This isn't really a post about Mark Driscoll, who's at it again. Actually, I understand his theology. He didn't even have a tone in the first few moments I watched. I just don't agree with it.
Of course, if he's right, then God hates me and probably you (you wouldn't read this blog if you were predestined to be saved). It's nothing personal. It's just the way God's set it up. You know, he makes us all sin, then saves some of us to show how merciful he is, then blasts the rest of us to hell to show he's a man's Man.
Yeah, that makes sense. :-)
I just thought I'd pull you in for some Greek. blueletterbible.org is now in beta. Looks good. Has some increased functionality that I'll unfortunately learn from my students. I thought I'd do my interlinear shtick with Romans 3:25 since Driscoll wants us only to translate with "propitiation."
3:25 ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον
whom he offered the God [as] atoning sacrifice
"whom God offered [as an] atoning sacrifice..."
διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι
through faith by means of his blood
"in faithfulness, by means of [Jesus'] blood..."
εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ
for a demonstration of the righteousness of him
"as a demonstration of his righteousness..."
διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων
because of the passing over of the having gone before but result remaining sins
"because he had passed over the sins that had taken place previously."
Showing posts with label Mark Driscoll. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Driscoll. Show all posts
Monday, September 02, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
Driscoll and the ESV 6
I've been responding to the 6 reasons Mark Driscoll says Mars Hill uses the ESV. Bottom line: None of them bear up to the barest of examinations. He basically doesn't know what he's talking about.
Throughout, I have affirmed the ESV as a pretty good formal equivalence translation. I've also suggested that on the few occasions where its biases come out, they are not Wesleyan-Arminian. That's why I've suggested the NIV2011 is still probably the best translation for Wesleyan churches to use.
I debate whether I should have written in such a sarcastic tone. I don't know. I don't expect Driscoll to read or even hear about these posts. I promise I would have been the model of courtesy if he or any of his friends had engaged me. My point was not really to attack Mark Driscoll but to give you just a hint of how flimsy his understanding of the Bible is. Why? Because I don't want his thinking to infect my part of the Christian world.
Previous posts include:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.
3. Stay out of semantics; keep your day job.
4. Driscoll likes big words.
5. It was translated for the elect.
Now his final point:
6. The ESV is complementarian.
Now we hit pay dirt. All the rest of that stuff, all the theorizing? Smoke and mirrors. The final point is the real point. Let me tell you a story.
There are differing versions of the origins of the ESV. Obviously there was talk of it before the Colorado Springs guidelines that opponents said Zondervan violated when it came out with the TNIV. A sizable group opposed Zondervan coming out with a translation that used "brothers and sisters" where the Greek read "adelphoi," and when Zondervan published the TNIV, it lost the support of fundamentalist America. This is the real reason the ESV is enjoying so much political support.
Regardless of how long the ESV was in the works, it has only taken the place Driscoll's church and others are giving it because of the backlash against Zondervan over "inclusive language." Driscoll himself corroborates this in his last point. In his last point, he connects together versions like the NIV2011 and the NLT with the extreme The Bible in a More Just Language, which intentionally tries to change the meaning of the text. Suffice it to say, the NIV2011 and NLT are dramatically different from this revisionist version.
First, let me address the "brothers and sisters" debate. Perhaps "brothers" is a more formal equivalence translation. The reason I debate even this statement is because in patriarchal languages, you use the masculine plural if there is a male in the group, even if most of the group is female. That is to say, "brothers" can actually refer to a group that is technically "brothers and sisters." For that reason, "brothers and sisters" is at least a legitimate dynamic equivalence translation of the masculine Greek "adelphoi."
Here is an important point. The NIV, NLT, NRSV have only translated adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" when they believe women were also being addressed. So is Paul only addressing the men in the Thessalonian church when he tells them to flee sexual immorality (1 Thess. 4)? Only when these translation committees believed women were also being addressed did they include the sisters or the mothers. They did not see themselves making the Bible more inclusive but as bringing out an inclusivity that was already there.
Now I respect those who prefer a translation that does not do this sort of thing. But I do think the more dynamic sort of translation is probably more effective at communicating the biblical meaning to people today than the older approach.
However, once again, Driscoll seems off in his interpretations. Take the Hebrew word 'adam. It certainly can be used of a male, but the best reading of Genesis 1:27 seems to include women in it. Here's a straightforward translation of the Hebrew: "And God created the 'adam in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them."
The "him" in the second clause seems to include both male and female, because the third clause unpacks it as including male and female. And the "him" in the second clause is expanding on the 'adam of the first clause. Therefore, the best translation of 'adam in this verse seems to relate to all humans, both male and female--all humankind.
And why is it so important to Driscoll in Psalm 8 that 'adam only refer to men? Surely it is because his misguided theology doesn't have room for women leaders. Surely it is because it is important to him that God have only subjected the earth to men, not to women as well.
Sorry Charlie, the command to rule the earth in Genesis 1:28 is in the plural, given to both male and female from the previous verse. (At this point you should here the swirling sound of Pac Man when the little fellow dies, indicating the failure of Driscoll's apparent attempt to cut women out of the dominion of the earth).
