Why the NIV Should not be the Standard

English Version A Defense of the

Literal Bible Translation Method

John Ronning, November 18, 2009

I. Preliminary remarks.

1. This paper is in part a response to “Why the English StandardVersion Should not become the Standard English Version” (Mark Strauss, ETS,2008), this paper is not a defense of ESV. I concur that the number ofproblems in ESV suggests that the translation was done with insufficientcare, and I agree that ESV should not become a “standard” Englishtranslation. Of greater concern to me than the examples mentioned byStrauss are evidences in the ESV OT of theological liberalism of the kindthat caused Evangelicals to reject RSV, upon which ESV was based. E.g. NIVand TNIV are in my opinion more theologically conservative than ESV inpassages such as Dan 9:25 and Zech 6:13, in the sense that the formerreflect the traditional evangelical messianic understanding of thesepassages. Also, probably no translation in history has exhibited thetheological ineptitude of the original ESV translation of Num 21:3, whichsaid that the LORD “obeyed” Israel (similarly Josh 10:14).

2. A substantial portion of Strauss’s critique would apply not justto ESV but to literal translations in general. This paper is thus a defenseof the literal translation method (also called “formal equivalence”), whichalso involves a critique of the dynamic (or, functional) equivalencetranslation method used in NIV et al.

3. While I would certainly concur that an overly literal translationcan be misleading, as a teacher of the OT to students in a context where theNIV is the most popular translation, students who usually do not havesignificant knowledge of the original languages, I regularly find when Imake a point based on comparing one Scripture with another that theconnection which is apparent in NASB or other literal translations isobscured or nonexistent in NIV (occasionally NIV has the more helpfulreading). Some of the examples in this paper fall in this category, whileothers go beyond such examples to cases of clear distortions of meaningwhich I believe are facilitated by the translation method used.

4. Though I have problems with the translation method used, NIV has

many commendable translations and in my opinion recent potential rivals suchas ESV and HCSB do not measure up to NIV with respect to the multiple levelsof quality control, checking and re-checking, etc. used in the production ofNIV.

II. Strauss’ two criteria.

Strauss’ paper states two criteria for Bible translation. The first isthat a translation must be understandable (“Does this translation makesense?”)—hopefully no one will disagree with this criterion. A secondcriterion is that the translation should be in standard English (“Wouldanyone speaking or writing English actually say this?”). Strauss seems tothink this criterion is self evident, but I contend that it should bequestioned; that following this criterion leads inevitably to a needlessloss of information in translation. I would also suggest that the goal isunattainable, if we broaden the meaning of “English” to include not justgrammar and syntax but idiom. In Gen 4:10, e.g., God says “The voice of yourbrother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” NIV has “Listen! Yourbrother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” NIV is perhaps morenatural English but even so people in the English speaking world simply donot talk this way (“his blood cries out from the ground”), unless underinfluence from the Bible. NIV could not be said to more understandablethan the more literal translation. I would suggest, then, that whatStrauss derisively calls “biblish” (“produced when the translator tries toreproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for howpeople actually write or speak”) is in fact unavoidable. Further, as weshall see, the NT

-2-

writers depend on just such a technique (call it “hebreek” I suppose) to makeconnections between the OT and NT clear.

III. How dynamic (or functional) equivalence may obscure meaning.

The principle of dynamic / functional equivalence focuses on preservinginformation content, and the effect of the translation on the reader ratherthan the way in which that content is communicated (“formal equivalence”).The problem with this approach is that in disregarding the manner, or form,of communication, the translator may in fact unintentionally obscureinformation. “How you say it” may be significant. If this were not so, thediscipline of rhetorical criticism would not exist. I begin with twoexamples from the narratives about Abraham in Genesis.

1. The “Fall” of Abram and Sarai (Gen 16:2–3)

The narrative of Sarai giving Hagar to Abram is told in such a way asto bring out some parallels (verbal echoes) with the narrative of the Fallof Adam and Eve in Genesis 3; these parallels are more evident in a literaltranslation than in NIV:1

Gen 3:6, 17 (NASB) Gen 16:3, 2 (NASB)

She took from its fruit and ate; and she gavealso to her husband with her, and he ate.

