Those who enjoy digging deep into the original Biblical languages should be familiar with one of the most helpful websites on the internet in such an area. Bible-Researcher.com, a webisite created by Michael Marlowe includes various topics on Bible translation, the Canonical text, as well as many other topics. I recently had the opportunity to ask Michael a few questions about his site and some of his thoughts on textual criticism and Bible translation.
Seth Odom: How did Bible-Researcher come into being?
Michael Marlowe: I started the site soon after I got my first look at the internet in 2001. It occurred to me that I might as well post a few things online myself. I had been teaching adult Sunday School courses on the canon, text, and versions of the Bible, and I had written some things for those classes. I also had on my computer the papers I wrote for seminary classes while I was a student. So I already had the material. I got a book on how to do HTML markup, made a few pages, and uploaded them to a free geocities site. The first thing I posted was a reference work I created for my master's thesis project, the "English Guide to the Various Readings of the Greek Testament." I thought that would be especially helpful at the time, because a Bible version controversy was then going on, about the variations in the manuscripts. Some ill informed people were exaggerating the importance of the manuscript variations, and arguing that the readings followed by modern versions were introduced by Gnostic or Arian heretics. Their propaganda was all over the internet. I knew it wasn't true. So I thought people would be less vulnerable to misinformation, and much less disturbed about the whole matter, if they could only see what all these differences were for themselves. After that, I gradually added to the site all sorts of things I had written about the Bible. Whenever I taught a class I uploaded any material I wrote or collected for it, so the members of the class could go there for more information. Then I started adding links to other sites with more information. Within a year the traffic on the site began to exceed the geocities bandwidth limits, so I had to set it up on its own domain. That was the beginning of bible-researcher.com.
Seth Odom: You have on your website information about Textual Criticism as well as English Bible Translations. Of all the emails you receive, on which of these two subjects do readers have the most questions for you?
Michael Marlowe: Most people who write to me have questions about English translations.
Seth Odom: In the area of Textual Criticism, would you find what is known as the “Majority Text” or the “Critical” text as more reliable as the basis for translating from the Greek text into another language?
Michael Marlowe: The importance of the textual differences has been exaggerated by many people. I would not want to give you the impression that it's the main criterion for me. But all other things being equal, I prefer an English version based on the Nestle-Aland edition (the critical edition used by almost everyone these days), because it better represents the readings of ancient manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic citations. On the other hand, I also think that an English version should include marginal notes that give the readings of the medieval majority and the Textus Receptus. These alternative readings often have some ancient attestation, and they rarely contradict the alternative readings; they usually represent nothing more than someone's attempt to make the meaning clearer in little ways. They tell us something about how Greek Christians understood the text since the fifth century, and also how Reformation-era Protestants read their Bibles. That's not unimportant. At least it's not unimportant to me. For example, the reading of most manuscripts at 1 Tim. 3:16, "God was manifest," represents a true interpretation of the less explicit but more ancient reading, "he who was manifest." Bible students should know the correct interpretation, but they should also know that it is an interpretation. We should make a distinction between what a sentence says outright, and what it means in the total context of the Bible. I insist upon this distinction as a matter of principle, even when I agree strongly with the interpretation. The funny thing is, most of what is accomplished by textual critics, who have labored over every little verbal detail of the text, is practically reversed by translators these days. The NIV adds "Jesus" in several places to clarify who is the subject when the text says "he," just like the old copyists who added "Jesus" here and there in the manuscripts for the same reason (see examples in Matt. 4:18 and 23). All versions do things like this, but some do it a lot more than others. The "dynamic equivalence" versions add far more interpretation than the old copyists ever dared to add to the manuscripts.
Seth Odom: Bible translation is a dominant issue among evangelicals today. And it seems that every time a Christian turns around there is a new English Bible translation being made, do you see the numerous English Bible Translations as a blessing to the Church or a curse, or both?
Michael Marlowe: It's good to have more than one version around, because different versions can be helpful in different ways. But I think we reached a point of diminishing returns with the versions some time ago, and the problems created by them are beginning to outweigh the benefits. People out there are really getting confused and frustrated. And all the time and money that goes into producing these new versions could be better spent. There are many ancient Greek and Latin books that should be translated for modern students, but which continue to be neglected, partly because the scholars who could have translated them are sidetracked into making yet another English version of the New Testament. It doesn't make any sense from an educator's standpoint. But publishers continue to grind them out, because with the right marketing a lot of money can be made selling "new and improved" Bibles. Of course they can always find scholars who are interested in revising some version, or creating a new one, because every scholar is pleased to see his own interpretations in a version.
Seth Odom: In recent times the area of gender language in Bible translation has been a subject of great debate. Proponents call it "gender accurate" language while critics often refer to it as "gender-inclusive" or "gender neutral" language; do you see any legitimate place for modern Bible translators to use such a method?