You can see why I don't think the ESV is the best translation for Wesleyans. It's subtle biases rub against our grain, not to mention accuracy. We're a denomination that believes that sons and daughters prophesy (Acts 2:17), that Priscilla may have taken the lead in instructing Apollos (Acts 18:26), that Phoebe was a deacon of the church of Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), and that Junia was quite possibly an apostle like Barnabas (Rom. 16:7).
The Greek word anthropos is just as generic as 'adam, maybe even more. 1 Peter 3:4 says that a woman's adornment should be the hidden anthropos of the heart. Clearly it isn't saying women have a little man inside of them. The word itself means "person."
These are reasons why the TNIV translators considered it "gender accurate" rather than "gender neutral" or "gender inclusive." They intended only to translate generically when that's what the Bible actually meant. In that respect, it is the ESV that has more likely screwed up the gender connotations by making them sound less inclusive than they were.
The ESV is a pretty good formal equivalence translation, but not quite ready to be crowned king of the universe.
Throughout, I have affirmed the ESV as a pretty good formal equivalence translation. I've also suggested that on the few occasions where its biases come out, they are not Wesleyan-Arminian. That's why I've suggested the NIV2011 is still probably the best translation for Wesleyan churches to use.
I debate whether I should have written in such a sarcastic tone. I don't know. I don't expect Driscoll to read or even hear about these posts. I promise I would have been the model of courtesy if he or any of his friends had engaged me. My point was not really to attack Mark Driscoll but to give you just a hint of how flimsy his understanding of the Bible is. Why? Because I don't want his thinking to infect my part of the Christian world.
Previous posts include:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.
3. Stay out of semantics; keep your day job.
4. Driscoll likes big words.
5. It was translated for the elect.
Now his final point:
6. The ESV is complementarian.
Now we hit pay dirt. All the rest of that stuff, all the theorizing? Smoke and mirrors. The final point is the real point. Let me tell you a story.
There are differing versions of the origins of the ESV. Obviously there was talk of it before the Colorado Springs guidelines that opponents said Zondervan violated when it came out with the TNIV. A sizable group opposed Zondervan coming out with a translation that used "brothers and sisters" where the Greek read "adelphoi," and when Zondervan published the TNIV, it lost the support of fundamentalist America. This is the real reason the ESV is enjoying so much political support.
Regardless of how long the ESV was in the works, it has only taken the place Driscoll's church and others are giving it because of the backlash against Zondervan over "inclusive language." Driscoll himself corroborates this in his last point. In his last point, he connects together versions like the NIV2011 and the NLT with the extreme The Bible in a More Just Language, which intentionally tries to change the meaning of the text. Suffice it to say, the NIV2011 and NLT are dramatically different from this revisionist version.
First, let me address the "brothers and sisters" debate. Perhaps "brothers" is a more formal equivalence translation. The reason I debate even this statement is because in patriarchal languages, you use the masculine plural if there is a male in the group, even if most of the group is female. That is to say, "brothers" can actually refer to a group that is technically "brothers and sisters." For that reason, "brothers and sisters" is at least a legitimate dynamic equivalence translation of the masculine Greek "adelphoi."
Here is an important point. The NIV, NLT, NRSV have only translated adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" when they believe women were also being addressed. So is Paul only addressing the men in the Thessalonian church when he tells them to flee sexual immorality (1 Thess. 4)? Only when these translation committees believed women were also being addressed did they include the sisters or the mothers. They did not see themselves making the Bible more inclusive but as bringing out an inclusivity that was already there.
Now I respect those who prefer a translation that does not do this sort of thing. But I do think the more dynamic sort of translation is probably more effective at communicating the biblical meaning to people today than the older approach.
However, once again, Driscoll seems off in his interpretations. Take the Hebrew word 'adam. It certainly can be used of a male, but the best reading of Genesis 1:27 seems to include women in it. Here's a straightforward translation of the Hebrew: "And God created the 'adam in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them."
The "him" in the second clause seems to include both male and female, because the third clause unpacks it as including male and female. And the "him" in the second clause is expanding on the 'adam of the first clause. Therefore, the best translation of 'adam in this verse seems to relate to all humans, both male and female--all humankind.
And why is it so important to Driscoll in Psalm 8 that 'adam only refer to men? Surely it is because his misguided theology doesn't have room for women leaders. Surely it is because it is important to him that God have only subjected the earth to men, not to women as well.
Sorry Charlie, the command to rule the earth in Genesis 1:28 is in the plural, given to both male and female from the previous verse. (At this point you should here the swirling sound of Pac Man when the little fellow dies, indicating the failure of Driscoll's apparent attempt to cut women out of the dominion of the earth).
You can see why I don't think the ESV is the best translation for Wesleyans. It's subtle biases rub against our grain, not to mention accuracy. We're a denomination that believes that sons and daughters prophesy (Acts 2:17), that Priscilla may have taken the lead in instructing Apollos (Acts 18:26), that Phoebe was a deacon of the church of Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), and that Junia was quite possibly an apostle like Barnabas (Rom. 16:7).
The Greek word anthropos is just as generic as 'adam, maybe even more. 1 Peter 3:4 says that a woman's adornment should be the hidden anthropos of the heart. Clearly it isn't saying women have a little man inside of them. The word itself means "person."
