Koine English for Koine Greek by Mark Strauss

I have to admit, I’m a bit of an iconoclast. Nothing drives me crazy more than smug satisfaction or blind acceptance by those who are convinced they are right about something, but have never really examined it carefully. I challenge my students (and my children!) to be critical thinkers, to test everything with their minds as well as their hearts. I also have a mischievous streak, which can be dangerous when combined with iconoclasm. So when I kept reading over-the-top endorsements of the English Standard Version (ESV), and statements from certain Christian gatekeepers about its "unparalleled English style" and "meticulous accuracy," I felt a response was warranted. The ESV was being made to sound like the Second Coming of the KJV.

This is why I wrote the (somewhat controversial) paper, "Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version. How to make a good translation much better."

(Download it here: Download ImprovingESV(2) )

It was meant to be a call for a critical evaluation not only of the ESV, but of Bible translation philosophy in general. My thesis is twofold: (1) First, that translations from across the translation spectrum are helpful tools for students of the Word. Functional equivalent versions (NLT, NCV, etc.) are helpful for communicating clearly, naturally and accurately the meaning of the text. Formal equivalent (or "literal") versions (NKJV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, etc.) help to reflect formal features of a language like metaphors, idioms, word-plays, allusions, ambiguities and structural markers. Mediating versions, which lie somewhere in the middle (NIV, TNIV, HCSB, NET, REB), are a nice balance, retaining more formal features than functional equivalent versions but with more clarity than literal ones. These issues are addressed in greater detail with Gordon Fee in our book, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth (Zondervan, 2007). The ESV is a useful tool within this spectrum. But is it the perfect balance of readability and accuracy? This is best discerned by comparing it with other versions. This is what the paper does.

(2) My second point is the more controversial one (at least for some people). It is that "literal" does not necessarily mean "accurate." Anyone who has ever learned a second language quickly learns that trying to be literal often results in awkward, obscure or inaccurate language. This is because languages differ from each other.

I am not saying that we should dumb-down or oversimplify our Bible translations (though there is a place for simplified versions for those with rudimentary reading skills). Our primary goal, rather, should be to produce the meaning the original authors intended, translated as close to the same style and register (reading level) as the original author. In other words, we need to translate Koine Greek into Koine English. For a book like Hebrews, this means using a higher literary style that retains technical terms and OT allusions, but that still sounds like good idiomatic English, not some strange hybrid of Greek and English. Rougher Semitic Greek (e.g. Mark’s Gospel) should be translated into rougher Semitic English.

In the paper I’m simply encouraging people to ask the same questions of their Bible versions that that they would ask of anything translated from another language: (1) Does this translation make sense? (2) If comprehensible, is it obscure, awkward or non-standard English? Would anyone speaking or writing English actually say this? The Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative Word and it demands our greatest reverence and deepest study. This means not only exegeting the text to determine its original meaning, but also carefully determining how best to communicate that meaning, style and register into normal, idiomatic English. I want the modern reader to hear the text in the same way the original readers heard it.

Years ago D. A. Carson wrote an excellent little book debunking the "King James only" view, with the subtitle A Plea for Realism. Though I would not pretend to be in a scholarly league with Carson, my goal was similar. Perhaps I should have named the paper, "The ESV and Bible translation. A Plea for Realism."

Mark Strauss (PhD, Aberdeen) is professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary in San Diego. He has written numerous articles and books including: The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, Four Portraits: One Jesus, The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy, and Luke in the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary series.

Comments

[Nathan Stitt]

Your work in the "How to..." series has been extremely valuable. I also enjoyed reading your article about the ESV. Please continue your excellent observations on translation philosophy.

Also, are you planning on having a debate with Mounce at the next ETS? I am a bit confused about when that is, or if it is going to happen.

[Mike Sangrey]

Mark wrote:
I am not saying that we should dumb-down or oversimplify our Bible translations (though there is a place for simplified versions for those with rudimentary reading skills). Our primary goal, rather, should be to produce the meaning the original authors intended, translated as close to the same style and register (reading level) as the original author. In other words, we need to translate Koine Greek into Koine English.

Amen!

I'm starting to use the term just-in-time grammar. It refers to the grammar used by a translation which supports the reader obtaining the meaning at the time of the reading. The reader does not have to analyze the grammar in order to obtain the meaning. And, to be clear, I'm not referring to analyzing the concepts and propositions of the text--we don't dumb those down. I'm referring to the grammar. For translations which use grammar requiring analysis, I use the phrase analyze-me grammar.

As you mention above, both types of translations are needed. And each suits a different audience with a different skill set.

I wonder what would happen if Zondervan created a "study helps" set of books that fostered development of the skill set necessary to analyze a literally rendered text? And pitched it to a market defined by those who use literal translations? Workbooks could encourage the "student" to "say the result of the analysis in English."

It seems to me this might foster an appreciation for the "other" kind of translation. And, it would help us all toward the goal of bringing together quality English grammar and accurate, Biblical exegesis.

Also, if the student "says the meaning" with quality English grammar, then he or she understands the text. And that transforms the soul. That's what it is all about.

Well, maybe that is (at the least ) the start of an idea.