Michael Marlowe: It does make a difference what we call this. "Gender accurate" is certainly a loaded term. And the trouble with the term "inclusive" is that it tends to imply that words like "man" and generic "he" are exclusive. Despite what is sometimes said about this, I don't think it's true that statements like "no man has ever seen God" or "blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly" are ever understood to be excluding women. I think the real concern here is not about preventing any misunderstanding like that. The real reason for the gender-neutral language is a concern for courtesy or politeness of speech. In some circles it is considered somewhat impolite to use the generic masculines, and people are expected to bend over backwards to include women explicitly in everything that is said, or else use gender-neutral expressions. It is a courteous way of talking. The trouble is, that's not how the biblical writers expressed themselves, and forcing them to talk like that often does reduce the accuracy of the translation, especially when singulars get changed to plurals. To me it all seems very unnecessary. And although politeness of speech is not totally unimportant, I suspect that only a feminist with an axe to grind would think that "blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly" is offensive. I've been doing ministry long enough to know that a complaint like that would never come from an ordinary Christian. Things are different in the academic world, where gender-neutral language is zealously enforced. I have spent some years in academic settings like that myself, and I know how they make you dance around to avoid "sexist" language. I remember one day in Hebrew class we were taking turns reading and translating passages extemporaneously, and as I went through my portion I translated "elohey abotheynu" as "god of our fathers." A woman in the class loudly interrupted me and said, "you mean ancestors, don't you?" The professor nodded. He knew that "aboth" means "fathers," of course, but most of the faculty there had endorsed the idea that complaints like this were legitimate and should be respected. I once heard this same professor use the expression "God Godself" instead of "God himself." And to give you an idea of where the woman in my Hebrew class was coming from, I will mention that she always wore a "Queer Nation" button to class. I don't think it's right that the complaints of such a person would end up controlling how everyone talks at a seminary and even how the Bible is translated.
Seth Odom: An often found criticism of some modern Bible translations is that they retain too much archaic language, thus making it more difficult to convey the biblical message effectively for evangelism and/or for Christian edification. Do you see a proper or even necessary place for retaining archaic language in modern Bible translation?
Michael Marlowe: Lexicographers make a distinction between archaic and obsolete words, and I think we should too. Obsolete words are old words or old senses of words that fell out of use a long time ago and are not now generally understood. For example, the KJV uses "carriages" in the sense "things carried," but hardly anyone today understands that. Archaic words, on the other hand, are not incomprehensible. They are just old-fashioned words or senses that have fallen out of common use, but which are still generally understood. For example, "verily" is definitely archaic, but everyone knows what it means, so it isn't obsolete. It can still be used. When people hear "Verily, verily I say unto you ..." they understand it quite well. Words like this are eliminated from modern versions only for stylistic reasons, when the editors don't want to use an old-fashioned style. But far too much has been made of this recently, because it makes no difference in comprehension. And there can be a good reason to use archaic language sometimes. It tends to be impressive, and rather poetic in tone. I would argue that an archaic style is appropriate in a translation of poetic texts like the Psalms. Some Bible translators have deliberately used archaic style for quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, because they believe that the Greek style of these quotations was archaic in the first century. I think that's reasonable.
Seth Odom: Have you ever worked as a contributor to an English Bible Translation or on an actual oversight committee?
Michael Marlowe: No, and I really can't see myself doing that. I don't think it would make much sense for me to leave off what I'm doing to get involved in producing another English version.
Seth Odom: I am sure a lot of readers would love to know the following: Given all of your studies in the area of textual criticism and Bible translation what do you recommend as the best and/or most reliable English bible translation available today and why?
Michael Marlowe: People often ask me that question, and I tell them that it depends on who you are and what you are doing with the Bible. For close and careful study you need a literal version like the NASB or NKJV. If you want to get as close as you can without actually learning the biblical languages, use the old ASV. But for reading in the worship service, and for teaching basic subjects in a Sunday school setting, a more fluent English version like the ESV might be the best choice. When I was a new Christian my first pastor used the NIV for preaching and Bible study, and whenever someone asked a difficult question about some detail he checked the NASB that he kept near by, just to be sure that the NIV was accurate at that point. I think that's basically a good method; but after I learned Greek I saw so many problems in the NIV that I just quit using it. If you are going to use two versions in tandem, I would recommend the ESV in combination with the NASB. Also, we should not forget the KJV. It is a very respectable translation, and most of the problems people have with it are solved with a dictionary. Any teacher ought to be able to understand it and use it in ministry, because it continues to be the favorite Bible of many people who are serious Bible-readers. So my short list of recommended versions includes the KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, and ESV.
Seth Odom: Thank you very much Michael for answering some questions for View Of The Other World. And thank you for all you do for the Kingdom of God.
0 comments:
Post a Comment