These are reasons why the TNIV translators considered it "gender accurate" rather than "gender neutral" or "gender inclusive." They intended only to translate generically when that's what the Bible actually meant. In that respect, it is the ESV that has more likely screwed up the gender connotations by making them sound less inclusive than they were.
The ESV is a pretty good formal equivalence translation, but not quite ready to be crowned king of the universe.
Are you chosen to understand? 5
Almost done watching Mark Driscoll jump the shark on the ESV... I'm wondering if his church has had just about enough of his noodle whippings.
Previous posts include:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.
3. Stay out of semantics; keep your day job.
4. Driscoll likes big words.
His fifth point is:
5. Scripture isn't always easy to understand.
I believe there is a touch of Driscoll's 5 point Calvinism hiding in this one. Not everyone is predestined to "have ears to hear" and therefore there's no point in trying to make the Bible as clear as possible, because God has just made some people seed to be eaten by the birds. Notice how he words the first couple lines: "God loves the whole world... and we should seek to reach as many people as possible" (italics mine). Subtext--God himself is not trying to reach everyone, although we should because we don't know who is predestined.
This undertone is mixed with other comments: "There’s no doubt that we should make every effort to have the Bible translated in words that as many people as possible can understand. But we must also be careful not to cross a line where we change God’s words in hopes that more people will be willing to accept them." That doesn't sound too bad in itself, but he's just plain wrong in where he thinks the line is, as we've seen in the previous posts.
So does translating "justify" with "put us in right standing" (the Message) cross the line? Not in the slightest. IMO this is an excellent translation that makes the sense of "justify" really clear. Are modern translations avoiding "propitiation" because they don't like the idea of God's wrath? I seriously doubt it. And, like I implied in the last post, "propitiate" contradicts Driscoll's earlier desire only to translate what it says and to leave the interpretation to commentaries.
In the end, I don't think Driscoll really means it when he says, "we should make every effort to have the Bible translated in words that as many people as possible can understand." His approach is filled with the theological orientation that says, God will enable a lucky few to reach up to him rather than that God tries to reach down to everyone. By contrast, God's revelatory principle is the incarnation principle. Revelation is God reaching down to us, meeting us where we are and moving us along. It is not God bringing us up fully to where he is.
God has always "dumbed down" the message--our human minds are not capable of understanding him fully or on a completely literal level. God would rather people understand something rather than nothing. His normal operating mode is to speak to us like children who can only understand the barest amount. The only full revelation of God is Jesus Christ. Anything else is idolatry, setting up an image of God in our minds.
Previous posts include:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.
3. Stay out of semantics; keep your day job.
4. Driscoll likes big words.
His fifth point is:
5. Scripture isn't always easy to understand.
I believe there is a touch of Driscoll's 5 point Calvinism hiding in this one. Not everyone is predestined to "have ears to hear" and therefore there's no point in trying to make the Bible as clear as possible, because God has just made some people seed to be eaten by the birds. Notice how he words the first couple lines: "God loves the whole world... and we should seek to reach as many people as possible" (italics mine). Subtext--God himself is not trying to reach everyone, although we should because we don't know who is predestined.
This undertone is mixed with other comments: "There’s no doubt that we should make every effort to have the Bible translated in words that as many people as possible can understand. But we must also be careful not to cross a line where we change God’s words in hopes that more people will be willing to accept them." That doesn't sound too bad in itself, but he's just plain wrong in where he thinks the line is, as we've seen in the previous posts.
So does translating "justify" with "put us in right standing" (the Message) cross the line? Not in the slightest. IMO this is an excellent translation that makes the sense of "justify" really clear. Are modern translations avoiding "propitiation" because they don't like the idea of God's wrath? I seriously doubt it. And, like I implied in the last post, "propitiate" contradicts Driscoll's earlier desire only to translate what it says and to leave the interpretation to commentaries.
In the end, I don't think Driscoll really means it when he says, "we should make every effort to have the Bible translated in words that as many people as possible can understand." His approach is filled with the theological orientation that says, God will enable a lucky few to reach up to him rather than that God tries to reach down to everyone. By contrast, God's revelatory principle is the incarnation principle. Revelation is God reaching down to us, meeting us where we are and moving us along. It is not God bringing us up fully to where he is.
God has always "dumbed down" the message--our human minds are not capable of understanding him fully or on a completely literal level. God would rather people understand something rather than nothing. His normal operating mode is to speak to us like children who can only understand the barest amount. The only full revelation of God is Jesus Christ. Anything else is idolatry, setting up an image of God in our minds.
Driscoll Likes Big Words 4
The ESV is a fine formal equivalence translation with the occasional low-Calvinist dynamic translation. Mark Driscoll, however, wants to crown it king of the universe and discourage you from using the NIV or the NLT. I think you should use multiple versions if you don't know Greek and Hebrew, and that it's perfectly fine to use dynamic equivalence translations.
My previous posts include:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.
3. Stay out of semantics; keep your day job.
His fourth argument is
4. The ESV uses theological nomenclature.
Basically, the ESV uses big theological words you should know like "justification" and "propitiation." Driscoll objects to translating the word "justify" with the NLT's "declare us righteous" or the Message's "put us in right standing."
