Collateral Bloggage

When I was in High School and college, I read most of the way through an NIV Bible (The Student Bible), but never finished.  It wasn’t until I had switched to the New American Standard that I finally finished a full read-through.  And even after that, it was some time until I did a cover-to-cover reading of an entire physical Bible.  At this point, I aim to read a different translation every year.   So, I buy myself a cheap copy of whatever translation I’m interested in, and off I go.

This year, I decided it was finally time to go back and do the New International Version, so I’ve been borrowing my son’s Adventure Bible.  My thoughts thus far?

I really liked the New King James.  Although I grew up mostly hearing the NIV in church, and many verses I know come from that translation, I just don’t really appreciate it.  Why?  Well, I don’t like the translation philosophy.  It’s dynamic equivalence, and I prefer formal equivalence.

Time for definitions.  Dynamic equivalence means the translation committee tried to translate thought-for-thought.  Formal means they tried to go word-for-word.  Now, it’s impossible to go word-for-word from the Greek, because word order and suchlike get in the way.  But formal equivalence means they tried to do it as much as humanly possible.

Why do I like it?  Well, I like to know what the original said, and if there’s a tricky turn of phrase or a Hebraism that’s hard for modern readers to understand, I like to know I can go look it up.  With a dynamic equivalence translation, the translator takes that task away from me.  So, basically, I’m reading translation with commentary.  If I want a commentary, I’ll read one.

Of course, like I said, even formal equivalence doesn’t mean I get word-for-word.  Which is why I’m trying to learn Greek.

Now, for the most part, and for the average reader, it doesn’t really amount to a hill of beans whether the translator went with dynamic or formal translation.  If the translator was honest and thorough, you’ll still end up with just about the same thing.  But every now and again (or maybe even just once), you end up with something stinky.  Example?  Head coverings for women.

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul discusses whether or not the women of Corinth (and by extension, all Christian women) should cover their heads during worship.  He discusses the issue quite thoroughly, seeming to lay out the background of the issue.

Now, whether he intended there to be a general teaching for all Christians in perpetuity or now is up for grabs (actually, I think the “it’s all cultural” argument is quite lame).  My concern, though, is what he actually taught?  Why?  Because this is one of those areas where you can read two translations and get two different takes on it.  In 1 Corinthians 11:16, Paul sums up the issue like this (in the NIV):

If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

Cut and dried, right? Paul lays it out, then says if you don’t do it his way, you’re going against both his teaching and the practice of the whole Church. Strong words.

Okay, but what if that’s not what he meant? Try the New King James…

But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Wait. What? No such custom, or no other custom? Obviously, both translations cannot be correct. It’s either there’s no other custom, or there’s no such custom. Which did he mean? For this, we could compare a bunch of other translations, and we’d get a fair split on it. NASB sides with “other,” as does The Message (not that it carries any weight), while NRSV goes with “other.”

Here, we have to go to the Greek. I’ll spare you the lexicon search, but I’ll give you a link to it. I got it from the NET Bible, my new favorite site, and was surprised to see they sided with the NIV on this. Even stranger is this: there seems no warrant for it once you’ve read their lexicon entry (by the way, the word is toioutos):

Definition: 1) such as this, of this kind or sort

I did a search to see if this word is found anywhere else. Yeah. In 1 Corinthians alone, it’s found nine times (or at least variants of it are found). Only in verse 16 of Chapter 11 is it rendered “other.” Every other place (ironic I’m using other here, no?), it’s rendered in the “such as” range.

Why did this happen? I’d rather not speculate, because it looks like conspiracy to me. If you didn’t bring a pro-head-covering philosophy to the passage, and the word is clearly “such,” why would you go with a different translation which carried no precedents?

I hope I didn’t scare anybody off from reading and enjoying the NIV. It’s very readable (although it lacks the style of the New King James - which is not hard to read), and it’s the one found in most pew-backs in the U.S. But, I do hope I’ve emphasized for somebody why it’s important to read more than just one translation.

Wow, did this get long. Sorry about that. Imagine my Power of Purest Boring if ever I actually learn Greek…