There’s lots of stuff in this world I will never understand: The popularity of chain restaurants, why certain kinds of camouflage are fashionable and (along those lines) ugly footwear. Perhaps ironically (since most of you know that I’m a Christian) I would also include the Bible in here, because no matter what you think or who you are I don’t think we could ever fully “understand” the Bible.
Ever.
I’m not saying that we can’t learn/teach/preach the Bible, but that we can never grasp all of the truths contained within. It’s just too big and many of the concepts are meant to be wrestled with, not simply answered and checked off our to do list. Let’s take a look at the book of Genesis for example, Genesis 1:27 from the New International Version:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
So God created “him” or God created “them?” Or God created “Man” so where did “female” come from? Tricky yeah? Maybe we should try another translation, maybe the New American Standard:
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Other than a correction of the word “He” (capitalized in reference to God) it doesn’t really help us all that much… One more? Ok, how about Today’s New International Version:
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Ok, so it looks like the only one that even makes since from a logical perspective is the last, right? Which gets to why I’m writing this post.
This week the translators of this last version (Today’s New International Version) were basically forced to say that “decisions surrounding the release of the NIV inclusive language edition and the 2002 revision, Today’s New International Version (TNIV), were mistakes.” Keep in mind that this was also the only version of the above verses that didn’t put us in a logical dilemma, not theological mind you, but logical. The language that was in question is the so-called “gender-inclusive language” (seen above). Another example of this language would be in when Jesus spoke
about seeing a speck of sawdust in “your brother’s eye” yet not seeing the plank in your own eye, Luke 6:41-42 in the NIV text uses the word “brother” four times. But the TNIV leaves “brother untranslated once and otherwise renders it “someone else,” “Friend” and “the other person.”
As a part of this “announcement” Zondervan said that it would no longer publish this version of the bible and that they would be working on a revised 2011 edition removing the “divisive” language found it the most recent version.
William Merrell, a Southern Baptist Convention media spokesman, told the Washington Times “No one is authorized to treat the Bible like Silly Putty.” Though seemingly Merrell had no problem with the bible remaining a logical fallacy in Contemporary English he seems to think that changing the word “man” to “human beings” is an offense to all of Christian theology. The TNIV also received heavy criticism from Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and Jerry Falwell among others. In other (less notorious?) circles the TNIV has been praised as one of the best translations available, including D. A. Carson and Mark Strauss both New Testament professors at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Bethel Seminary West, respectively. Carson and Strauss even went on to write entire books commending the move to a “gender inclusive” language. Two other theologians, Gordan Fee and Douglas Stuart articulate in their book “How to read the Bible for All it’s Worth” (also published by Zondervan, ironically?) “We would venture to say that the TNIV is as good a translation as you will get.”
Be very careful to note that they don’t say “perfect translation” but “as good… as you will get.” The real truth here is that there is no “perfect” translation. Because the bible was written/took place over a period of several thousand years/cultures/and languages there are things we are going to miss when we read it in English in our air conditioned houses with The Beatles playing in the background. There’s just too much context to put into each sentence. Keep in mind that whenever you’re reading “the Bible” you are in fact reading someone’s interpretation of the Bible. There is no such thing as simply “reading the Bible” you are interrupting it as you do so through the words of someone who interpreted it before you. Everyone brings their own interpretation to God’s Word. Interpretation is needed and necessary. (Rob Bell speaks to this in his book Velvet Elvis which I highly recommend)
Fee and Stuart go on to comment on this eternal question of translation, what good is the most theological and technically articulated interpretation of the Bible if no one can read it?
“Our view is that the best theory of translation is the one that remains as faithful as possible to both the original and receptor languages, but that when something has to ‘give,’ it should be in favor of the receptor language–without losing the meaning of the original language, of course–since the very reason for translation is to make these ancient texts accessible to the English-speaking person who does not know the original languages.”
So what do you think? When’s the last time you looked at a woman in church and called her your “brother” in Christ….
For more check out Denver Seminary’s take on it here