Sarai took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, andgave her to her husband Abram as his wife.

Because you have listened tothe voice of your wife . . .

Abram listened to the voice of Sarai

Gen 3:6, 17 (NIV) Gen 16:3, 2 (NIV)

She took some and ate it. Shealso gave some to her husband,who was with her, and he ateit.

Sarai his wife took herEgyptian maidservant Hagar andgave her to her husband to behis wife.

Because you listened to your wife . . . Abram agreed to what Sarai said.

-3-

In comparing Gen 3:6 to 16:3, NIV does as well as NASB in allowing thereader (or meditator) to see the parallels. The same is not true of Gen 3:17vs. 16:2. In terms of factual information, NIV has succeeded in carryingover such information from the original. In terms of “how you say it,”however, NIV has obscured an echo from the Fall narrative (Genesis 3) inGenesis 16. This echo is still there conceptually (in both cases a husbandfollowing his wife into sin) but the verbal echo has been obscured. Byobscuring the echo from Genesis 3, the implication that what Abram andSarai do in Genesis 16 is sinful is also obscured, since there is no overtcomment on their behavior in Genesis 16. The idea of Genesis 16 as a “Fallnarrative” is important in the development of the idea of Jesus as the

1See Werner Berg, “Der Sündenfall Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16, 1–6,”BN 19 (1982): 7–14. Other conceptual parallels are also present between the two passages, such as the idea of dissatisfaction with God’s provision (“Godis withholding something good from you”), and the idea that one needs to seize for oneself what seems to be lacking.

-4-

Second Adam, or “Son of Man.”2

NIV could have retained the echo of Gen 3:17 in Gen 16:2 by beingconsistent in its less-than-literal translation: “Abram listened to Sarai”(cf. NASB, “Abram listened to the voice of Sarai”). Would anything be lostin so doing? The Hebrew idiom, to listen to someone’s voice, is of coursevery common in Hebrew. It almost always means to do what someone says(whether by command or request). While it is true that this is notconsidered good English, it is easily understandable and easily learned.NIV on a few occasions does reproduce this “biblish”(e.g. Exod 15:26; Deut30:20). Is anything lost in omitting “voice” to gain the approval ofEnglish teachers? For the translator to say “No, nothing is lost” seemsrather bold and unhumble—the translator must have omniscience to make sucha conclusion. Those following a more cautious method say, “Something mightbe lost, so since ‘listen to the voice of’ is easily understandable, wewill reproduce it in English.” Because of this method, in John 10:16, 27,where Jesus talks about his sheep hearing/listening to his voice, the readercan more easily see (or a preacher/teacher can more easily explain) thatthis is the way that God talks about his people. I.e., there is a doubleentendre; the idea of sheep hearing (recognizing) their shepherd’s voice,and the idea of God’s people (who are sheep) listening to his voice (i.e.obeying).

2. The Birth of Isaac

Gen 21:2–7 tells us quite repeatedly and redundantly (eight times) thatAbraham is the father of Isaac. This information is brought out threetimes just in v. 3:

2Sarah conceived and bore to Abraham a son . . . 3Abraham calledthe name of his son who was born to him , whom Sarah bore to him ,Isaac. 4Abraham circumcised his son Isaac . . . 5Abraham was 100years old when his son Isaac was born to him . . . . 7I have bornehim a son in his old age.

This is, of course, redundant, repetitive, but it is just as redundant inthe Hebrew as it is in English. That this is not the standard Hebrew way ofreporting the naming of children is evident from other passages such as Gen

-5-

16:15–16:

So Hagar bore to Abram a son; and Abram called the name of hisson, whom Hagar bore [not, “bore to him”], Ishmael. 16Abram waseighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to him .

