A Criticism of Functional Equivalence

Functional equivalence in Bible translation attempts to elicit the same meaning of the original in language forms that are natural to the receptor language. Formal equivalence attempts to be as literal (word for word) as possible. A great emphasis in functional equivalence occurred in Bible translation for third world countries. In some cases, these languages had no written alphabet, dictionary, or grammar. Translators were undertaking a tremendous task.

From these third world experiences, functional equivalence procedures began to be applied to translations in English. The past half century has seen greater use of functional equivalent methods, but the approach is not without critics.

Leland Ryken in his book, The Word of God in English,* points out a number of fallacies to this approach. One fallacy strikes at the heart of translation issues. It is the fallacy that all translating is interpretation.

Ryken notes a failure to distinguish linguistic interpretation from thematic interpretation. By linguistic interpretation, Ryken means the choice between what word best translates the original term. Translators may have to choose between wilderness or desert to describe the area of Israel’s 40 years of wandering. They may choose between descendant or seed to render the Hebrew term zerah.

Word choices like this do involve interpretation, but functional equivalence frequently goes beyond this into what Ryken calls thematic interpretation of the meaning of the text. For example, note the following two versions of 2 Peter 1:20.

 

Formal Equivalent/ESV	Functional Equivalent/NIV
knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.	Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.

The NIV has given us an interpretation of this verse. It has specified the “someone” in the passage. This is a case where I think the interpretation is correct. However, someone could come along and say, “This is not what Peter said, and I don’t think it is what he meant.” We would have to resort to the more literal translation and make our case.

In addition, this raises the issue that translators may make the wrong thematic interpretation in various passages. Thematic interpretation gives rise to much greater variation in translations. It is a case of readers beware.

*The Word of God in English is available as a free PDF download at http://www.esv.org/translation/woge.

The Gender Neutral Language Controversy

The NIV has been in the news this past week. Plans are underway for a revision of the NIV to be published in 2011. The plans include the discontinuation of the TNIV, which was first published in 2002. The biggest battle over the TNIV, and the greatest concern over revision of the NIV involves gender neutral language.

To be honest, the Bible is not an egalitarian book. In other words, feminists will never be satisfied with the Bible as written. To illustrate, one only needs to look at the Inclusive Bible’s handling of Colossians 3:18-19: “You who are in committed relationships, be submissive to each other. This is your duty in Christ Jesus. Partners joined by God, love each other. Avoid any bitterness between you.” That is a rewrite of Paul and not a translation. The Bible affirms the equal value of males and females, but it does allow for differences in gender roles.

English usage has become more gender sensitive in recent decades, although usage has not solved all issues. The third person singular personal pronouns are still he or she.

Most modern translations (e.g., NKJV, NIV, and ESV) attempt to be somewhat gender neutral. When words like all, anyone, or everyone occur even thought they have masculine grammatical gender in Greek but there is no word for man in the text, they are rendered in a more gender neutral way – “all” instead of “all men.” The occurrence of man when it is understood generically of human beings is often translated persons or human beings instead of man.

Romans 3:9

“for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” RSV

 For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. NKJV

 We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. NIV

 Matthew 5:15

Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. RSV

Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. NIV

But the question arises; can we go too far in the pursuit of gender neutral language? That has been at the heart of the controversy over the TNIV, and it will be one of the issues in the NIV revision. I think it is possible to go too far. Two areas have been of principle concern. First, we should not remove reference to males in historical passages when those references are present. Some translations have. Notice the following examples:

 Acts 1:21

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us  NIV   (TNIV)

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of those who had been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.  NIVI  

 1 Timothy 3:2

the husband of one wife  RSV

married only once  NRSV

The second concern has to do with the third person singular pronoun. The TNIV and the NRSV substitute third person plural pronouns for third person singular pronouns. In other words, they change “he” to “they.” Problems arise especially in the Old Testament. We can obscure Messianic references doing that. For example:

He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken. Psalm 34:20, ESV

he protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken. Psalm 34:20, TNIV

This is an important issue. How does your translation handle gender language? The preface of some translations will tell you. Comparison with other translations may be helpful.

Aren’t These Translations Dangerous?

When I was a teenager, someone at my home congregation made available some copies of Good News for Modern Man. I read the New Testament all the way through for the first time in this little paperback. I’m sure that in other congregations there may have been tracts warning of the errors of this modern version and recommending people stay away from it. This leads to a legitimate question. Aren’t these translations dangerous? 

