The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God's Word to the World

The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God's Word to the World. Edited by Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003, 428 pp., $24.99.

This book is a collection of essays on Bible translation presented in honor of Ronald F. Youngblood, emeritus professor of OT at Bethel Seminary West, San Diego, California. I am pleased to write this review because I have admired Ron for his great intellect, academic accomplishments, and spiritual stature since the days we were fellow students at Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning.

The book is divided into three sections: (1) the theory of Bible translation; (2) the history of Bible translation; and (3) the practice of Bible translation. Each section contains six essays. The book contains a table of contents, a list of contributors, an extensive table of abbreviations, and a subject index, all of which make it user-friendly as a resource. However, it does not have an organized bibliography, but rather a list of resources at the end of each essay; and unfortunately it has endnotes for each essay rather than the more convenient footnotes.

The book clearly is a defense of the TNIV. Most contributors had something to do with that translation and have some association with the International Bible Society's Committee on Bible Translation. Moisés Suva's essay, "Are Translators Traitors? Some Personal Reflections," opens the first section with a discussion of the subtle difficulties inherent in any translation process. His examples of translation difficulties, often drawn from his own experience, illustrate the necessity for translators to be thoroughly conversant in the grammar and culture of both the source and target languages in which they work. He argues that word-for-word translations often fail to accurately convey the meaning intended by the original author, and that translators should concentrate on transferring meaning rather than words from one language to another, thus the need for dynamic (functional) equivalence to be a part of any translational theory.

In the second essay, "Bible Translation Philosophies with Special Reference to the New International Version," Kenneth L. Barker, formerly the executive secretary of the NIV Translation Center, surveys the spectrum of translation theories, placing the Formal Equivalence Theory at one extreme and the Functional (or Dynamic) Equivalence Theory at the other. After discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, he concludes that the middle ground between the two extremes, where he places the NIV, is best for translating the Bible.

D. A. Carson's essay, "The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation-and Other Limits, too," is the third chapter. Before discussing the limits of Functional Equivalence (FE) for Bible translation, Carson presents a number of its benefits, assuring the reader of its overall importance. Attempting to refute the arguments against the use of gender-inclusive language, Carson defends its use in the TNIV. He notes that FE's emphasis on "equivalence of response" invites abuse, and objects that the extension of FE into "far broader issues has been facilitated on the one hand by a variety of faddish theoretical constructs that do not stand up to rigorous scholarship . . . and on the other hand by the epistemological relativism endemic of postmodernism" (p. 97). He warns that FE "must not be permitted to override the historical particularity of the Bible" (p. 99). He also warns that FE "must not be permitted to mask the development of and internal relations within salvation history" (p. 101). He argues against the trend in FE to value style above grammatical and exegetical accuracy. He also warns against the tendency to expect FE to accomplish more than it can, and of the need to be discerning in the use of marginal notes.

The essay in chapter 4 is "Current Issues in the Gender-Language Debate: A Response to Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem" by Mark L. Strauss. After acknowledging several areas of agreement with his antagonists in this debate, Strauss attempts to refute their arguments against the use of gender-inclusive language (GIL) in Bible translation. He disagrees with their definition of GIL, belittles their objection that GIL resulted in the loss of subtle nuances of meaning, and disagrees with their comprehension of when contemporary users of modern English understand masculine nouns and pronouns to be either gender-specific or gender-inclusive. After accusing his antagonists of several linguistic errors, he concludes with a discussion of political and social correctness, giving the impression he thinks GIL will inevitably be accepted as normal in standard English. Strauss and his NIV colleagues evidently have not read Paul Mankowski's essay, "Jesus, Son of Humankind? The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations" (The Thomist, 62 [July 3, 1998]). Mankowski demonstrated that genderinclusive language is found only in literature influenced by the current social agenda, and not in the language and literature of language groups isolated from or indifferent to that agenda. Such people experience none of the gender confusion alleged by inclusivists. It appears that the TNIV, which emphasizes the importance of naturalness, has unnecessarily incorporated an unnatural element (GIL) under pressure from a cultural agenda.

Herbert M. Wolf's essay, "Translation as a Communal Task," constitutes chapter 5. Wolf discusses the value of translation as a team effort as opposed to that of a single scholar. A team can provide the benefit of diversity while working with common values and goals. The communal influence of traditions, such as the KJV, adds stability to a translation. Wolf also discusses the importance of literary studies, the placement of headings, and the role of theology in Bible translation.

In chapter 6, "English Bible Translation in Postmodern Perspective: Reflections of a Critical Theory of Holistic Translation," Charles H. Cosgrove discusses holistic translation from the perspective of canon, rhetorical form, and medium. In addition, with caution, he discusses three dimensions of holistic translation: translingualization, transgenrelization, and transmediatization. Finally, he discusses democratization of translation-making a translation for the whole people of God. The difficulty of this topic is summarized by his own words: "Much of what I assert and describe is too new for any of us to have settled opinions about. I know I don't" (p.159).