In NIV Gen 21:3, the three indications that Abraham is the father of Isaacare reduced to one:

Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him , whom

Sarah bore to him , Isaac. (NASB) Abraham gave the name Isaac to

the son Sarah bore him . (NIV)

In terms of factual information, both passages are equivalent. In terms of“smooth” English, NIV is better. NIV, however, has eliminated some of therepetitiousness (or roughness) of the passage which is also quite evident inthe Hebrew and literal translations, thereby removing information from thepassage. What information? It might occur to someone who is meditating onthis passage in the Hebrew, or a literal translation of the same, that ifAbraham’s fatherhood of Isaac is being repetitively asserted, it might bebecause someone else was suggesting that someone else was Isaac’s father.As to who else could possibly be said to be the father of Isaac, we notethat in the preceding context, Sarah had been taken in marriage by kingAbimelech. As to who might be making this outrageous accusation,

2See chapter 4 of the author’s forthcoming, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2010).

-6-

the following context shows Ishmael and his mother being exiled forIshmael’s offense of mocking Isaac. An explanation of Ishmael’s offense is

completely lacking, unless one takes notice of the rhetorical clue ofrepetition and redundancy in 21:2–7, which helps us “read between the

lines” to conclude that Ishmael, probably at the instigation of his mother,is calling Isaac the son of Abimelech, a conclusion reinforced by the

fact that his punishment (expulsion from inheritance rights) fits his crime(the accusation of illegitimacy, if upheld, would have the same result for

Isaac).3 NASB has a superior translation, not necessarily because thetranslators had a superior understanding of the text, but because of asuperior method which treats “how you say it” as part of what the Holy

Spirit has inspired and thus potentially significant. Who do the translatorsthink they are, to eliminate this information from the text?

Further, we see in this example that the distinction between “formal”and “functional” equivalence can be misleading, since in this example, form(redundancy in this case) is part of function (the reader should notice theredundancy and ponder the reason for it). Dynamic equivalence is supposed tofocus on preserving the effect of the original but in this case by freelyaltering the form it has taken away from that effect.

Which translation offers more rewards for those who memorize andmeditate on the text? Which translation therefore should be commended forserious Bible study, memorization, and public reading? In contrast, whichtranslation is more suitable for a “dumbed down” and lazy church which isinterested in the Bible at the level of first impressions only?

3. Judges 18:6 and Joshua 18:6

Translations which are generally literal, of course, also depart fromliteralness in order to preserve the goal of understandability. Suchtranslations can afford to make marginal notations of their departure fromliteralness, and such notes are of potential significance in understandingScripture. Dynamic translations could only note such departures veryselectively, since they would be so numerous as to be distracting. Forexample, the expression “before the LORD” occurs in both Judg 18:6 and Josh18:6 (although 2 different prepositions are actually used in the Hebrew).

-7-

And the priest said to them, “Go in peace. Before the L ORD is the way in which you are going.” (Judg 18:6)

You shall describe the land in seven divisions, and bring them to mehere [in Shiloh, at the tabernacle], and I will cast the lot for you here before the L ORD our God. (Josh 18:6)

Conceptually, the passages are related as follows: in Judges 18, apostatesfrom the tribe of Dan are going beyond their allotted territory, theboundaries of which were decided “before the LORD” in Shiloh, as described inJoshua 18 (this expression “before the LORD” is repeated in Josh 18:8, 10).They ask an apostate Levite, posing as a priest, his opinion, and theapostate Levite assures them that the way in which they are going, which iscontrary to the will of

3I pointed this out in “The Naming of Isaac: The Role of the Wife/Sister Episodes in the Redaction of Genesis,” WTJ 53 (1991):17. Similarly, Menachem M. Kasher quotes Rabbi Obadiah Sforno (d. 1550), “He [Ishmael] derided the whole business, suggesting that Isaac was not Abraham’schild at all, but Abimelech’s” (Genesis [vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation: A Millennial Anthology; New York: American Biblical Encyclopedia Society, 1957], 111). See also Rashi on Gen 25:19: “The cynics of that time were saying that Sarah conceived from Abimelech” (Chaim Pearl, RASHI, Commentaries on the Pentateuch [New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1970], 52).