My experience as a Bible reader suggests that we can over blow the dangers. I was in a greater danger from not reading the Bible. Bible illiteracy is the great danger of our society. (And by the way, the publication of many different translations has not stemmed that tide.) If I hadn’t found something easier to read, I might have given up or simply have failed to grow in faith. That little paperback led to a growth in my devotional life.  I was strengthened by milk for stronger food.

I think several factors militate against the flaws in some translations. I was not reading the Bible in isolation. I had mature Christian people around me. These people were more knowledgeable that I was, and I could ask questions. In other words, my church family helped guide my reading.

I was also aware of multiple translations. I wasn’t just relying on Good News for Modern Man alone. At that point, I had a King James Version to compare with, and it wasn’t too long that I also had a Revised Standard Version and a New American Standard Bible. In other words, I was aware that I was reading a translation. I’ve learned over the years that no translation is perfect because translating is a human activity. That is why the final court of appeal in religious discussion is the Bible in the original languages. But I’m extremely grateful for access to the Bible in my native language.

One further fact needs to be noted. The Bible is an amazingly resilient collection of books. Most of our teachings are not based on one passage alone. Even when a translation throws us a loop with a questionable translation, other passages may keep us from going the wrong direction. The Bible is its own best interpreter.

The functional equivalent translation (meaning for meaning) is designed for easy access to the beginner and the person with few reference books to consult. My own pilgrimage suggests that those translations are not necessarily harmful and may be helpful. But I think their proper use is as a stepping stone. Careful Bible study in English is best done with a formal equivalent (more literal) translation (e.g., NASB, NKJV, and ESV). If you have only been reading a meaning for meaning translation, I would encourage you to try a more literal translation especially in careful study.

Translators Are Traitors

The title is an Italian proverb. It’s a reminder that translating from one language to another often evokes strong feelings. Strong feelings are especially involved when the translation is the Bible. One story from church history illustrates this. When Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was read in one North African church for the first time, a riot ensued. Of course, the Vulgate went on to become a standard translation for more than a millennia and is still used today.

Many of us can remember a time when most people would have been reading from the same translation – the King James Version (although Roman Catholics at that time would have been reading the Douay-Rheims). Now different translations are the norm.

I want us to be Bible readers, but I also want us to be wise students as we deal with the situation of multiple translations. Accuracy is important. It does matter to me whether I’m reading God’s word or the faulty opinion of a translator. The final court of appeal in translation issues is the Bible in the original languages, which is why I study Greek and Hebrew. I realize that not everyone has the time or inclination for that, but many helps exist in English to go back to the original. It is not an impossible task.

Having read the Bible in multiple translations, the good news is that translations agree more than they disagree. You don’t have the impression that you are reading different books. Where they disagree, often they are bringing out different possible nuances in words. Noting differences and studying them can lead to fruitful discoveries.

Two different approaches to translating are used, and it is important to know which approach was used in the Bible you are reading. They are formal equivalence and functional (or dynamic) equivalence. Formal equivalence attempts to be a literal as possible. It attempts to match as closely as possible the forms of the original (word for word, verb for verb, noun for noun, etc.) with the forms of the receptor language (the language of the translation, which in our case is English). Functional equivalence attempts to elicit the same meaning of the original in language forms that are natural to the receptor language.

The extreme end of formal equivalence is found in an interlinear. The English gloss under the original language in an interlinear is extremely difficult to read except for checking a word. Formal equivalence translations can be difficult to read so that we fail to get a meaning or we get the wrong meaning because the language is unnatural to us. The extreme end of functional equivalence is unduly free. Unduly free means that the translator misrepresents the original. I think some paraphrases definitely fall into the category of unduly free. All functional equivalent translations may have places where they have been unduly free. It is important to know what kind of translation you are reading. If it is formal equivalence, you may find some phrases that are harder to understand than normal English. If it is functional equivalence, you may have something that is not faithful to the original.

 What is the English Bible reader to do? I hope to sort some of this out in a series of articles. What should you do now? Keep reading the Bible, and read the preface of the translation you are using. Find out what approach the translators are using.

In the House of Mourning

Ecclesiastes has a counterintuitive proverb:

 It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for this is the end of all mankind, and the living will lay it to heart. Ecclesiastes 7:2, ESV

Obviously, it would be more fun to go to the house of feasting, and Ecclesiastes is not opposed to enjoyment. In fact, enjoyment is a gift of God (3:13). Yet, the house of mourning teaches us the brevity of life. Death may come suddenly, or it may be expected with the decline of aging or the wasting away from disease. But unless the Lord returns first, we will all die.

