As a Bible professor, I hear a lot of questions regarding translations:
When a translation says it’s more literal, it’s the most accurate, right?
Doesn’t “gender-neutral” mean it’s bad?
Do certain Bible translations promote women pastors?
Which Bible translation should I use?
In trying to help them answer these questions, Liberty University allowed me to invite three representatives from three of the bestselling Bible translations today. Doug Moo agreed to speak on behalf of the 2011 New International Version (NIV), Wayne Grudem defended the English Standard Version (ESV), and Ray Clendenen contended for the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). The symposium offered just a glimpse of what we’ll be exploring in a book I’m editing with Andreas Köstenberger that will be published by Broadman & Holman Publishers and available in fall 2012. This book will compare about sixteen passages between four major translations.
Does ‘Literal’ = Accurate?
Major Bible translations typically reflect one of three general philosophies: formal equivalence, functional equivalence, and optimal equivalence. Formal equivalence is called a word-for-word translation and attempts to translate the Bible as literally as possible, keeping the sentence structure and idioms intact if possible. The NASB and KJV are representatives of this camp. Functional equivalence is typically referred to as a thought-for-thought translation. This is an attempt to translate the text so it has the same effect on the current reader as it had on the ancient reader. The NLT exemplifies this theory. Optimal equivalence falls between the former approaches by balancing the tension between accuracy and ease of reading. While striving for precision in translation, it also seeks clarity to the modern day reader. The ESV leans toward the formal equivalent translation philosophy. The NIV tries to balance these approaches and may lean toward a functional equivalence theory. The HCSB is an optimal equivalence translation. Clendenen, Moo, and Grudem do a fine job at explaining each of these theories while contending for their translations.
You can get a sense of the sometimes contentious discussion over gender-neutral translations issue by listening to their comments on Psalm 1:1 and whether the Hebrew word ish should be translated as “man” or “the one.” Grudem and Clendenen side with “man,” while Moo sides with “the one.” Watch the debate and decide how you think it should be translated.
Do Some Bible Translations Promote Women Pastors?
The presentation on 1 Timothy 2:12 brought out the most intense discussion of the evening. Moo defends the NIV’s translation of “assume authority” for the Greek word authentein by saying that this is an ambiguous phrase in English. Clendenen acknowledges that “assume authority” can mean different things in English, but he rejects that Paul was trying to be ambiguous. The ESV translates “exercise authority,” and the HCSB translates “have authority.” Grudem vehemently rejected the NIV’s final translation of 1 Timothy 2:12.
Several other issues remained unresolved at the conclusion of the evening. Here are two
1.) The HCSB prides itself on a few translation distinctives, including the use of “Yahweh” several hundred times in the Old Testament. Moo’s response was that if “truly, truly” is too difficult for modern readers to understand (which Clendenen stated earlier in the debate), then surely “Yahweh” is ten times more difficult to understand.
2.) Regarding the translation of slave/servant/bondservant, the HCSB consistently translates doulos as “slave” in the New Testament (this is not the case with ebed in the Old Testament). The ESV uses “bondservant” (i.e. 1 Cor. 7), “slave,” and “servant,” depending on the context. The NIV mostly uses “servant,” with some uses of “slave” as well (about thirty).
I’d also like to highlight a few other interesting remarks from the debate:
1.) Grudem doesn’t like term “formal” and contends that the issue of “form”—-that is, retaining the word order from the original—-is a minor issue. The main issue is meaning. He favors the term “essentially literal.”
2.) Moo said that a good translation is “one that makes good decisions” and that “there is no such thing as an ‘undecisioned’ translation.”
3.) Clendenen highlighted the use of notes by the HCSB, showing 11,000 notes available, compared to 6,000 for the ESV and 3,000 for the TNIV.
4.) Grudem argued for the superiority of the ESV in Colossians 2:11 because it leaves the interpretive options open rather than deciding for the reader. However, in the Q&A regarding 1 Timothy 2:12, he said: “We want to allow both views, all right, but not if one of them is a wrong view.”
In the end, the debate was an edifying time. Many who attended said they have more clarity and appreciation for all three translations. I believe that all three would agree that “more literal” does not mean “more accurate.” The “gender-neutral” translation debate will continue. And whether or not the NIV’s translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 advocates women pastors . . . you’ll have to watch and decide for yourself.