-8-

God revealed in Shiloh, is “before the LORD.” Ironically, the apostateLevite uses this expression while directly contradicting what was decided“before the LORD in the time of Joshua.” Of course, one can only see thisirony in the Hebrew, or a literal translation of the same. Translating bothpassages literally would help to bring out the verbal echo, and would be anaid to the teacher or preacher who is teaching Judges 18. A further ironyinvolved in this situation is that the inheritances for the priests andLevites was also decided “before the LORD” in Shiloh (Josh 19:51), adecision disregarded by this “priest” who is not presently living in alevitical city, and previously lived in Bethlehem, also not a leviticalcity. Who does he think he is to talk about what is or is not “before theLORD”? It gives us an example, “like minister, like people.”

As far as I know, no translation translates Judg 18:6 as I have doneabove, nor am I suggesting it should be so translated. However, NASB, whichtranslates, “Go in peace; your way in which you are going has the L ORD ’s approval,” puts “before the L ORD ” as the literal reading in the margin (ofthe reference edition), which means that a careful student of Scripture whoonly reads the Bible in English can see the connection between the twopassages, or can more easily see it when a teacher or preacher points itout.

4. Repetition as a safeguard.

Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. (NIV, Phil 3:1)

Maybe Paul is thinking the Philippians might wonder if he has a disorderlymind—he has already told them to rejoice (2:18), and is going to tell themagain (twice in 4:4). In 3:1 he gives his motivation for repetition—it is asafeguard. NIV does fine in reproducing such repetition in these passagesin Philippians, but 2 Cor 12:7 is another story:

Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for thisreason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me athorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself ! (NASB)

-9-

To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. (NIV)

Paul’s repetition here, which has nothing to do with Greek idiom, is asevident in Greek as it is in English, and could be considered a “safeguard”for the reader, that Paul’s example should warn the Christian minister (orChristians in general) of the danger of conceit or self exaltation. Thissafeguard of repetition is removed in NIV, which seems to treat therepetition as superfluous, the product of a disorderly mind. Again, Iwonder, who do the translators think they are to do such a thing?

IV. Keeping translation and explanation separate

Explanation is, of course, part of what teaching and preaching are allabout. Translations that “explain” are helpful, of course, to the extentthat the explanations are correct. One problem with this approach is thatreaders of the Bible generally will not know what has been added by way ofexplanation. Another problem is that ambiguities in the original might be“clarified” mistakenly. Note the following comparison of Gal 3:16 in NIV andNASB:

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does notsay, “And to seeds,” asreferring to many , but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.(NASB)

-10-

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripturedoes not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people , but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. (NIV)

NIV makes Paul a complete idiot, who (1) doesn’t even know that “seed” inthe promises to Abraham does in fact mean “many people,” like the stars ofheaven, etc. (2) thinks that if “many people” were meant in the promises toAbraham, God would have said “to your seeds,” and (3) can’t even rememberthis mistaken belief a few verses later when he gets it right by saying thatbelievers in general (“many people”) are Abraham’s seed (v. 29). To be fair,NIV reflects the interpretation usually given to Gal 3:16, and probablyreflects the interpretation of the NASB translators as well. NASB, however,preserves an ambiguity in the Greek, namely, that “many” could in fact mean“many seeds,” not “many people.” The word “many” can have the grammaticalsense of “plural,” which can refer to as few as two. Abraham did in facthave two seeds, the two seeds of Gen 3:15 (righteous and wicked, seen inIsaac and Ishmael); the promises are only to one seed, to those who arerighteous not because they are children of Abraham but because they arechildren of God. Following up on this observation, I commend the followingtranslation of Gal 3:16, which is consistent with Paul’s teachingelsewhere:

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say “and to your seeds,” in the plural, but in the singular, “andto your seed,” that is, Christ’s.4

V.Dynamic equivalence gives license to rewrite Scripture.

This is something of a “slippery slope” argument. The argument is thattranslators who take the freedom to rephrase for the purpose ofclarification, can more easily take freedom to rewrite Scripture. Followingare some examples of this that we see in NIV.