Really? Does Driscoll really think that we will always be able to find one word in English that corresponds to each word in Greek? Shall I critique the ESV for using the word "guarantee" to translate the Greek word arrabon in 2 Cor. 1:22 and Eph. 1:14? The KJV's "earnest" would be better, and fits Driscoll's fetish for archaic words.
But frankly, the NIV does a great job of unpacking the agreed meaning of this Greek word: "a deposit, guaranteeing..." Unless you want to use the word "earnest" (which the ESV apparently didn't want to use), it's going to take more than one word to get the meaning as much into English as possible. It's really hard to believe Driscoll could really think you're usually going to be able to translate one word for one word. Is he really that linguistically incompetent?
And does he really think that the translation, "propitiation," is any less interpretive than "put us in right standing"? Frankly, there's more agreement among scholars on "put us in right standing" as the meaning of "to justify" than there is on "propitiation" as a translation of the Greek word hilasterion. I personally think the NLT's "sacrifice for sin" and the NIV's "sacrifice of atonement" are much less interpretive translations than the ESV's "propitiation."
I like "theological nomenclature" too. I'm delighted to see people learn it. But like God "I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words" in theological nomenclature.
P.S. His use of proof-texts is just atrocious. What is 1 Corinthians 4:6 about, not to go beyond what is written? It sure doesn't have anything to do with translation philosophy. And does he really think Proverbs 30:5-6 is about translating word for word? A word from the Lord is something bigger than a single word.
My previous posts include:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.
3. Stay out of semantics; keep your day job.
His fourth argument is
4. The ESV uses theological nomenclature.
Basically, the ESV uses big theological words you should know like "justification" and "propitiation." Driscoll objects to translating the word "justify" with the NLT's "declare us righteous" or the Message's "put us in right standing."
Really? Does Driscoll really think that we will always be able to find one word in English that corresponds to each word in Greek? Shall I critique the ESV for using the word "guarantee" to translate the Greek word arrabon in 2 Cor. 1:22 and Eph. 1:14? The KJV's "earnest" would be better, and fits Driscoll's fetish for archaic words.
But frankly, the NIV does a great job of unpacking the agreed meaning of this Greek word: "a deposit, guaranteeing..." Unless you want to use the word "earnest" (which the ESV apparently didn't want to use), it's going to take more than one word to get the meaning as much into English as possible. It's really hard to believe Driscoll could really think you're usually going to be able to translate one word for one word. Is he really that linguistically incompetent?
And does he really think that the translation, "propitiation," is any less interpretive than "put us in right standing"? Frankly, there's more agreement among scholars on "put us in right standing" as the meaning of "to justify" than there is on "propitiation" as a translation of the Greek word hilasterion. I personally think the NLT's "sacrifice for sin" and the NIV's "sacrifice of atonement" are much less interpretive translations than the ESV's "propitiation."
I like "theological nomenclature" too. I'm delighted to see people learn it. But like God "I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words" in theological nomenclature.
P.S. His use of proof-texts is just atrocious. What is 1 Corinthians 4:6 about, not to go beyond what is written? It sure doesn't have anything to do with translation philosophy. And does he really think Proverbs 30:5-6 is about translating word for word? A word from the Lord is something bigger than a single word.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Driscoll Linguistic Confusion 3
This is now my third post burning Driscoll's hermeneutic in effigy. Again, the ESV is an excellent formal equivalence translation with a few Reformed edges. I don't recommend it for Wesleyans, but it's a fine translation if you're a Calvinist. I'm attempting to excoriate Driscoll's arguments for why he thinks the ESV should stuff your NLT or NIV down the toilet.
So far:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.
His third reason he thinks the ESV is the best is because...
3. Words carry meaning.
I was a little puzzled at what he was arguing here. Was he going to mount a sophisticated argument against deconstruction, which holds that words do not have stable meanings and that the meaning of texts is inevitably uncertain? If so, I do believe that words can have stable meanings when we know the context in which they are used.
Was he going to mount an attempt to undermine Wittgenstein and the sense that the meaning of a word is in the way it is used? Was he going to argue for the picture theory of language Augustine had? That would have been foolish, because a few simple examples would have unraveled that attempt.
Was he even going to argue against the likes of card-carrying conservative evangelical D. A. Carson and pooh-pooh the very notion of word fallacies like
Nah, nothing that sophisticated. I think he's just sayin' that the meaning of a sentence somehow adds up the meanings of the individual words, such that if you try to translate thought for thought instead of word for word, you've changed the meaning.
Is that what he's really saying, because that's just plain dumb? Let me give you a word for word translation of Galatians 3:17: "covenant having been ratified by the God the after four hundred and thirty years having come to be Law not nullify into the to cancel the promise." You can't really recapture the emphasis of this sentence in English because you pretty much have to put the object after the verb: "The Law [that] came into existence after 430 years cannot nullify a covenant that was ratified by God with the result that it cancels the promise."
That would be a pretty good formal equivalence translation, with some words added even there. Notice that it's impossible to come up with a good translation without moving the words around, adding some to make the English flow and taking away a couple others.