[Mark Strauss]

Thanks Nathan.

No debate is planned. Rather, Bill said that he would likely prepare a paper next year explaining the ESV's translation philosophy.

I am considering starting an ETS group on Bible Translation and Linguistics. These ETS sections generally have a steering committee with representatives from various views, so it could become a forum to discuss these issues.

[Mark Strauss]

Thanks Mike, great insights. I actually do an exercise something like that in my Hermeneutics class. I print up Ephesians 1 from the NASB and ask my students to tell me what each phrase means (they are at a loss for most of them). Then I include additional versions: TNIV, NLT and Message, and for all four I ask them to identify "nonstandard English" as well as phrases they think might be mistranslated.

While this can be very eye-opening for most students, I am always surprised at how many continue to identify the literal version as more "accurate" because it sounds more "biblical". When translations sound too much like real English they often say they have too much "paraphrase" or don't sound solemn enough. The KJV tradition has very deep roots in our culture.

[Rich Rhodes]

Part of the problem in this debate is that the term accurate is a code word for literal, and the assumption is that the Bible the way we've heard it for so long KJV, RSV, and not ESV, sounds "right". Two years back I posted about how we can be attached to certain translations here.

But I would argue (and have done so) that accuracy should be defined the way it is for translations between modern languages where there are bilinguals to keep us honest.

[Rich Rhodes]

Oops, I meant "... we've heard it for so long, KJV, RSV, and now ESV, ...

[Bill Mounce]

I doubt my paper at the next ETS will be a debate with Mark. But I will be sure that he has gone over it with sufficient care that I am fair, as he tries to be.

[Kevin Corbin]

Enjoyed your paper on Why the ESV should not be the SEV. Just a thought for you, I'm not a scholar in either Greek or Hebrew ... you spoke of the flower of the grass as "a wild flower" ... it may well be flax grass which does grow in the Middle east, produces a small blue flower in the morning which lasts at most one day. Of course I cannot confirm it, just thought you might like to know (if you didn't already)

[Mark Strauss]

Thanks Kevin, that's another possibility. I suggested "wild flower" both because the BDAG lexicon gives this meaning, and also because the Hebrew text to which James 1:10 (cf. 1 Peter 1:24) alludes (Isa. 40:6) uses the Hebrew idiom tsits ha-sadeh which means "flower of the field," presumably a wild flower. The Septuagint translated this Hebrew idiom into a Greek one (anthos chortou), which apparently meant the same thing. But, of course, your point is well take and flax grass could be called a "wild flower" since it is a grass that bears a flower. My point was that in English we don't usually refer to anything that grows as a "flower of grass." That is an unnatural English phrase for what was a natural Greek idiom.

[Rod Decker]

I wish that whoever administers this blog would prevent "permalinks" from being so ridiculously long. When I find a good post like this, it's worth referencing elsewhere--including *printed* things like syllabi. This one is 169 characters long! :( If it's any help and saves someone a step, here's a shorter one to the same: http://tinyurl.com/9omnxz (The problem with using this approach is that no one knows to what the url refers without adding additional text!) So blog master, *please* change the proceedures here!

[Terry Thomas]

Dr. Strauss,

Thank you for your post and your paper. I too am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar but I do read and speak "Koine English".

I have read on the web and in print much about these "translation wars" that are ongoing and have reached the point of uber-frustration. To me it seems that we are approaching the point where we will cause believers and nonbelievers both to begin to doubt the scriptures. If you read the NLTse maybe it isn't getting the passage right, how can I trust it. Must I read God's message to me only in archaic words that I have never heard of except when reading Chaucer?
We thought the "alphabet agencies" of the government were bad, try the translation "alphabet soup" on a Sunday morning - NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NLT, etc, etc. Sure it would be great to have one predominate common version (I thought the NIV had been that for some time, guess I am wrong) with the others supplementing and helping in areas where readers language skills are either superior or less than we hope.

Personally, I have moved to the Holman CSB, why? It just seems to read comfortably to me, like I speak to my soldiers, wife and daughters everyday. I still use my very well worn NIV and will occasionally look at the NASB (MacArthur study bible). Frankly, the ESV reads too much like the old KJV for me and in my opinion that is precisely why it should not be a common, predominate translation.
At the end of the day, the best translation is a used translation. One that the reader is comfortable with and understands but just as importantly he/she can read it and explain it in everyday common English. If we can do it with technical manuals in the Army I am pretty sure that we can do the same with the most important message to ever be transmitted to the human race.
I apologize for the length, thank you for the opportunity to "rant" a little.
Blessings to all involved,
1SG Terry Thomas

[steve mitchell]

an inscription in a book given to my son:

Capital Epsilon
unknown letter
space
Tau
omicron
Nau
space
Capitol Phi
i
lamda
omicron (or u?)
nau
comma

Capitol Delta
omicron (with accent above it)
Zeta
unknown letter (looks like baby english "d")
space
tau
omicron
nau
space
Capitol D
epsilon
omicron with accent
bau

Any ideas what it means?
The last word is God.
This was supposed to be a thing early christians would use as a greeting or parting comment.

Any ideas what it means?

If you want, I could scan it in and send the scan.

Steve Mitchell