1. Hebrews 2:9

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death [δια το παθμα του θανατου] crowned with glory and honor, so that [οπως] by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (NASB)

-11-

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, nowcrowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (NIV)

NIV seems to be motivated by a belief that Jesus was only glorified afterdeath, whereas it is quite clear from John’s Gospel, where “lifted up” and“glorified” both refer to the crucifixion (both are also found in LXX Isa52:13; see John 3:14; 12:32, 33, 34; 13:31), that Jesus is glorified inhis suffering, i.e. prior to his death. Heb 2:9 is perfectly consistentwith this; Jesus is glorified so that he might taste death for everyone. TheGreek is quite clear that Jesus was glorified prior to his death.5 NIV“explains” by changing the order to what makes sense to the translator. How

4For discussion see Ronning, The Jewish Targum’s and John’s Logos Theology, 109–112. In the expression, Και τω σπερματι σου, ος εστιν Χριστος, I take the antecedent of ος as σου, not σπερματι: the seed of you

who is Christ. Paul’s reason for thinking of “seeds” is that Abraham’s plurality of seeds is a disqualifier for the role of new Adam. In the promises, Abraham stands as a figurehead for Christ.

5“The construction of the sentence is much debated. But it must be admitted that any construction which makes the coronation subsequent to thetasting death for every person is unnatural; the οπως depends upon εστεφανωμενον” (Marcus Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament [ed. W. Robertson Nicoll; 5 vols.; New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 4:263.

-12-

is this different from the practice of ancient scribes who changed the Greektext before them to something that made sense to them?

2. John 17:6, 11–12, 26.

In John 17:6, 26, Jesus says in his prayer to the Father that he has madethe Father’s name known to the disciples. The name of the Father must be theTetragrammaton, as is evident from comparing John 5:43 (“I have come in myFather’s name”) with 12:13 (“Blessed is he who comes in the name of theLord,” from Ps 118:26). NIV does not use “name” in translating these verses,though a footnote does give the literal meaning. Not using “name” intranslation obscures the connection to the OT theme of God making his nameknown to his people and to his adversaries (e.g. Exod 3:14; 34:5ff; Isa64:1–2).

More serious is what NIV does with John 17:11–12:

Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 While I was with them,I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me. (NASB)

Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me -- so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I waswith them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me . (NIV)

“That name you gave me” (v. 12) could easily be interpreted as the name“Jesus,” which would be clearly impossible if the Greek “your name which yougave me” was retained. V. 11 is confusing but is open to the interpretationagain that the name “Jesus” is in view, and that “Jesus” is the power of theFather’s name. It goes without saying that the Greek text says nothing aboutpower.

John 17:11–12 would be about the clearest statement of the deity of Christanywhere in the NT, as it says that the Father’s name (YHWH) is also givento the Son, just as Paul says in Phil 2:9–11. Unfortunately, ancient well-meaning scribes were apparently confused as to what was meant by “yourname.” Apparently thinking that the passage could support the heresy ofmodalism (Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), a slight change was

-13-

made in the Greek so that it was not the Father’s name that was given to theSon, but the disciples:

Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me , that they may be one, as we are. 12 While I was withthem in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept. (KJV)

NIV has done something quite similar; sensing a difficulty, they haveinvented a “virtual [i.e. non-existent] Greek text” which instead of “yourname” reads “the power of your name” (v. 11) or “that name” (v. 12). Thiswell meant alteration obscures important teaching on the deity of JesusChrist, and is arguably facilitated by the translation method, though herewe have an example of going beyond dynamic equivalence to an alteration ofmeaning (under what theory can “that name” be considered an accuraterendering of “your name”?).

3. John 3:13

“No one has ascended into heaven, except he who descended from heaven—the Son of Man” [who is in heaven].

-14-

This verse has caused confusion because the ascension of Jesus is inthe future as Jesus speaks to Nicodemus. The scribal addition “who is inheaven” seems to be motivated as a way of forcing this verse to be a post-ascension comment by John rather than part of what Jesus said to Nicodemus.Taken as the words of Jesus, however, we can see that Jesus (1) is refutingthe Jewish belief that Moses ascended into heaven at Mt. Sinai; (2) hasascended into heaven in the past. This 2nd point serves to connect the NTdescent and ascension of Jesus (i.e. the incarnation and post-resurrectionascension) with the OT ideas of God descending (i.e. intervening in historyfor various purposes, saving his people, etc.; e.g. Exod 3:8; 34:5), andascending (after giving revelation, or after victory over his enemies).I.e. Jesus descended and ascended many times in the OT before his “descent”in the incarnation. NIV, however, gratuitously removes the ascent/descentlanguage from the verse, removing the OT “flavor” of the saying, againobscuring the fact that Jesus is speaking as the God of Israel:

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from

heaven—the Son of Man. 4. John 8:24, 28

Unless you believe that I am he , you will die in your sins. . . . then you will know that I am he .