Now how about this as a dynamic translation: "The Law of Moses, which did not exist until 430 years after God made his promise to Abraham, cannot cancel that promise." Have I changed the meaning by adding words like Moses and Abraham? Or have I actually clarified the meaning that was already there?
Basically, Driscoll seems to be making a fool of himself here. Paul Ricoeur has in fact argued against the deconstruction I mentioned above by suggesting that meaning is more a matter of sentences than individual words. The meaning of individual words is slippery in themselves. What does the word "fire" mean?
So far:
1. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
2. All translation involves interpretation.
His third reason he thinks the ESV is the best is because...
3. Words carry meaning.
I was a little puzzled at what he was arguing here. Was he going to mount a sophisticated argument against deconstruction, which holds that words do not have stable meanings and that the meaning of texts is inevitably uncertain? If so, I do believe that words can have stable meanings when we know the context in which they are used.
Was he going to mount an attempt to undermine Wittgenstein and the sense that the meaning of a word is in the way it is used? Was he going to argue for the picture theory of language Augustine had? That would have been foolish, because a few simple examples would have unraveled that attempt.
Was he even going to argue against the likes of card-carrying conservative evangelical D. A. Carson and pooh-pooh the very notion of word fallacies like
- the lexical fallacy (which supposes that all instances of a word carry around some root meaning),
- the etymological fallacy (which supposes that the history of a word in some way tells you the meaning of a word today), or
- the overload fallacy (which reads too much ideology into an individual instance of a word).
Nah, nothing that sophisticated. I think he's just sayin' that the meaning of a sentence somehow adds up the meanings of the individual words, such that if you try to translate thought for thought instead of word for word, you've changed the meaning.
Is that what he's really saying, because that's just plain dumb? Let me give you a word for word translation of Galatians 3:17: "covenant having been ratified by the God the after four hundred and thirty years having come to be Law not nullify into the to cancel the promise." You can't really recapture the emphasis of this sentence in English because you pretty much have to put the object after the verb: "The Law [that] came into existence after 430 years cannot nullify a covenant that was ratified by God with the result that it cancels the promise."
That would be a pretty good formal equivalence translation, with some words added even there. Notice that it's impossible to come up with a good translation without moving the words around, adding some to make the English flow and taking away a couple others.
Now how about this as a dynamic translation: "The Law of Moses, which did not exist until 430 years after God made his promise to Abraham, cannot cancel that promise." Have I changed the meaning by adding words like Moses and Abraham? Or have I actually clarified the meaning that was already there?
Basically, Driscoll seems to be making a fool of himself here. Paul Ricoeur has in fact argued against the deconstruction I mentioned above by suggesting that meaning is more a matter of sentences than individual words. The meaning of individual words is slippery in themselves. What does the word "fire" mean?
- Ready, aim, fire!
- You're fired.
- Come on, baby, light my fire.
- Fire!
- Is that a fire?
Driscoll Shark-Jumping 2
OK, I couldn't wait till tomorrow. Mark Driscoll has, in my opinion, gone too far in trying to make the ESV the new KJV of evangelicalism. He has six reasons why his church uses the blessed ESV.
In a previous post, I was a bit mocking of the contradiction of saying God is obsessed with the precise wording of the Bible and yet using an English translation at all, let alone one that does not represent the wording most Christians have used in worship throughout church history. Let's call that post, "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
In his second point, his eminence tells us all not to use dynamic equivalence translations like the NLT or the Message.
2. What it says comes before what it means.
Driscoll is saying that commentaries should unpack what the Bible means but that a translation should try its best to render the text as it is. A translation that tries to stick fairly closely to the sentence structure of the original is called a formal equivalence translation. One that tries to render the thought in idiomatic English is a dynamic equivalence translation. A free translation or paraphrase is one that is very free in trying to translate the basic thoughts in equivalent categories in the target culture.
Again, don't get me wrong. I myself prefer formal equivalent translations like the ESV and RSV. But for preaching, I prefer a translation that brings out the message the sermon is about. It should be a both/and, not an either/or. Even among formal equivalence translations, it is good to use more than one.
There are two rubs here. The first is that all translation involves interpretation. It is impossible simply to translate "what it says" and leave the "what it means" to the interpreter. A translation often has to choose to go one way or another. That's why it is good to use more than one if you do not know Greek and Hebrew.
In fact, it is with fiendish delight that I notice Driscoll contradicting himself on his #6, where he compliments the ESV for translating in a complementarian way. So take Romans 16:7. The NIV2011 gives us exactly the kind of translation Driscoll is talking about: "Greet Andronicus and Junia... They are outstanding among the apostles." No doubt he prefers the ESV's version: "Greet Andronicus and Junia... They are well known to the apostles."
The ESV wants to make sure you don't think Junia, a woman, was an apostle. Accordingly, the ESV has given us a "dynamic" translation that is possible, but it does exactly what Driscoll is condemning the other translations for--doing the interpretation for us.
Physician, heal thyself.
The more important rub is that the NT authors wouldn't know what the heck he's talking about. As I mentioned in the last post, the NT authors felt entirely free to change the wording of OT texts they were quoting because it was the spirit rather than the letter of Scripture that they were interested in. A free translation like The Message is a far better example of how the NT authors used the OT than the ESV.
