A random blog surf led me to an article in the Christianity Today archives titled “We Really Do Need Another Bible Translation“, written in October 2001 by Raymond C. Van Leeuwen. In it, Mr. Van Leeuwen explores the concept of functional equivalence (FE) as a translation philosophy, using the NLT, NIV, NRSV, REB and TEV as examples, and provides a history of FE, starting with Eugene Nida and J.B. Phillips, before beginning his critique.
The root of his argument is that FE changes what was written in order to find meaning, but in doing so, obscures “the Bible’s dynamic unity and coherence” throughout the text and “get[s] in the way of readers willing to struggle with the text until they understand it better.” He begins his conclusion with the following:
“My concern has been that the dominance of FE translations has made it more difficult for English readers to know what the Bible actually said. We need an up-to-date translation that is more transparent to the original languages. If the translator’s task is to negotiate the difficult balance between faithfulness to the original text and offering immediate sense in the target language, a direct translation will lean toward the original text.
As a member of Christ’s body and a Bible teacher, I am pleading for a type of translation that is more consistently transparent, so that the original shines through it to the extent permitted by the target language.
A direct translator will in a learned and aesthetically appropriate way use the resources of the target language to richly capture the details of the original, even though readers may be challenged by some of the Bible’s foreignness. The Bible creates a vast context of meaning through cross references and allusions, phrases and metaphors, echoes and types. For readers to discover this type of biblical meaning in their translations, translators of the Bible must be constantly aware of parallel passages, expressions, and images. Where this does not happen, much of the text’s actual meaning may be lost, often to be replaced by modern meanings.”
Finally in the credit text, it mentions that a more extensive treatment of this topic appears in the book After Pentecost: Language and Interpretation (Zondervan, 2002). Has anyone read this book? Is it essentially an “alter call” for the ESV? The published date of this article coincides with the publishing date of the ESV and it’s hard now, almost six years later, not to read some of Crossway’s marketing language back into Mr. Van Leeuwen’s text.
Hi Elshaddai,
these posts of yours are great. I remember Ray van Leeuwen form the days we were both students in Toronto. He is now at Eastern University. He’s a personable chap and he may submit to an interview if you ask.
John
ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com
I haven’t read this particular book, but three others in the series. I would be very surprised if as a whole the book supported this line. The series deals with a wide range of issues on hermeneutics, from a very broad perspective (mainly evangelical but with e.g. some RC contributions). Many of the contributors argue with other contributors in essay and response format. Most volumes quote from NIV, RSV and NRSV primarily, so it’s certainly not an altar call for the ESV. Hope that helps.
Having now read the van Leeuwen article, I don’t think it is an altar call for the ESV either. It’s actually raising some very interesting questions about “cultural distancing” which are, in my view, quite important
Thanks for following up again, Doug. I’ve been re-reading and re-reading that article, gleaning new perspectives each time. Mr. van Leeuwen has elegantly captured many of the issues that I’ve been struggling with in choosing a new translation, but haven’t had the vocabulary to express.
I would be very interested to get more of your thoughts on “cultural distancing” as it applies to translation.
I’ve also been checking his verse examples against the HCSB and found that in every instance I’ve looked at, the HCSB uses the approach that he’s recommending. That might be a useful HCSB/TNIV comparison to post on for those like me who are trying to decide which to use (if not both)… I’ll have to work on that.
John, I’ve written Mr. van Leeuwen an email with some of my questions – I hope he has the time and inclination to respond.
ElShaddai
I remember some debate about this article and/or book when they were new.
the dominance of FE translations … I am pleading for a type of translation that is more consistently transparent; (from the article) FE translations (i.e., most modern translations)
What planet was this guy living on? For at least a century there have been plenty of translations around (in English) of the type he prefers.
NIV may just possibly be fairly described as “influenced by a theory called dynamic or “functional equivalence” (FE) translation”. But it is not, repeat NOT, an FE translation – although it may not be quite as literal as van Leeuwen likes.
Van Leeuwen refers to the work of Ernst-August Gutt, and to Barrie Evans (who I know quite well) who helped him to understand it. Gutt has written an important but very difficult book about translation theory. But, while it offers some valid criticisms of some existing translations, it offers no positive guidance on how to translate. Gutt describes what he calls a “direct translation”, but only in negative terms of what it is not; he has persistently refused to give any practical examples of a “direct translation” or guidelines about how to make one. Without any model to work on, van Leeuwen’s call for a direct translation is a meaningless one. This cannot be interpreted as support for ESV, for Gutt has specifically denied that RSV is a direct translation.
(On Colossians 3:9-10) “The old man … the new man”â”the English words are simple and clear, like the Greek.
Maybe, but the English words are a mistranslation of the Greek, for the English word “man” has a male meaning component which is missing in the Greek word anthropos translated here.
In Colossians 3, “the old man” refers to Adam, … and “the new man” refers to Christ
This is interesting exegesis, but by no means generally accepted, and so a translation should not be made interpretive to privilege this alternative.
I haven’t read the rest of this in detail, but it starts to look like a rant that modern Bible translations don’t support questionable lines of exegesis based on KJV but not accepted by most real scholars.
The Christianity Today article was a popularization of some of the ideas in the article I wrote for the AFTER PENTACOST volume. I was somewhat distressed that David Neff’s editorial foreward to that CT issue introduced the CT piece as if it were a screed on behalf of the ESV. When I wrote the article, I had not even seen the ESV! It has always puzzled me why “real scholars” who attacked my piece did not cite the scholarly article from the After Pentacost volume–and I include here a real scholar like David Carson, whom I respect. My most recent effort in this area is in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible cited above.
Peace,
Ray Van Leeuwen
Thanks for the insight, Peter. I had heard the old/new man:Adam/Christ analogy before reading this article, so it might have been Barclay, whose NT studies are among the few that I’ve read. Though I’ve since read that some consider him (Barclay) to be a bit of a heretic, so I can’t say how solid that piece is.
Maybe, but the English words are a mistranslation of the Greek, for the English word “man” has a male meaning component which is missing in the Greek word anthropos translated here.
Okay, but is “self” or “human nature” really the best translation if what we’re looking at is a gender issue? Not that “the old human beings/the new human beings” is any better. And if Romans 5:12-20 explicitly says man:Adam and man:Jesus Christ, even in the TNIV, why not draw the parallel that van Leeuwen does? Just curious.
I don’t think this is really a gender issue, it has only become one. “Old human being … new human being” may be inelegant, but it is more accurate; so is “old person … new person”.
Note that Romans 5 does not use “old man” of Adam and “new man” of Christ, although they are both called “man” as they were both men. We certainly can’t assume that “old man” and “new” (actually “man” is only implicit in the second case) always mean Adam and Christ, especially when the TNIV interpretation “old self … new self” makes good sense in the context. Indeed I don’t see how the “new (man)” can be Christ because of the following reference to its (or his) Creator. I don’t say that van Leeuwen’s interpretation is necessarily wrong, just that it is by no means certain.
I might suggest “old humanity … new humanity”, as a way of avoiding the excessive individualism with which TNIV might be interpreted and also leave open an allusion to Adam and Christ as the representatives of these two humanities.
I read it last night:
http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/raymond-c-van-leeuwen-on-translation/
Yeah, I know you know that since you left the comment point me to this post of your, but I figured, let’s have as many cross-references as possible.