“I am he” is Greek ego eimi, used in LXX as an idiomatic rendering of Hebrew’ani hu’. The translation given above helps the reader see the echo of thedivine “I am he” of Isa 43:10:

In order that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he .

Trying to clarify, NIV completely obscures this connection in its translationof John 8:24, 28:

If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins. . . . then you will know that I am the one I claim

to be.6

This is also an interesting example from the point of view of clarity. Itdoes not appear in the context that Jesus has as a first priority, theavoidance of misunderstanding on the part of his listeners of who he isclaiming to be (YHWH). The claim is veiled to those unfamiliar withScripture; NIV responds by eliminating the claim altogether, ironically

-15-

while intending to clarify!

VII. The NT writers employment of hebreek.

1. “The Son of Man.”

If “biblish” should be avoided, then the expression “Son of Man” usedin NIV should be avoided. Thankfully, it is not. What would be theconsequences? The dependence of the “Son of Man” title given to Jesus on Dan7:13 is well known. Its dependence on Ps 8:4 is not so well known but isevident in the first occurrence of the title in both Matthew and John:

What is . . . the son of man , that you care for him? You have made him a little lower than the angels . . . You have put all things under his feet . . . the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky . (Ps 8:4–8)

The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his

6NIV does put the alternate “I am he” in a note, and TNIV has corrected NIV here to put “I am he” in the main text.

-9-

head. (Matt 8:20, = Luke 9:58)

You will see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. (John 1:51)

“Son of man” is an expression used in Aramaic and Hebrew, and has beencalled a “barbarism” in Greek.7 Thankfully, this “barbarism” was carriedover in LXX of Psalm 8 (and Dan 7:13), so that the Greek speaking readers ofthe Gospels could see the OT background to the Son of Man title. Strausscriticizes ESV literal translations repeatedly by saying that ESV (likeother literal translations) does not employ standard English idiom. In sodoing, Strauss implicitly criticizes the Holy Spirit-inspired NT writers fordisregarding standard Greek when they wrote. Yet, employment of “hebreek”(or “aramgreek”) is necessary for understanding of this important title.

2. 1 Peter 1:13

Therefore, gird 1your minds for action (NASB; margin: 1Lit., the loins ofyour mind)

Therefore, 1prepare your minds for action (NASB update; margin: 1Lit.,

gird the loins of your mind) Therefore, prepare your minds for action (NIV)

Peter has employed hebreek here; this is a Hebrew way of speaking. Peter’smethod is implicitly criticized by Strauss. But maybe Peter, led by the HolySpirit, has a reason for what he is doing? Is anything gained by avoidingPeter’s way of phrasing this exhortation, besides the approval of Englishteachers? Is anything lost by changing it to “good” English (or in Peter’scase, “good” Greek)? Yes, a potential allusion to the Passover regulationsis lost:

Now you shall eat it in this manner: with your loins girded . (Exod12:11, NASB; similarly, LXX)

. . . with your belt fastened . (ESV)

. . . with your cloak tucked into your belt . (NIV)

Of course, to see the connection to Exod 12:11 in 1 Pet 1:13, both passagesmust be either (1) consciously translated so as to bring out theconnection, or (2) translated literally without thought of the connection tothe other passage, according to method, in the main text or the margin.

-9-

Again, we note that the literal method does not require knowledge ofthese connections on the part of the translators; the method safeguards thenecessary clues. Does it matter whether the reader can see a potentialconnection to the Passover observance? Perhaps a better question would be,does the translator have the right to decide that it doesn’t matter, andthus keep this information from the reader?

