Haran

Nice exposition, Polycarp. To this, I would add that there are some heavy witnesses behind the choice of "Peter" in the NIV, p46! and Codex Bezae to be exact. Therefore, I can't say that the translators of the NIV made a bad decision, considering how early in history this name substitution(?) apparently began.

Haran

Vorkosigan

In addition, they do have notes in the NIV that specifically say “Cephas” was the word used in verses 9, 11, and 14. Why do this if they’re hell-bent on proving inerrancy?

This has nothing to do with inerrancy. They are simply getting rid of controversial passage.

Jer 7:22 is a bad translation, but I don’t think it gives the “opposite meaning” of the Hebrew.

Well, I guess we'll have to quibble about whether going from "no, I didn't give you any commands" to "yes, not only did I give you commands, but..." is really opposite.

As my favorite little Belgian detective would say, having had the honor of profferring a solution, I will now retire from the field...

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by aikido7: Polycarp, part of Jesus' distinctiveness was his social promiscuity. He was "gender inclusive" in an era of systemic social and political patriarchy. Any attempt to make the biblical texts "gender inclusive" today numbs our sensitivity to just how boundary-shattering Jesus' praxis was. By changing the historical context around Jesus, liberals can have their own "politically correct" Jesus and conservatives can put the idea of inclusion or diversity ever higher and ever out of reach on their "Christ" pedestal. Sorry--no proof texts at the moment, though.

I agree with you that Jesus was much more "gender inclusive" than the culture of his day. However, you're confusing two separate issues: Jesus' attitude toward women vs. the original meaning of the NT authors. I know you shun "proof texts", but you have to give some evidence to support your claims if you expect anyone to listen to your ideas. Give us an example of how liberals or conservatives have mistranslated something to further their agenda.

CX

It was an oversight and furthermore, I am an idiot because I originally wrote a lengthy defense of my translation despite omitting an HN.

As to my choice of critical texts that was simply what's readily available on the web (since I posted from work and didn't have references handy). Westcott Hort 1881, Textus Receptus and the Byzantine greek text of 1991 are all provided online by OliveTree.com. Granted there isn't a great deal of difference between the last two.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

Vorkosigan

As I understand, Peter occurs twice in p46 (3rd century), and Cephas 8 times. Some scholars believe that Peter is one of the Church's many interpolations, at least in this text.

Michael

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

aikido7

The NIV translation of Psalm 137:9 appears disjointed and confusing when compared with past translations.

NIV: "he who seizes your infants and dashes
them against the rocks."

NRSV: "Happy shall they be who take your little
ones and dash them against the rock!"

REB: "Happy is he who seizes your babes and
dashes them against a rock."

NAB: "Happy those who seize your children and
smash them against a rock."

NJB: "a blessing on anyone who seizes your babes
and shatters them against a rock!"

Notice, too, the details like the addition or subtraction of the exclamation point.

Clearly, there are noteworthy specific difference in the particular verse cited. Does this then mean that the average reader (who reads with inattention and to confirm personal prejudices) will get a slightly variant understanding with the NIV translation? Who knows? Is a shading of emphasis a mistranslation or evidence of a hidden agenda? Who knows?

I once read that the actual word "homosexual" was added to either the Bible's holiness code in Leviticus and/or in Paul's theology some time in the 1950's. The original context dealt with pagan cult practices, not sexual practice as such.

It would be mindful for liberal and conservative alike to remember that biblical translations (just as the Jesus Seminar's "authentic" words of Jesus) must be voted on to reach some kind of consensus.

The new liberal slant on the phrase "Son of Man" is to de-capitalize the phrase and translate it simply as "human being." This change is technically all right as far as it goes, but it does tend to secularize the historical Jesus' sense of himself and his mission. It appears that the phrase as used in the Book of Daniel was an apocalyptic use (abberation?) of the original meaning.

I know there are other examples as well, Polycarp, but to find them I would have to get out of the pew, leave the pastor's sermon and do some critical thinking and independent reading. And for many believers, that's more trouble than it is worth....

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by aikido7: The NIV translation of Psalm 137:9 appears disjointed and confusing when compared with past translations. NIV: "he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." NRSV: "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" REB: "Happy is he who seizes your babes and dashes them against a rock." NAB: "Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." NJB: "a blessing on anyone who seizes your babes and shatters them against a rock!" Notice, too, the details like the addition or subtraction of the exclamation point. Clearly, there are noteworthy specific difference in the particular verse cited. Does this then mean that the average reader (who reads with inattention and to confirm personal prejudices) will get a slightly variant understanding with the NIV translation? Who knows? Is a shading of emphasis a mistranslation or evidence of a hidden agenda? Who knows?

