Jeff at Scripture Zealot has a good post up today on using the word “propitiation” as a shibboleth of sorts in selecting a Bible translation. He likes what he reads in the NLT for Romans 3:25 –
For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us.
– but still fights “against the idea of using a dynamic equivalent translation as [his] main Bible” and “always wonders if more interpreting is going on than with a more literal approach.”
Jeff’s post prompted me to revisit a thought that started to rumble around in my brain the past week or so - namely the idea that when functional translations become accepted as every bit authoritative as formal translations, the Bible translation market is going to break in two directions for the general reader: [1] modestly formal translations like the NRSV, ESV and HCSB for those who want (or are directed) to study the context of the original languages and receivers, and [2] idiomatic functional translations like the NLT for those who want to use the Bible as a living document in their maturing lives.
Traditionally, Bibles have been sold as either literal translations, paraphrases or median translations. The final selling point of median translations always seems to be around “the Bible in today’s language” - no different than what a true functional translation offers. It seems to me that median translation offers buyers a way out in trying to decide between more literal texts and freer language options. To date, the latter have done nothing to assuage the fears, such as those expressed by Jeff above, that somehow the accuracy of the Bible has been sacrificed and that it is necessary to learn Biblish (with words like “propitiation”) to really understand what God says to Christians.
However, as more accurate functional translations (like the NLT, which has been through two revisions) emerge on bookshelves, I’m beginning to think that the median fence may not be so attractive a marketplace to be.
The final stake in the heart of median translation would be a functional translation with a reading level geared toward native English-speaking adults. According to ChristianBook.com, the NLT has a 6th grade reading level. Median translations like the NIV and HCSB are written at a 7th or 8th grade level, while formal translations speak on a level understood by high school and older audiences. If a modern evangelical publisher were to produce a functional translation that doesn’t feel like it is speaking down to an adult Christian, median translation would become obsolete.
Finally, please note that I said “the general reader” at the start of this. I realize that there are academics, hands-on original language students and other niche market audiences that will always require specialized texts, but I’d find it hard to believe that these groups, even added all together, purchase more Bibles than the unwashed masses.
32 Comments
The final stake in the heart of median translation would be a functional translation with a reading level geared toward native English-speaking adults.
Sounds like the REB.
Yes, but you have to add my “if” part to the equation: If a modern evangelical publisher were to produce a functional translation that doesn’t feel like it is speaking down to an adult Christian [...] Oxford has almost no presence in evangelical bookstores - that’s not their market. However, if you don’t get in with the evangelical and mainline bookstores, online or brick/mortar, then there’s no visibility for the average buyer.
Wouldn’t you say the ESV is much more formal as far as being more literal and also the formality of the language and grammar than the HCSB? This is why I like reading the HCSB so much better than the ESV. Would you say the NASB is more formal (not modestly) than the ESV? I always thought the ESV was more than modestly formal and am trying to understand what you mean.
On another note, on one of Nathan Stitt’s reviews he says “I was also pleased to learn from Esteban Vázquez that all of the NLT translators had written at least a commentary on the books that they translated before this translation was produced.” I wonder how the translation would have turned out if they were given the directive to produce a [modestly] formal equivalent translation.
Jeff
Interesting analysis. I suspect that NIV and TNIV are each generally perceived as “a functional translation that doesn’t feel like it is speaking down to an adult Christian”. That would be why the former has been successful, and why the success of the latter may be threatened more by NLT than by ESV.
One other thing. I’m not sure I would say propitiation is Biblish. I see it as a legitimate theological term like justification etc. that people should know. But then again I realize that this post is about general readership.
To me there is plenty of Biblish that are phrases that have been retained from the longstanding Tyndale tradition that make no sense to many of us anymore that the HCSB (and NLT in their own way) have done away with while still retaining a more formal translation and higher reading level.
Jeff
It is an urban legend that propitiation is in the Tyndale NT. Tyndale invented the word “atonement” but the Bishop’s Bible introduced “propitiation” from Latin or French. I am not sure which. I always say, who needs English if you can already read Latin?
Jeff asked: Wouldn’t you say the ESV is much more formal as far as being more literal and also the formality of the language and grammar than the HCSB?
I would say that the ESV is more “traditional” than the HCSB, not more formal. In the comparisons I’ve done, they share a lot of language elements, but the HCSB tends to use more modern grammar, while the ESV retains the KJV/Tyndale “sound”. This, of course, is what makes it so popular with the traditionalists. I also prefer reading the HCSB, mainly because I don’t have any fixed notions about what the Bible *should* sound like. I think that’s because I spent 20+ years reading the NASB as a literal translation, not an English translation. Reading the Bible in English is a relatively new experience for me.
Stan beat me to it with his comment.
Peter noted: I suspect that NIV and TNIV are each generally perceived as “a functional translation that doesn’t feel like it is speaking down to an adult Christian”. That would be why the former has been successful, and why the success of the latter may be threatened more by NLT than by ESV.
Perception is funny - as that wise old sage, Obi-Wan Kenobi, said, it depends on your point of view. For an ESV or NASB user, I would agree with your characterization of the T/NIV. Yet, when pure functional/dynamic translation is discussed, a lot of people seemingly label the T/NIV as a more formal translation that has been functionally smoothed out.
I spent a large part of my life managing a median product in the marketplace. There were a number of competitors, but put the screws to them and they all tend to reveal whether their foundation was, in the language of this case, formal or functional.
I agree with your last assertion, that the TNIV “may be threatened more by NLT than by ESV”, because of how the TNIV has been marketed: youth audience, today’s language, readable but still accurate… all similar characteristics to how the NLT is marketed by Tyndale.
In reading this again, I’m not sure what the difference is between moderately formal, functional and median.
“modestly formal translations like the NRSV, ESV and HCSB”
“idiomatic functional translations like the NLT”
“The final stake in the heart of median translation would be a functional translation with a reading level geared toward native English-speaking adults.”
“Median translations like the NIV and HCSB”
It’s probably just me being dull. I’m a little out of it today.
BTW I wasn’t implying that propitiation is from the Tyndale tradition.
Jeff
BTW I wasn’t implying that propitiation is from the Tyndale tradition.
Not at all. That is what one of the translators of the ESV told me - that it was from Tyndale. But oddly it wasn’t.
Jeff - basically all I’m trying to say is that today there are three buckets we put translations into: formal, median and functional (dynamic). I probably overcooked the adjectives - sorry!
If a mature functional translation came along, I’m not sure that the median bucket would be justified, as you could have (a range of) formal translations for those who are studying from the perspective of the original receivers and functional translations for the application of the Biblical message in today’s lives. The reluctance of publishers to commission higher reading level functional translations seems to have forced adults into the median bucket by default, because there isn’t a widely available alternative (niche translations like the REB and NJB aside).
Would TNIV be functional and NLT be median? Just to understand. Thanks for the clarification.
Sue, I read about the history of Tyndale coming up with the term atonement when I was reading up on the term propitiation and I’m not even a translator or even someone who graduated from college. Do these people not have the Internet?
Temporarily breaking from my stance my not wanting to be critical of translations:
-I refuse to shun the ESV because of what the committee, zealots or marketing people say but they make it very difficult. (Not saying anyone here is doing that.)
-I still like the NASB and prefer it if I want a “literal” translation.
-From my limited exposure to the REB (I’ve been using it for reference) it seems to take some liberties here and there, as in getting into interpretation and the English sounds a little dated for me but I can certainly understand why people like it a lot. And I would think something along these lines done today with a great committee could be outstanding. But I’m in the peanut gallery so I’ll just sit and watch.
Jeff
Would TNIV be functional and NLT be median?
The opposite.
And I would think something along these lines done today with a great committee could be outstanding.
Indeed. That’s all I’m asking for from my seat in the peanut gallery as well…
I do shun the ESV because of 2 Tim. 2:2 and Junia, etc. etc.etc. However, that’s just me. Each to her own.
I would leave myself the possibility of shunning it for reasons of translation. I like your median, er, functional Each to her own.
Jeff
Jeff,
Those are reasons of translation. I actually love their new font!
Yes, I understood your shunning as reasons of translation, just to be clear.
Which new font is that?
My favorite font is the one in the TNIV thinline. I shun the serifs.
Jeff
You are right. The TNIV font is better. I was just trying to be kind. The ESV font was especially designed for them and called “veritas” but it is still pretty traditional. The TNIV has a cleaner, more modern font, supposedly for 18 to 30 year olds, I guess.
The TNIV font is called “New Age” and is a semi-serif style. I don’t care for it myself, but then again I’m more than 30 years old…
I think that’s as close to sans serif as I’m going to get. I’m 43 but for some reason find sans so much easier to read. If only the Serifs would have never invaded England.
Jeff
“New age” vs “veritas” is no contest. On that alone, the ESV have the truth nailed down. I have blogged about why the ESV is not veritas for a woman.
Now I remember the New Age thing coming up a while ago. Coincidence but funny. I just looked up the definition of veritas. Interesting name. I wonder if there is a Latin term for “word for word” or “best”. Thanks for the link.
I got my TNIV for $6. It’s light blue, tan and brown imitation leather. Womanly by my estimation. I called it the “ugly color Bible” because those are some of my least favorite colors. But after I used it to read through Psalms I got to like it.
Jeff
After reading this:
Is the TNIV a Dynamic Equivalent translation?
I’m finally understanding what you’re saying. Functional=Dynamic which you said, but it didn’t sink in. That and your post (and comments) have been very educational.
Jeff
Thanks for that link, Jeff. Wayne wrote that article right around the time that I started blogging and exploring what it meant to read the Bible in English.
P.S. I’d been looking for a simple way to get wysiwyg comments formatting (without using Ajax) and saw the MCE plugin on your site - thanks for the idea!
P.S. I’d been looking for a simple way to get wysiwyg comments formatting (without using Ajax) and saw the MCE plugin on your site - thanks for the idea!
You’re welcome. I noticed you installed it. It came in handy for me already. It’s a pain to have to do the HTML for links. Somebody on the WP forum pointed me to it.
Jeff
By the way, you seem to be on the fence about how you classify the HCSB:
modestly formal translations like the NRSV, ESV and HCSB
Median translations like the NIV and HCSB
I would classify the HCSB as less formal than RSV/NRSV/ESV Tyndale family.
By the way, you seem to be on the fence about how you classify the HCSB:
In many ways, the HCSB can be compared to both the ESV and the NIV. There are large stretches of text, especially in the OT narratives, where the HCSB is almost word-for-word identical to the NIV, which betrays in part its conception as a replacement for the NIV in Lifeway’s Sunday School materials. This is useful for using the HCSB in a NIV church, though there is a little more variance in the NT.
In my NT comparisons, I’ve noted a lot of shared language elements between the HCSB and ESV, but the HCSB uses more modern grammar, while the ESV retains the KJV/Tyndale family “sound”. So I’m not sure if that makes it “less formal” or just “less traditional” - certainly it falls somewhere between the ESV and NIV.
ElShaddai,
I continue to read the HCSB as my main bible, and at this point do notice the difference when I go back and read the ESV. I find the ESV to be more choppy (don’t know how else to describe it) than the HCSB. I just purchased a decent NLT that I am going to start reading, it is compact with very good size fonts, which makes it easy to read. However what I have read I am finding it difficult to make a transition. So keep me in your prayers that I stick to it and give it a fair chance.
I still like the ESV, but it is now my secondary bible, and not my main one. However with the release of the ESV study bible that main change when it comes to study time, but honestly I doubt it.
Thanks for the comments, Robert. The HCSB really does seem to combine some of the better elements of the NIV and ESV - it’s a shame that it’s pretty much unknown in these parts… there’s supposed to be a HCSB Study Bible coming out next year, so that might be a better option?
I have not heard anything regarding a new HCSB study bible. They are not very good at marketing, as of this writing they still do not have a blog for their translation. I just think that they could do so much more.
While it’s definitely true that some adults may feel like the NLT or other dynamic equivalence translations with lower reading levels “talk down” to them, that is not always the case! I’ve been reading on a college level since I was about 10 (I’m now 19) - and I use the NLT, love it, and don’t feel like I’m being talked down to in any way. This didn’t come about through some kind of scholarly comparisons, either - this came from having an NIV normal sized Bible and an NLT pocket Bible, and finding out that I preferred the NLT (at the age of 18). To me, the NLT doesn’t seem “too easy” at all!
Of course, maybe part of this comes from the fact that I have to puzzle through things like the Iliad, the Odyssey, and Paradise Lost..so I don’t want my puzzling through the Bible to be any more difficult than it needs to be?