Dick France's essay "The Bible in English: an Overview" comprises chapter 7 and launches the second major division of the book. France provides an excellent but brief history of Bible translation, beginning with ancient translations and extending up to the present. His primary focus is on the English Bible. In addition, he discusses some issues associated with Bible translation, including textual criticism, translation theories, the public and private reading of Scripture, and gender-inclusive language.

In chapter 8, "A Translator's Perspective on Alister McGrath's History of the King James Version," Walter W. Wessel provides an excellent review of McGrath's book. McGrath included economic, political, cultural, and religious details lacking in most other histories. From the perspective of a translator, Wessel questions a few of McGrath's statements, but on the whole commends the book as an important contribution.

Kent A. Baton's essay, "Translation Was Not Enough: The Ecumenical and Educational Efforts of James 'Diego' Thomson and the British and Foreign Bible Society," comprises chapter 9. Eaton argues that translation is ineffective unless accompanied by distribution and education, and uses the example of the colportage and educational ministry of James Thomson to illustrate his point. Eaton admires Thomson's ecumenical success in acquiring the cooperation of the Roman Catholic Church in his international activities. Unfortunately, Thomson's failure to follow up his activities resulted in short-lived projects.

In chapter 10, "The New International Version: How It Came to Be," John H. Stek provides an excellent, detailed, but somewhat terse history of the NIV from its inception in the mind of Howard Long to its completion and ongoing revision.

Ronald A. Veenker's essay, "That Fabulous Talking Snake," comprises chapter 11 and is troubling to someone like me who views the early chapters of Genesis as true history composed by Moses. Veenker refers to the Genesis account of the Fall as a "fable" (p. 265) consisting of an "etiological narrative" composed by "creationist narrators" (p. 266) and revised by a number of subsequent redactors (p. 265) whose purpose was "to address the problem of evil" (p. 266). He concludes that "the serpent does not talk because Satan manipulates him. The serpent must speak, or God will be guilty of acting unjustly by human standards" (p. 270, emphasis his). Finally, he explains, "Of course, the 'serpent as Satan' identification grew out of the work of Hellenistic exegetes and found its way into the church fathers. From there it was further elaborated by John Milton in our English tongue" (p. 270).

Chapter 12, David Noel Freedman and David Miano's essay "Slip of the Eye: Accidental Omission in the Masoretic Tradition," concludes the second section of the book. Freedman and Miano propose that accidental omission in the copying of ancient manuscripts was much more common than textual scholars are willing to admit. They support their proposal with a number of convincing examples from the Hebrew Old Testament that can better be explained as accidental omission than otherwise.

Bruce Waltke's "Agur's Apologia for Verbal, Plenary Inspiration: An Exegesis of Proverbs 30:1-6" comprises chapter 13 and introduces the third section of the book. Waltke convincingly demonstrates that this passage does indeed support the doctrine of the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture.

Steven M. Voth's essay, "Justice and/or Righteousness: A Contextualized Analysis of Sedeq in the KJV (English) and RVR (Spanish)," comprises chapter 14. Voth notes that in the majority of cases where the Hebrew word tsedek is translated as "justice" in the Reina Valera Revisada (RVR) Spanish Bible, it is translated as "righteousness" in the KJV. After a contextual and historical study of the meaning of the word, Voth concludes the KJV translators were influenced by political and ecclesiastical pressure to avoid the use of "justice" where it may reflect on the reign of King James, preferring "righteousness" instead. Consequently, Voth proposes the word should be translated in English much more often as "justice."

In chapter 15, "Translating John's Gospel: Challenges and Opportunities," Andreas J. Köstenberger evaluated passages of the Gospel of John in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, isv, NLT, HCSB, ESV, NRSV, and TNiv on the basis of five issues: (1) text; (2) background; (3) ideology; (4) exegesis; and (5) style. The chapter ends with a summary chart that rates the TNIV best among the eight competitors.

Douglas J. Moo's essay, "'Flesh' in Romans: A Challenge for the Translator" (chap. 16), discusses the problem of translating the Greek word sarx as "sinful nature" in the NIV and TNIV. After confessing he was previously critical of translating the word as "sinful nature," he states his further study of the word led him to accept the NIV/TNIV rendering as the best.

The essay of James D. Smith III, "Faith as Substance or Surety: Historical Perspectives on Hypostasis in Hebrews 1:1" (chap. 17), investigates the historical, philosophical, and psychological basis for translating the Greek word hypostasis objectively as "substance" in the KJV or subjectively as "being sure" in the NIV. His conclusion prefers the objective sense.

In chapter 18, "The use of Capital Letters in Translating Scripture into English," Larry Lee Walker surveys the use of initial capital letters in the KJV, NIV, and a number of other modern versions with respect to references to God, the Messiah, and various proper nouns and pronouns. Numerous charts comparing the capitalization practice of the various translations under a variety of conditions indicate the NIV is more complete and consistent than the others.

This book is of value to all who have an interest in the history, theory, and practice of Bible translation, particularly with a focus on the NIV and TNIV.