I came across one such passage this afternoon in John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." The problem is, what text is Jesus/John quoting??? The best suggestion I've heard is Isaiah 55:1--"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters."
Yep, you know what you're talking about, Mark. Jesus sure was preoccupied with a literal translation, wasn't he?
In a previous post, I was a bit mocking of the contradiction of saying God is obsessed with the precise wording of the Bible and yet using an English translation at all, let alone one that does not represent the wording most Christians have used in worship throughout church history. Let's call that post, "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
In his second point, his eminence tells us all not to use dynamic equivalence translations like the NLT or the Message.
2. What it says comes before what it means.
Driscoll is saying that commentaries should unpack what the Bible means but that a translation should try its best to render the text as it is. A translation that tries to stick fairly closely to the sentence structure of the original is called a formal equivalence translation. One that tries to render the thought in idiomatic English is a dynamic equivalence translation. A free translation or paraphrase is one that is very free in trying to translate the basic thoughts in equivalent categories in the target culture.
Again, don't get me wrong. I myself prefer formal equivalent translations like the ESV and RSV. But for preaching, I prefer a translation that brings out the message the sermon is about. It should be a both/and, not an either/or. Even among formal equivalence translations, it is good to use more than one.
There are two rubs here. The first is that all translation involves interpretation. It is impossible simply to translate "what it says" and leave the "what it means" to the interpreter. A translation often has to choose to go one way or another. That's why it is good to use more than one if you do not know Greek and Hebrew.
In fact, it is with fiendish delight that I notice Driscoll contradicting himself on his #6, where he compliments the ESV for translating in a complementarian way. So take Romans 16:7. The NIV2011 gives us exactly the kind of translation Driscoll is talking about: "Greet Andronicus and Junia... They are outstanding among the apostles." No doubt he prefers the ESV's version: "Greet Andronicus and Junia... They are well known to the apostles."
The ESV wants to make sure you don't think Junia, a woman, was an apostle. Accordingly, the ESV has given us a "dynamic" translation that is possible, but it does exactly what Driscoll is condemning the other translations for--doing the interpretation for us.
Physician, heal thyself.
The more important rub is that the NT authors wouldn't know what the heck he's talking about. As I mentioned in the last post, the NT authors felt entirely free to change the wording of OT texts they were quoting because it was the spirit rather than the letter of Scripture that they were interested in. A free translation like The Message is a far better example of how the NT authors used the OT than the ESV.
I came across one such passage this afternoon in John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." The problem is, what text is Jesus/John quoting??? The best suggestion I've heard is Isaiah 55:1--"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters."
Yep, you know what you're talking about, Mark. Jesus sure was preoccupied with a literal translation, wasn't he?
Driscoll Jumps the Shark on the ESV (part 1)
Mark Driscoll occasionally has some good things to say, I believe. But in general, I think of him as someone whose overall effect on American Christianity is more negative than positive. Today, however, I would like to talk about him being the occasional idiot.
Before well meaning Wesleyans read his recent, almost "ESV only" rant, I want to make my position clear. You see, when some well-meaning Wesleyan takes up his ideas, I'll be very civil in my disagreement. But since I don't know Mark Driscoll and it isn't an issue in my circles--and I want to keep it from being one--I feel quite free to mock his nonsense with all the gift of satire you know me to possess.
Now don't get me wrong. The ESV is a pretty good translation for the most part, I think. It is not a Wesleyan-preferred translation, because of Driscoll's #6 (complementarian). But in most places it is a very good formal equivalence translation. I like formal equivalence translations myself, not because they are the best translations but because I personally like my translation to be as close a window into the original languages as possible. In other words, I use them to slack off reading the Greek and Hebrew itself.
In any case, here are Driscoll's 7 reasons why Mars Hill uses the ESV. P.S. I kept thinking of "KJV only" people as I read this. Of course he has the same spirit as those people. He's just a twenty-first century version. I think of these sort of people as conservative in their ignorance. They try to hold on to as much of the ignorance of the past as possible, while only becoming just as much more enlightened as reality forces them to. The next generation of them will mock Driscoll, but maintain the same attitude in relation to whatever the issue is then in the future.
1. ESV holds that the Bible is the literal words, not just thoughts of God.
I had a talk with a former KJV only person a couple weeks ago. Funny, he brought up these sorts of verses. I pointed out Galatians 5:14 where Paul says the Law is fulfilled in one word--"Love your neighbor as yourself." A word, in this context, is an entire thought, as we would expect in an oral, non-literate culture (rather than a literary one).
There is an inevitable circularity to arguments like these from people like Driscoll and Piper. This verse means what words mean in my twentieth century vocabulary so that I can tell you what they mean today. But these weren't words written in twentieth century English. Their meanings come from what words meant in the ancient Hebrew and Greek used at the time and place when they were written down, informed by their socio-cultural context (such as the fact that it was an oral culture). This is why NT Wright was able to give John Piper a thorough spanking on justification some time back. Piper insists on defining Paul using Calvin's sixteenth century definitions to words instead of those the Jews were actually using two thousand years ago.