You’re misrepresenting the NIV’s translation. Here’s the NIV’s rendering of Psalm 137:8-9

“O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

There is no difference in meaning between the NIV and the other versions. Sorry to burst your bubble on this one. There is also no hidden agenda because there is no mistranslation.

Quote:

I once read that the actual word "homosexual" was added to either the Bible's holiness code in Leviticus and/or in Paul's theology some time in the 1950's. The original context dealt with pagan cult practices, not sexual practice as such.

Well, then you were reading something written by a person who was ignorant of the facts. The word “homosexual”, and its derivations, only appear once in the NIV, twice in the NAS, once in the NKJ, zero times in the RSV, and none in the ASV. In the verses where these translations did use “homosexual”, it is clear that a sexual practice is being discussed.

Quote:

It would be mindful for liberal and conservative alike to remember that biblical translations (just as the Jesus Seminar's "authentic" words of Jesus) must be voted on to reach some kind of consensus. The new liberal slant on the phrase "Son of Man" is to de-capitalize the phrase and translate it simply as "human being." This change is technically all right as far as it goes, but it does tend to secularize the historical Jesus' sense of himself and his mission. It appears that the phrase as used in the Book of Daniel was an apocalyptic use (abberation?) of the original meaning.

I’ll definitely agree with any attacks against liberals. Just kidding…

I really don’t have a problem with translating this phrase in small letters, “son of man”. The theological meaning can be poured into the phrase regardless of the size of the letters.

Quote:

I know there are other examples as well, Polycarp, but to find them I would have to get out of the pew, leave the pastor's sermon and do some critical thinking and independent reading. And for many believers, that's more trouble than it is worth....

Fair enough… I’ve found that I usually learn far more when I’m not sitting in a church pew, which could be viewed from a variety of perspectives. I’ll leave it ambiguous in your honor

HelenM

About the NIV and TNIV: it seems more reasonable to me that the Greek word 'anthropos' is translated 'person' than 'man' since doesn't it really mean 'person'?

It was translated 'man' in versions like the KJV when that was the English norm; but I'm not sure one can argue that's ok anymore. The NIV admittedly was weighted in favor of language similar to the KJV to keep familiar passages from changing more than they needed to...it's not the translation for those who want something as close as possible to the English in use at the time of its translation, which would be most like the Greek of the NT. (Then there's the whole business of the 'dynamic equivalence' - the concept they used of translating phrase by phrase rather than word for word - which I don't much care for - but I'm not referring to that at present)

So in this respect (the translation of 'anthropos', that is) I'm on the side of the TNIV - assuming I have understood 'anthropos' correctly.

I don't really understand how people who want that word translated as 'man' really have a leg to stand on. I respect their complaints about singulars being changed to plurals to some extent although I think it's inconsistent to cry foul about that and not complain about the liberties the original NIV translators took in many places, with their 'phrase by phrase' renderings of the Greek into English.

<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ctmag/" target="_blank">Christianity Today Magazine</a> has had quite a few interesting articles about the TNIV and responses to it, imo. FWIW, for an evangelical Christian magazine/site I think they do a pretty good job of not being ultra-narrow in the viewpoints they include.

I still think the problem is not lack of translations (!) that Christians should keep churning out new ones - but a lack of wisdom and discernment in reading the translations we have, and also a lack of commitment to live up to those standards set forth in the Bible that are clear in every translation, that need no retranslating. Talk about missing the point...

(Feel free to correct me if you can find a Bible verse that commands "Thou shalt translate the Bible endlessly since thou shalt never get it quite right..." )

love
Helen

Vorkosigan

(Feel free to correct me if you can find a Bible verse that commands "Thou shalt translate the Bible endlessly since thou shalt never get it quite right..." )

love
Helen

You're a gem, Helen.

Michael

HelenM

Thanks

I often wonder whether Satan and his demons are rather underworked beings in these days where Christians seem to get so focussed on - well, things that distract, divide or simply waste time. It seems to me that some of them (ok, us ) are doing such a good job of it that he's just letting us get on with it while he's off watching the Olympics

(Not that I'm denying the existence of Satan...I'm just saying...)

love
Helen

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>