group of people whom he is sending to Corinth to pick up an offering which they will then take to the church in Jerusalem. The “brothers” are evidently not apostles in the technical sense, but representatives of the churches, that is, delegates of the congregations that sent them.

Does this mean that Junia and her pal Andronicus might be apostles in the non-technical sense, mere “messengers” or “delegates” like Epaphroditus and “the brothers?”

I don't think so.

In the two instances where Paul uses the word “apostle” in the non-technical sense, he supplies a possessive pronoun. He tells us whose apostles these are. Epaphroditus is “your [i.e. the Philippians'] apostle.” The “brothers” are “the churches' apostles.” It is clear that they are not “Christ's apostles.” They are not apostles in the technical sense.

When Paul refers to himself, or other church leaders, as apostles in the technical sense he may use a possessive pronoun (cf. at 1 Corinthians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:7) or, more often, not (1 Corinthians 9:1 et al.). It seems that apostles are assumed to be Christ's apostles unless otherwise specified.

In Romans 16:7 Paul refers to Andronicus and Junia as “prominent among the apostles” without a possessive pronoun. If Junia is not Christ's apostle, then whose apostle is she?

The illustration accompanying this post is Junia from Luba Lukova's Biblical Women portfolio. I found it here.

Bible Giveaway

The end of the Common English Bible Blog Tour is coming near. I only have a couple more of these to give away.

The first person to reply to this thread gets a free paperback copy of the CEB.

Leave your name and mailing address. I promise that I will not publish your personal information.

 

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 3

DEMOTE HER

Part one of this series can be found here. And part two here.

I have a friend who claims that there are more than 500 English translations of the Bible. I sincerely believe that every Bible translator intends to render the Scriptures as clearly and accurately as possible. I include in this assessment the translations that are based on poor textual evidence (e.g. the New King James Version). Likewise the weird translations that “restore” Hebrew names to the Greek New Testament and even the most egregiously denominational “translations” (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation). I’m not being charitable in my assessment of translators’ motives. It’s just that, apart from outright fraud, I really can’t imagine why anyone would create a Bible translation that did not, in their own estimation, accurately and clearly render the meaning of the original.

Having said that, I want to point out that every translation reflects the biases of its translators. The venerable King James Version was biased toward ecclesiastical and monarchical language. It was produced in part to counter the anti-monarchical and anti-ecclesiastical biases of the popular Geneva Bible.

Among modern translations, some choose to use inclusive language, others are gender specific. Some are translated using dynamic equivalence, others are formally equivalent. These are intentional choices made by the translators.

I would suggest that some Bible translations have a doctrinal bias and others have an academic bias. All other considerations aside, I prefer a Bible that is academically rigorous to one that is doctrinally “correct.” This is because I believe that doctrine should be derived from Scripture, not translated into it.

Among other things, an academic translation will render the Hebrew ’almah as “young woman” at Isaiah 7:10 and a doctrinal translation will say “virgin.”

For the best part of the twentieth century even the most academically biased translations rendered the name of an apostle in Romans 16:7 with the masculine “Junias.” This is because they based their translations on critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The latest critical editions of the Greek Testament have, for reasons I’ve discussed before, restored the feminine name “Junia” to this verse.

Why did the earlier editions say “Junias?” I can only speculate, but I suspect the scholars who produced those editions honestly believed a woman could not be an apostle. After all, the Church, for most of its history, has denied women roles of leadership. Some Christians still do.

Today it is more and more recognized that the Apostle Paul’s churches practiced a surprising gender equality. Only later in the New Testament period, when Christianity became less a movement and more an establishment, were women excluded from leadership roles. An interesting, popular level book that covers some of this information is Crossan and Borg’s First Paul. I recommend it with some small reservations. Read it critically.

Since it is now more difficult to deny that Junia was a woman, recent doctrinally biased translations have resorted to a different strategy to deal with the problem of a female apostle. They’ve demoted her. They say that Andronicus and Junia were not “prominent apostles” but “well-known to the apostles.”

Some of the recent versions that adopt this translation are the English Standard Version, the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the New English Translation.

The arguments for this translation involve technical points of Greek grammar. My own grasp of Koine Greek is good enough to follow the discussion, but not to contribute to it. (If you are interested in the techinical matters, Suzanne McCarthy has done an excellent job of dealing with them at the BLT blog). Still, I find the argument that Junia was only “well-known to the apostles” unconvincing for at least three reasons:

First, the argument is circular. Like the argument that Junia was not a woman, this strategy is based on the unproven assumption that a woman could not be an apostle.

Second, the translation “well-known to the apostles” strains the Greek. The normal way to read the Greek is that Andronicus and Junia were “prominent among the apostles.” As far as I can ascertain, the earliest English translation to adopt this strategy was the English Standard Version in 2001. Before that, no one tried to claim that Andronicus and Junia were “well-known to the apostles.”

Third, arguments that Junia was not an apostle strike me as disingenuous. If the names in Romans 16:7 were both unambiguously masculine, say “Andronicus and George,” no one...absolutely no one...would try to suggest that George was only “well-known to the apostles.”

To sum up, the argument that Junia was not a woman has largely been abandoned. Academically biased translations of the Bible say that Junia was “prominent among the apostles.” Doctrinally biased versions say that she was only “well-known to the apostles,” an unconvincing translation that strains the Greek.

There remains a third solution to the problem of Junia. Stay tuned.

 I found the picture of St. Nina accompanying one of Suzanne McCarthy's excellent posts at the BLT blog. I'm participating in the Common English Bible Blog Tour. Come back next week for a chance to get a free copy of the Common English Bible, a translation that gives Junia the respect she deserves.