Seventh Wednesday after Pentecost
Thanks to all for your recent comments. Psalm 8 has attracted a good bit of interest. On my laptop here on the faraway island of Roanoke in the NC OBX, I haven't been able to find the way to reproduce Jerry's comment verbatim. Please read it in the comments section. Jerry notes that different NT English translations have different words for what it is we humans are a little lower than, in Psalm 8:5. She notes that the NIV(New International Version) and KJV (King James Version) have "angels," while the NRSV has "God."Jerry then says something like "pick the version that agrees with you." Jerry is right in one regard but not in another.
Jerry is right to think that English translations do have their own theologies and translate in ways that best suit that theology. The translators of the NIV translation team (118 men, 4 women), are all evangelicals, and the heavy majority of them are from the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition, which, as we noted last week, has a low view of humanity. KJV translators were 17th century Anglican scholars from Oxford and Cambridge who also had a low view of humanity. Modern day Episcopalians don't have such a view, but if you go back to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, they did then.
The NRSV translation team was about 90 scholars, a third or so female, and included Catholics, Jews, Mainline Christians, Eastern Orthodox, and yes a few evangelicals. Whereas the NIV editors chose translators of a single theological persuasion, the NRSV editors purposefully practiced inclusiveness. I find the NRSV approach produces a far more accurate translation.
That's the real issue here--accuracy of translation. To put it another way, it's not what any particular translation says, it's what the original language Hebrew text says. In this case the NRSV is absolutely right. The Hebrew word in question is elohim. The word means "God." It does not mean "angels." The Hebrew word for angels is malakim. I should note that the word elohim is grammatically a plural, and occasionally in the OT means "gods," when referring to the gods of pagan religions. But when referring to the God of the Hebrews, our God, whose personal name in Hebrew is Yahweh, it is always translated "God," never translated "angels."
So where did the NIV and KJV translators get "angels." Did they just make it up? No, they did not create it out of thin air. Instead of using the Hebrew original, which they normally use, they used the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew, the Septuagint (LXX), which has the Greek word anggelous here; whereas, if they had translated the Hebrew elohim literally, it would have been the Greek word Theos.
So why did the LXX translators change the Hebrew in this case. In a way, their reasoning was the opposite of that of the NIV and KJV translators. Instead of having a low view of humanity, as did the NIV and KJV translators, the LXX translators had an extremely high view of God. We finds scores of examples of this in the LXX, where they change the Hebrew to make God higher (though not to make humanity lower). God was so high that they couldn't think of humans as being only a little lower.
The NIV and KJV translators could not bear the thought that humans could be only a little less than God, so they found a way out--use a translation (the LXX) for their translation. The NRSV, on the other hand, uses the original Hebrew. The NRSV translators are far more concerned with accuracy than theological correctness (in this case theological correctness being evangelical theology). There are many other instances of bad translations in the NIV, particularly translations that subordinate women, when the original language text doesn't. The NRSV is not perfect, no translation is, but it is far and away the best we have.
I hope you didn't find this edition of the blog so technical as to be boring, Sometimes important Biblical issues are quite technical. Anytime you have a Biblical translation issue, ask me. I might answer you personally rather than put it on the blog, but I will answer. I have all the research tools and a good knowledge of the languages to give you a good answer. And I love doing the research.
Faithfully,
Christian
Jerry is right to think that English translations do have their own theologies and translate in ways that best suit that theology. The translators of the NIV translation team (118 men, 4 women), are all evangelicals, and the heavy majority of them are from the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition, which, as we noted last week, has a low view of humanity. KJV translators were 17th century Anglican scholars from Oxford and Cambridge who also had a low view of humanity. Modern day Episcopalians don't have such a view, but if you go back to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, they did then.
The NRSV translation team was about 90 scholars, a third or so female, and included Catholics, Jews, Mainline Christians, Eastern Orthodox, and yes a few evangelicals. Whereas the NIV editors chose translators of a single theological persuasion, the NRSV editors purposefully practiced inclusiveness. I find the NRSV approach produces a far more accurate translation.
That's the real issue here--accuracy of translation. To put it another way, it's not what any particular translation says, it's what the original language Hebrew text says. In this case the NRSV is absolutely right. The Hebrew word in question is elohim. The word means "God." It does not mean "angels." The Hebrew word for angels is malakim. I should note that the word elohim is grammatically a plural, and occasionally in the OT means "gods," when referring to the gods of pagan religions. But when referring to the God of the Hebrews, our God, whose personal name in Hebrew is Yahweh, it is always translated "God," never translated "angels."
So where did the NIV and KJV translators get "angels." Did they just make it up? No, they did not create it out of thin air. Instead of using the Hebrew original, which they normally use, they used the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew, the Septuagint (LXX), which has the Greek word anggelous here; whereas, if they had translated the Hebrew elohim literally, it would have been the Greek word Theos.
So why did the LXX translators change the Hebrew in this case. In a way, their reasoning was the opposite of that of the NIV and KJV translators. Instead of having a low view of humanity, as did the NIV and KJV translators, the LXX translators had an extremely high view of God. We finds scores of examples of this in the LXX, where they change the Hebrew to make God higher (though not to make humanity lower). God was so high that they couldn't think of humans as being only a little lower.
The NIV and KJV translators could not bear the thought that humans could be only a little less than God, so they found a way out--use a translation (the LXX) for their translation. The NRSV, on the other hand, uses the original Hebrew. The NRSV translators are far more concerned with accuracy than theological correctness (in this case theological correctness being evangelical theology). There are many other instances of bad translations in the NIV, particularly translations that subordinate women, when the original language text doesn't. The NRSV is not perfect, no translation is, but it is far and away the best we have.
I hope you didn't find this edition of the blog so technical as to be boring, Sometimes important Biblical issues are quite technical. Anytime you have a Biblical translation issue, ask me. I might answer you personally rather than put it on the blog, but I will answer. I have all the research tools and a good knowledge of the languages to give you a good answer. And I love doing the research.
Faithfully,
Christian
3 comments:
This blog post falls under the category of “news I can use.” Thank you for this explanation of the different translations. I have been using an NIV study Bible. Do you know of an NRSV study Bible that you would recommend? I already have the Wesley study Bible. Thank you.
I found the comments on the different translations very interesting along with changes that may have occurred with the many times the manuscripts have been reproduced. In considering early writings how do you view the conclusions of Dr. Douglas Petrovich regarding the claim that Hebrew is the world's oldest alphabet. Could the writings he discovered at the turquoise mines that were controlled by the ancient Egyptians on the Sinai Peninsula be Proto-Sinitic?
I also have found today's blog to be interesting. I do have a question. The King James version of the Bible was released in 1611 and, with the exception of some minor changes/ corrections, remained basically unchanged until the 1870s. New versions of the OT and NT were released between 1881 and 1885. The Revised Standard Version was released in 1952 and the New Revised Standard Version introduced in 1989. You mentioned that, although not perfect, the NRSV is the best we have. Our church recently replaced the pew Bibles with the Common English Bible and it also is used in our worship services. What are the main revisions and do you know the criteria used in making the decision to switch to that version?
Post a Comment