It doesn’t matter whether you are a celebrity or ordinary, wealthy or poor, wise or foolish. Death is a reality of life. The speaker of Ecclesiastes struggles looking at life under the sun. I suspect “under the sun” may suggest life from merely this world’s point of view. From that vantage point, we hear him lament:

Then I said in my heart, “What happens to the fool will happen to me also. Why then have I been so very wise?” And I said in my heart that this also is vanity. For of the wise as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise dies just like the fool! So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind.Ecclesiastes 2:15-17, ESV

Although there are frustrations with life under the sun, life in this physical world, Ecclesiastes points us beyond it to a relationship with God. The final chapter encourages, “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth…” (12:1, ESV). Especially remember God before the decline of aging sets in. Ecclesiastes paints a vivid picture of aging with imagery from village life. Or at least remember God “before the silver cord is snapped, or the golden bowl is broken” – in other words, before death.

The reason for this command is that there is a purpose to life.

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, ESV

 What is the lesson that we should learn in the house of mourning? Prepare for death by living life to the glory of God. Don’t miss the whole purpose of life.

Congratulations Graduates!

Graduation is an exciting time. Graduation is a hectic time. Graduation is a bitter sweet time.

If life has gone the way it should, parents and children have a special bond. Parents will sacrifice for their children – their love is that strong. Yet, the process of raising a child is a process of gradually letting go. Parents are like the scaffolding around a building project. Parents train, nurture and discipline. But the goal is the finished project. The training and discipline are to be internalized. The scaffolding is taken down, although with parenting a different and wonderful relationship remains.

That letting go makes graduation bitter sweet. Your mother may shed a tear. If you parents drive you to college or to your departure for boot camp (or you name the life changing event – new job, new apartment), your mother may cry (and even your dad may get misty-eyed). Yet there is a certain pride in seeing your child make his or her way in the world. That is what we raised you to do.

Enjoy the whirlwind of activities – baccalaureate, graduation, and open house. I don’t remember one speech from any graduation I’ve ever attended including my own. Yet, those moments are special and deserve to be savored. They are markers to a wonderful transition in life.

Graduation is a transition. It leads to the next chapter of life. That is bound to be exciting and maybe even a little frightening. My advice to young people is to follow your dream. That dream, of course, needs to be within the will of God. The New Living Translation captures Ecclesiastes 11:9 fairly well.

Young people, it’s wonderful to be young! Enjoy every minute of it. Do everything you want to do; take it all in. But remember that you must give an account to God for everything you do. Ecclesiastes 11:9 NLT

When you are young, many choices face you. Choose wisely.

The next chapter of life will likely mean that you will be making more and more of your faith decisions on your own. I hope that you have a real faith, and not simply something that is hand-me-down. Faith will protect you from many of life’s mistakes (Deuteronomy 6:24). Make certain that you plug into a local church. (If you need help finding one, try www.churchzip.com.) God does not intend for us to make the spiritual journey alone.

Making faith your own will mean questions. I want you to know there are good answers to faith’s questions. God will bless the humble seeker (Proverbs 2:1-15, Isaiah 55:6-9, Jeremiah 29:13, Acts 17:27).

Congratulations graduates!

The National Day of Prayer

Our National Day of Prayer is Thursday, May 7, 2009. Calls for prayer as a nation have occurred throughout our history. The Continental Congress called for a day of prayer in 1775 as “a time for prayer in forming a new nation.” John Adams called for a day of prayer and fasting in 1798, and Abraham Lincoln called for one in 1863. President Harry S. Truman signed a bill in 1952 declaring a National Day of Prayer. The holiday originally did not have a fixed day, but an appropriate day was to be selected each year. In 1988 President Ronald Reagan signed a bill that amended this law so that the day would be fixed to the first Thursday of May.

This call for prayer has definite Judeo-Christian roots. Consider the following passages:

Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain. Psalm 127:1,  ESV

 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 1 Timothy 2:1-2, ESV

What can I pray for?

•  Pray for wisdom for our leaders.
• Pray for God’s protection. This may include prayers for members of the military. We have several who are on our prayer list as a congregation.
• Pray for truth and morality to be portrayed in our public life.
• Pray for safe and wholesome environments for our children.
• Pray for revival. May God’s truth be boldly presented and may it touch our hearts.
• Pray that families will follow Godly principles.

The above are just suggestions. You may think of many other things, for example, we may also be praying about jobs and health with the concerns over influenza.

The instructions of 1 Timothy 2:1-2 are practiced by many Christians, but I still appreciate the national call to prayer. May our prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be for all people.

A Difference of Perspective

The two men suppressed their laughter. He was joking—wasn’t he? Or was he just a paranoid old man, even if he was about to become their father-in-law.