What exactly is gained when we see an allusion to the Passover here?Isn’t Peter’s main purpose here to exhort his readers to be prepared,and doesn’t “prepare your minds for action” serve this purpose wellenough, without an allusion to some ancient Jewish commemoration? Inanswer to this, we must concede that those who have never identifiedwith the Israelites will gain little. But for a Jew who has been taughtto identify with them, and for all those who are able to identify withIsrael on that night, it can make a very great difference when anallusion invites them to do it. The effect of an allusion like this—whenit is recognized as an allusion—is to add a whole new dimension ofmeaning. The few words of the allusion are invested with all thehistorical and

7Frederick Houk Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (New Testament Library; London: SCM, 1967), 241.

-10

religious associations of the passage alluded to, and so the amount of

meaning gained by allusions can be very large.8

The “whole new dimension of meaning” is lost when the literal reading isignored.

Translators who are using the dynamic equivalence method who areaware of such connections can consciously preserve them. E.g. NIVpreserves an allusion to the Passover in God’s promise to deliver Jerusalemfrom Sennacherib in Isa 31:5:

Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will ‘pass over’

.it and will rescue it (חחח)But when such translators are unaware of such allusions, they are lesslikely to preserve them, thus more likely to omit relevant information fromthe translation, meaning again that the method of dynamic equivalence failsto take into account that form is part of function:

Therefore I have set My face like flint (Isa 50:7, NASB; NIV

is substantially the same). He resolutely set his face to

go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51, NASB).

He 2was determined to go to Jerusalem (NASB update;

margin: 2Lit set his face ) Jesus resolutely set out for

Jerusalem (NIV)

VIII. Translating the generic masculine.

Translators who accept the criterion of “good English” argue for thedesirability of avoiding the generic masculine in Bible translation. Icould argue with the assumption that the generic masculine is not goodEnglish (I would counter that avoidance of the generic masculine is faddishand elitist English). But I would rather simply say that the genericmasculine is readily understandable and thus should be retained. Again Iask, what is gained by its removal (in this case it is not just the approvalof English teachers, but of feminists that is gained). What is lost? Whatis lost is the simple fact that the Bible from beginning to end uses the

-10

generic masculine, even more so in the OT than in literal translations ofthe same, since Hebrew 2nd person verbs have gender. Does it matter? I wouldrespond, what right do translators have to say it doesn’t matter? An examplefrom John 12:26:

If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there my servant also will be. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.

The Greek has four uses of the masculine singular in this verse to refer tothe one who serves Jesus. The translation given above has two. In NIV thereare none:

Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

I choose this example because I think that translators should ponderwhether, in avoiding the generic masculine, they are refusing to followJesus outside the camp to the place of reproach, as he requires in this verypassage, using the

8Thomas Marlowe, “Against the Theory of ‘Dynamic Equivalence,’” revised October 2009: http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html (Accessed November 5, 2009).

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Worship/BibleComp.pdf)

-11

generic masculine, and thus will not be honored by the Father.

IX. Conclusion

The Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod summarized the advantages of a formal equivalence translation as follows:

A formal equivalent translation with the advantage of being closer tothe original may be the best kind of translation for Christians whohave a strong knowledge of the faith and who desire to study theScriptures in depth. The main challenge of a formal equivalenttranslation is that it requires the reader to learn more about thelanguage and customs of the ancient world in order to understand thetranslation. The translation may sound archaic, but it is also moretimeless and classic. In other words, the language may sound ancienteven if the translation has just been published, but the reader orlistener recognizes the translation’s ancient language as a formalrepresentation of the ancient biblical text. As years go by and theEnglish language changes, the translation’s language continues to sound

classic and memorable.9

Translations which tend towards paraphrase have usefulness in contexts suchas evangelism, and as a “poor man’s commentary.” At issue in this paper iswhich method should be used in a translation which is meant for seriousBible study, for memorization, and for public reading. My opinion is thatthe popularity of NIV for these purposes is a sign of poor spiritual healthin the church.

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Worship/BibleComp.pdf)

-11

9“Comparative Study of Bible Translations: prepared by the Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,” 8 (Accessed Nov 16, 2009: