In the aftermath of my recent post on the NEB’s literary treatment of James 3, I’ve been having an interesting discussion with Kevin Sam about the authority of Bible translations. This is an issue separate from the typical discussions of the “accuracy” of formal vs. functional translations.
What does it mean to be authoritative? There seem to be at least two sides to measuring “authority”, reflected in the following web definitions of “authoritative”:
- having ascendancy or influence
- highly accurate
- definitive
- in a commanding manner
- supported by evidence and accepted by most experts
- of recognized authority or excellence
- sanctioned by established authority
First, there is the subjective sense of popularity or influence. The more people use a translation, the greater credence it has as an authoritative translation. To this end, Kevin noted that:
These days, the NIV, NKJV and NLT seem to be gaining the most authority in evangelical churches. But it’s funny how we tend to ignore the NKJV on our circle of bibliobloggers, and we also tend to think that the NIV is way out-of-date. Nevertheless, they are still authoritative.
Second, there is an objective measurement of excellence, in which translations are evaluated by various parameters, including literary style, accessibility, readability, accuracy (however you define it), external citations, etc. The authority of a particular translation will depend on what contextual parameter is most important to an audience. For example, we can say that the NRSV is accepted as “authoritative” in academic settings, even while conservative evangelicals reject it for various theological or cultural reasons.
The example of the NIV vs. TNIV was discussed - while the latter is undeniably recognized as containing many improvements that increase the accuracy and readability of the translation, Kevin felt that the NIV is still viewed by most as a more authoritative translation, especially with respect to “how often a translation is quoted by teachers, pastors and Christian publications of any sort.” I’ve been experiencing some of this “authority” in my current church, which is standardized on the NIV as its pew/pulpit Bible translation.
All that said, how do *you* measure authority with respect to Bible translations? I’m not looking for an appeal to the original languages - I applaud those who can refer to the Greek and Hebrew, but the vast majority of Christians across the world read the scriptures in translation and view them as authoritative to their lives.
* * * * *
*Update* Kevin has posted his own thoughts on this topic, including his “authoritative” rankings.
14 Comments
Great question! Since I was set free of my own legalistic approach to finding THE best/most accurate translation, I have adopted a “when in Rome” mentality. I know which Bible most of the pastors at the churches we attend preach from (not that we are members at several, but between visiting parents, grandparents, etc. we can hit 4-5 fairly regularly) and I try to carry that Bible with me.
I would measure authority by how well God speaks to the individual through a given translation. I “get” the NASB, so I get from the NASB. This is not to say that a child who is touched by a children’s version should always regard that version as authoritative, but why not? Jacob called the place where he met God “Beit El,” so I would suggest sort of a “Biblia El” standard, the translation where you meet God.
I would measure authority by how well God speaks to the individual through a given translation [...] I would suggest sort of a “Biblia El” standard, the translation where you meet God.
Yes, I think I get what you’re saying… It’s a subjective measurement and ties in well with the popularity angle that I mentioned above. However, it also raises the question of whether translation authority should be considered from an individual or corporate perspective.
For example, it’s well known that I am fond of the NEB/REB translation line. I view them as authoritative in my life. But I am also aware that very few others regularly use these translations, either individually or corporately. Does that make them less authoritative? Not less accurate, but less influential, definitive, commanding, sanctioned, etc. Should that influence my decision whether to use those translations or not?
Last thing first, no, it should not influence your decision to use those translations for the reasons I suggested above. Whether it should influence your quoting them in a blog post for instance, since most people won’t be able to grab it off the shelf, that’s a good question. I guess if you submit to a particular teaching or teacher, and the teaching is taken from a translation where the passage(s) in question is/are ambiguous, then you’re in quite a pickle. Otherwise, I think you’re safe.
Yeah, I like this angle on the translation discussions. Get this: while I was not too friendly with the NIV, as you know, I am more so with the TNIV.I must say that the NRSV takes me on this roller coaster ride whenever I read it.
Peter noted: Whether it should influence your quoting them in a blog post for instance, since most people won’t be able to grab it off the shelf, that’s a good question.
That’s a great example, Peter. I often quote from the REB when I have time to manually type out the verses, but there’s always that little voice in the back of my head that says, “would it be safer to quote from a translation that more people know and are familiar with?”
After all, I want to make sure that I’m evangelizing the gospel, not a specific translation.
@TC: while I was not too friendly with the NIV, as you know, I am more so with the TNIV.
I get preferring one translation over another, but the question is, do you view the TNIV as more authoritative than the NIV? And if so, why?
I get preferring one translation over another, but the question is, do you view the TNIV as more authoritative than the NIV? And if so, why?
I have to answer this in two ways: 1. According to Kevin’s criterion of usage, then the NIV would be more authoritative. 2. But if we’re going with a translation merits, then I’d say the TNIV for me.
This is so subjective isn’t it? Ultimately, I think authority would have to stem from the wider, more populous usage because one’s personal perspective cannot be authoritative unless it is also accepted by the wider audience.
This is so subjective isn’t it? Ultimately, I think authority would have to stem from the wider, more populous usage because one’s personal perspective cannot be authoritative unless it is also accepted by the wider audience.
Kevin, I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a problem with that: the wider readership does not get into the translation issues that we wrestle with, and I’m not even considering the experts at this point.For all we know the wider readership can be so wrong. I’ve heard pastors say that they only use the NIV because most in their local church use it.
TC, that’s a very good point. I see the wider readership as acting as a safeguard against elitism. There is a potential danger that we, on the inside, and as evangelicals, may become elitist. There’s an innate potential that we might alienate the people, e.g., this has happened in how mainline churches in how they handle theology. And it’s a danger that we evangelicals have avoided for centuries by putting the theology in the hands of the people. But I do see your point though. What we can do is teach the broader church the truth about translations so that good translations filters down and gets used by the people. It’s why I still trust the populous.
It’s why I still trust the populous.Kevin, the populace made a good choice with both the KJV and the NIV despite their shortcomings and seems to be willing to do so with the NLT.
Yes, we still have to listen to the hoi polloi.
Some interesting discussion so far - Peter has suggested that our individual response to the texts, guided by the Holy Spirit, can be viewed as authoritative, while Kevin and TC are finding authority in the mob, so to speak. Both of which speak to the subjective experience of a translation, but not to any objective measurement of excellence.
I’ve noted on several occasions the transition of attending a church that uses the NIV as its pew/pulpit standard. For this community, the NIV is authoritative - it has been chosen, whether by listening to the hoi polloi or by taking direction from a higher committee, as the representation of God’s Word that the church uses for its worship. I can choose to bring another translation to church and read along during the service, but isn’t there a sense of bucking the authority of the church when I make that decision?
I respect what Peter wrote about bringing a Bible that matches what the pastor at a local church he is visiting uses. I consider that to be submitting to the authority of the church to have determined what translation they consider to be their guide. The question is what criteria has the church used to make that selection.
I would measure authority by how well God speaks to the individual through a given translation.
Using this standard, God generally speaks to me through a combination of the REB, NLT, TNIV and NASB working in tandem.
I quite agree.