Everything we know about the way both the biblical authors and the copyists of biblical texts operated suggest that it was the spirit of the text that they were interested in. Listen to Matthew's paraphrase of who knows what verse in Matthew 2:23. The words of the prophets, plural, somehow suggest that Jesus will be born in Nazareth? Nazareth didn't exist at the time. The sentence structure is a little like Judges 13:7, but that's talking about a Nazirite, something completely different. A word similar to Nazareth is used in Isaiah 11:1, but read that verse and see if Matthew 2:23 comes across as paying close attention to the word-for-word like Driscoll is talking about.
In short, Driscoll has NO IDEA what he is talking about. An actual examination of the way the NT interprets the OT undermines his claim here so seriously that he runs the risk of causing a faith crisis in the lives of any in his congregation who ever go on to do serious study of the Bible. As is typical, he makes his points by his modern definitions of the Bible's words, but he does not look at what the Bible actually does with those words, which is where their real meaning is revealed.
More to the point, if the wording is that important, he'd better stop using an English translation altogether. He should go like the Muslims and only read the Quran in Arabic. If the individual words are that important, then ANY English translation mucks it up.
And why isn't he arguing for the text of the King James then? If the word-for-word is that important to God, why did God allow Christians to use the "wrong" text for fifteen hundred years? The ESV is based on the older manuscripts, not the majority of manuscripts. The ESV implicitly does not assume that God preserved the exact text of the Bible in the worship of believers for over a 1000 years.
I'll tell you why. It's because that's not the social group in which Driscoll is located or its issues. In his inherited tradition, the KJV thing isn't an issue, but complementarianism is. He supports the ESV ultimately because of the politics of the ESV's creation. All the rest is smoke and mirrors, arguments invented after the fact to maintain as conservative an ignorance as possible.
More to come tomorrow...
Before well meaning Wesleyans read his recent, almost "ESV only" rant, I want to make my position clear. You see, when some well-meaning Wesleyan takes up his ideas, I'll be very civil in my disagreement. But since I don't know Mark Driscoll and it isn't an issue in my circles--and I want to keep it from being one--I feel quite free to mock his nonsense with all the gift of satire you know me to possess.
Now don't get me wrong. The ESV is a pretty good translation for the most part, I think. It is not a Wesleyan-preferred translation, because of Driscoll's #6 (complementarian). But in most places it is a very good formal equivalence translation. I like formal equivalence translations myself, not because they are the best translations but because I personally like my translation to be as close a window into the original languages as possible. In other words, I use them to slack off reading the Greek and Hebrew itself.
In any case, here are Driscoll's 7 reasons why Mars Hill uses the ESV. P.S. I kept thinking of "KJV only" people as I read this. Of course he has the same spirit as those people. He's just a twenty-first century version. I think of these sort of people as conservative in their ignorance. They try to hold on to as much of the ignorance of the past as possible, while only becoming just as much more enlightened as reality forces them to. The next generation of them will mock Driscoll, but maintain the same attitude in relation to whatever the issue is then in the future.
1. ESV holds that the Bible is the literal words, not just thoughts of God.
I had a talk with a former KJV only person a couple weeks ago. Funny, he brought up these sorts of verses. I pointed out Galatians 5:14 where Paul says the Law is fulfilled in one word--"Love your neighbor as yourself." A word, in this context, is an entire thought, as we would expect in an oral, non-literate culture (rather than a literary one).
There is an inevitable circularity to arguments like these from people like Driscoll and Piper. This verse means what words mean in my twentieth century vocabulary so that I can tell you what they mean today. But these weren't words written in twentieth century English. Their meanings come from what words meant in the ancient Hebrew and Greek used at the time and place when they were written down, informed by their socio-cultural context (such as the fact that it was an oral culture). This is why NT Wright was able to give John Piper a thorough spanking on justification some time back. Piper insists on defining Paul using Calvin's sixteenth century definitions to words instead of those the Jews were actually using two thousand years ago.
Everything we know about the way both the biblical authors and the copyists of biblical texts operated suggest that it was the spirit of the text that they were interested in. Listen to Matthew's paraphrase of who knows what verse in Matthew 2:23. The words of the prophets, plural, somehow suggest that Jesus will be born in Nazareth? Nazareth didn't exist at the time. The sentence structure is a little like Judges 13:7, but that's talking about a Nazirite, something completely different. A word similar to Nazareth is used in Isaiah 11:1, but read that verse and see if Matthew 2:23 comes across as paying close attention to the word-for-word like Driscoll is talking about.
In short, Driscoll has NO IDEA what he is talking about. An actual examination of the way the NT interprets the OT undermines his claim here so seriously that he runs the risk of causing a faith crisis in the lives of any in his congregation who ever go on to do serious study of the Bible. As is typical, he makes his points by his modern definitions of the Bible's words, but he does not look at what the Bible actually does with those words, which is where their real meaning is revealed.
More to the point, if the wording is that important, he'd better stop using an English translation altogether. He should go like the Muslims and only read the Quran in Arabic. If the individual words are that important, then ANY English translation mucks it up.