He pleaded, but the young men had objected, “We live in a fertile area. It’s like a garden. The city is prosperous. Our lives are secure and pleasant. Why would anyone want to move, especially so suddenly? What could happen? Why should we expect tomorrow to be any different from any other day?”

He preached of the dangers of neglecting the poor, arrogance before God, and immorality. He warned of a Day of Judgment—a Day of the Lord! 

The young men had countered, “Everybody sins. But aren’t most people good? Do you really think that God would condemn this whole city? Won’t most people be saved?” 

He continued about the holiness of God. They needed to know God’s character and His message. 

“We don’t like your holier-than-thou attitude!” one of them exclaimed. That ended the conversation, besides they were too busy for this. There was work to be done and deadlines to meet. 

With the dawning of the next day, the older man made one more plea, but it fell on deaf ears. 

As they watched him walk away, one of them quipped, “I guess this is what we have to put up with when marrying into that family.” 

The other agreed, but noted, “Still, it looks like another beautiful day in Sodom!”  

P.S. The above dialogue is fiction, but consider reading Genesis 19:1-29, Ezekiel 16:49-50, 2 Peter 2:4-10.

“What an Empty Tomb Can Do”

How odd that his enemies understood him better than his friends! His enemies placed a guard and sealed the tomb. His friends ran away. One denied him three times. At first reports, they regarded it as nonsense and did not believe (Luke 24:11). They didn’t understand the scripture (John 20:9). They were afraid of the Jews (20:19). Their hearts were hard (Mark 16:14).  In a sonnet, D.A. Carson captures the mood:

No heroes, these: defeated followers all,
Their nurtured faith extinguished, snuffed the flame
Of courage. Quite abandoned now the game
Oneupmanship (“Not I, Lord; I’ll not fall!”),
Displaced by furtive fear’s disabling pall.
More crippling than the sickening fear, the shame;
And cowed by common cowardice, they came
Upstairs together, spiritually mauled.
   Reports come in of shattered, vanquished Death,
   Of Life’s appearance in triumphant mood.
   Begins the birth of hope, the death of death,
   Of failing, faithless men with faith endued.
Arranged of old, unqualifiedly new:
Such change is what an empty tomb can do.

 Their unbelief, cowardice, and misunderstanding are hardly résumé enhancements for religious leaders. Their unflattering testimony about themselves is unlikely to have been made up. So, how do we account for the dramatic change in their lives from cowards hiding from the Jews to courageous proclaimers of the resurrection of Jesus. C.F.D. Moule stated it this way:

If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole of the size and shape of Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?

 The explanation for the change from “old” to “unqualifiedly new” is best explained by “what an empty tomb can do.” Jesus was raised from the dead.

But the “unqualifiedly new” of the Apostles and early Christians was no minor affair. The dramatic event of the resurrection brought a dynamically different life in the disciples. The New Testament can talk about crucifying the old self, putting on the new self, and newness of life. That’s spiritual major surgery not a Band-Aid. Jesus was not a religious good luck charm to be dragged out of the drawer a couple of times year. Jesus became their life and their Lord. What about in your life? “Such change is what an empty tomb can do.” 

¹D.A. Carson, Holy Sonnets of the Twentieth Century (Baker Books, 1994), p. 67.

Living in a Sex Saturated Society

Paul’s world was not unlike our own-it was a sex saturated society. Permissive sex, homosexuality, perversions, divorce and bawdy theater were a part of the Roman world in the first century AD. In spite of the culture, Paul called Christians to live “…not in passionate lust like the Gentiles” (see 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, ESV).

Paul notes that God’s will is our sanctification This word implies a process in which the Christian is maturing, growing in holiness, and becoming more like their Father in heaven. Paul later in the letter states, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it’ (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, ESV).

A part of holy living is avoiding sexual immorality. The word, porneia, translated “sexual immorality” and traditionally rendered “fornication” (see for example the KJV) is a broader concept than our English term “fornication.” The word fornication in English means sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to each other. But concerning porneia the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters writes, “This Greek word and its cognates as used by Paul denote any kind of illegitimate-extramarital and unnatural-sexual intercourse or relationship” (p. 871). For Paul, there was only one kind of legitimate sexual relationship, the one between a man and a woman who are married.

The consequence of sexual immorality is judgment. Paul solemnly warns “the Lord is an avenger in all these things” (1 Thess. 4:6, ESV). Elsewhere Paul warns that the sexually immoral, adulterers, and homosexuals (as well as a list of other sins) will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

To a world that often approaches such issues from a very subjective viewpoint, Paul ends his discussion of sexual immorality with very strong words. “Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you” (1 Thessalonians 4:8, ESV).

God calls us to holy lives even when we are living in a sex saturated society.