And why isn't he arguing for the text of the King James then? If the word-for-word is that important to God, why did God allow Christians to use the "wrong" text for fifteen hundred years? The ESV is based on the older manuscripts, not the majority of manuscripts. The ESV implicitly does not assume that God preserved the exact text of the Bible in the worship of believers for over a 1000 years.
I'll tell you why. It's because that's not the social group in which Driscoll is located or its issues. In his inherited tradition, the KJV thing isn't an issue, but complementarianism is. He supports the ESV ultimately because of the politics of the ESV's creation. All the rest is smoke and mirrors, arguments invented after the fact to maintain as conservative an ignorance as possible.
More to come tomorrow...
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Evans' letter to a young Calvinist from a young Arminian...
A colleague, as well as Scot McKnight's blog, pointed out Rachel Held Evans' blog post this week: "Letters to a Young Calvinist from a Young Arminian." She is quite right that there are many fine five point Calvinists out there whose hearts are as my heart. I am thankful that the strident and militant ones seem oh so irrelevant to my ministry and teaching.
Delighted to be your brother-in-Christ, irenic five pointers out there. And don't be intimidated, oh ye Arminians who believe God truly would prefer for everyone to be saved. The entire Calvinist system deconstructs on the fact that Paul himself did not consider his salvation secure (1 Cor. 9:27; Phil. 3:11). But if it is possible for the justified not to make it, then those who are elect are not certain to persevere (Heb. 3:6, 14), then God's grace is not irresistible in his design (cf. Heb. 10:29), then election is not unconditional (cf. 2 Pet. 1:10). The whole system falls like a deck of cards. ;-)
So who cares about Piper, Driscoll, or Mohler? They blow away with a puff of wind, leaving the rest of us to go on trying to save everyone.
Delighted to be your brother-in-Christ, irenic five pointers out there. And don't be intimidated, oh ye Arminians who believe God truly would prefer for everyone to be saved. The entire Calvinist system deconstructs on the fact that Paul himself did not consider his salvation secure (1 Cor. 9:27; Phil. 3:11). But if it is possible for the justified not to make it, then those who are elect are not certain to persevere (Heb. 3:6, 14), then God's grace is not irresistible in his design (cf. Heb. 10:29), then election is not unconditional (cf. 2 Pet. 1:10). The whole system falls like a deck of cards. ;-)
So who cares about Piper, Driscoll, or Mohler? They blow away with a puff of wind, leaving the rest of us to go on trying to save everyone.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
MegaChurch Seminaries
There was a piece today in Christianity Today online about the trend for some megachurches to start in house seminaries. Very interesting. I connect it with two other trends going on right now 1) the decentralization trend, away from centralized denominations and organizations and 2) the trend toward training in a ministry context.
Oops, the second one isn't actually a trend yet but I'm strongly predicting it will be. As far as I know, while other seminaries are increasingly making it possible to stay in ministry while going to seminary, we are the only ones actually capitalizing on it by requiring our MDIV students to be in ministry and fashioning our weekly assignments around it. I'm predicting that the real leaders in seminary education will soon follow our example. If any seminaries would like us to come consult with them, we'd be glad to :-)
The first, decentralizing trend is very interesting and I'm very curious to see where it ends up. However, in a very real sense, we are enabling decentralized seminary education more than a megachurch can. We have an IT, online infrastructure (about 6000 students taking classes online) that a megachurch would have difficulty matching. I suppose most seminaries end up serving subcultures anyway.
Mark Driscoll and John Piper clearly serve a different segment of the Christian scene than we will. While we would welcome anyone from their circles who will play nice, they would have trouble at their seminaries with anything but nominal Wesleyans. Someone with more than a superficial Wesleyan theology would feel like a major fish out of water in their programs, which are predestined to offer the most extreme form of Calvinist teaching. Remember when Piper, at Driscoll's church, urged truly evangelical colleges and seminaries to expunge any Arminian faculty they might have?
And since they don't believe a woman can be a senior pastor, no woman should even have a fleeting thought of going there.
Oops, the second one isn't actually a trend yet but I'm strongly predicting it will be. As far as I know, while other seminaries are increasingly making it possible to stay in ministry while going to seminary, we are the only ones actually capitalizing on it by requiring our MDIV students to be in ministry and fashioning our weekly assignments around it. I'm predicting that the real leaders in seminary education will soon follow our example. If any seminaries would like us to come consult with them, we'd be glad to :-)
The first, decentralizing trend is very interesting and I'm very curious to see where it ends up. However, in a very real sense, we are enabling decentralized seminary education more than a megachurch can. We have an IT, online infrastructure (about 6000 students taking classes online) that a megachurch would have difficulty matching. I suppose most seminaries end up serving subcultures anyway.
Mark Driscoll and John Piper clearly serve a different segment of the Christian scene than we will. While we would welcome anyone from their circles who will play nice, they would have trouble at their seminaries with anything but nominal Wesleyans. Someone with more than a superficial Wesleyan theology would feel like a major fish out of water in their programs, which are predestined to offer the most extreme form of Calvinist teaching. Remember when Piper, at Driscoll's church, urged truly evangelical colleges and seminaries to expunge any Arminian faculty they might have?
And since they don't believe a woman can be a senior pastor, no woman should even have a fleeting thought of going there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
