The impact of textual criticism on exegesis is demonstrated in the translation theory debate. This involves two translational philosophies: Former and Functional. The translation theory debate also spills over into the gender-inclusive language debate. A third area of concern is the selection of the best translation for the serious Bible student. This paper purposes that the solution to these debates is to find the balance of the extremes and avoid the extremes.
First, there needs to be balance in the former and functional debate and an avoidance of extremes. Daniel Wallace noted that “there have been three approaches to translation that have occurred in the last four hundred years.”[1] These three approaches are elegance, accuracy, and readability. The two areas of translation theory either lean in the direction of accuracy or readability. The formal argues for more accuracy and the functional contends for more clarity or readability. The formal wants more direct translation for accuracy and less interpretation from the translators and the functional interprets more for the sake of clarity.
The reality is that both translation theories interpret. Rodney Decker suggested that these two translation philosophies should be called more former and more functional because the difference between the two theories would be the extent of interpreting verses translating.[2] Carson states that critics of functional equivalence are sometimes unfair and inconsistent in criticizing the NIV translators, for example, of interpreting rather than translating. Carson cites Van Leeuwen’s criticism of the NIV’s translation of Colossians 3:9-10: “You have taken off your old self with it practices and have put on the new self.” Leeuwen prefers the KJV: “Ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man.” But then Leeuwen gives his translation which is less direct than the NIV: “the old Adam...the new Adam.” Leeuwen is more guilty of interpreting some verses than the NIV.[3]
There are extreme translations that should not be part of the exegete’s daily bag of tools. An extreme with the functional theory would be the Cotton Patch Gospel and an extreme in the formal theory would be Young’s Literal Translation.
Next, there needs to be not only balance in the former and functional debate and an avoidance of extremes but also in the debate concerning the gender-inclusive language. This debate has been going on since 2000 when Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem in their “The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words” responded to Mark Strauss’ Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy” in 1998 and D. A. Carson, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism also in 1998. Poythress and Grudem contended for formal equivalence and confronted Strauss and Carson for their looseness.
Complementarians are accusing complementarians of folding under the pressure of feminism and taking functional equivalency too far with a politically correct, agenda driven, and gender inclusive Bible. Just as there is functional equivalence in formal translations there is gender inclusive language in translations like the NASB and ESV, translations approved by Poythress and Grudem. Mark Strauss states that “a gender-inclusive translation is a translation that seeks to avoid masculine terminology when the original author was referring to members of both sexes.”[4] There are many examples that prove this definition. For example, the NASB translates anthropoi “people” and not “men” appropriately so in Jesus’ question: “who do people say that I am.” Both Grudem and Vern Poythress were on the ESV NT Committee in 2001 that was a revision of the RSV. Carson brings attention to the functional equivalency in the ESV verses the RSV. Only one example will be mentioned to illustrate the point: “Matthew 7:9 RSV: ”what man of you”; ESV “which one of you.”[5]
There are extremes to note in the gender inclusive debate. Daniel Wallace wrote that the NRSV crossed the line in translating 1st Timothy 3:2. NRSV states that a bishop must be “married only once.” The NIV11 has “faithful to his wife.” So, the NRSV has crossed a line here where they are saying something that is different from what the Greek says. The NIV was unwilling to make that kind of statement.[6] Mark Strauss agrees: “Examples of this may be found in the NRSV, which I believe went overboard in its attempt to capture all of the inclusive nuances.”[7]
Finally, in addition to balance and avoidance of extremes in the former and functionally debate and the gender inclusive language debate, there needs to be balance and avoidance of extremes in the use of translations for serious students. Most seminarians agree that the use of different translations, including former and functional, is wise. The recommendation from some reputable scholars, is that beginning Hebrew and Greek students should choose more former translations and more advanced Hebrew and Greek students should use the more functional translations. The scholars making these recommendations are Rodney Decker, Vern Poythress, Wayne Grudem, and Mark Strauss. What is their rationale? Beginning Hebrew and Greek students should use the NASB because this translation more accurately reflects the original languages that they are struggling to understand. The advanced Hebrew and Greek student already can read the original languages and his need is to better preach or teach in contemporary English. Rodney Decker states for those who work with the original texts (i.e., the more advanced students—which should certainly include seminary graduates), there is wisdom in selecting a translation with more functional elements. Such a student has less need for a very formal version since he can read the original text directly. It is the task of communicating the original text clearly in contemporary English with which we may need the more help. For this task, the more functional translations such as the ESV, and even more so the NIV, reflect a more mature grasp of how Greek and Hebrew grammatical and syntactical forms affect one’s understanding of the text and how that might best be expressed in English.[8]
Striving for balance and avoiding the extremes in these three areas of textual criticism and translation theory in NT exegesis will hopefully enable the man of God to be skillful exegetes and proclaimers of God’s Word.
Bibliography
Carson, D. A. “The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation---and Other Limits, Too” in The Challenge of Bible Translation ed. Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Decker, Rodney J. “The English Standard Version: A Review Article” Journal of Ministry and Theology JMAT O8:2, 2004.
Strauss, Mark. “Current Issues in the Gender-Language Debate” in The Challenge of Bible Translation ed. Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Strauss, Mark. The Inclusive Language Debate (Christian Research Institute) Article ID: DI401, accessed May 9, 2020, https://www.equip.org/article/the-inclusive- language-debate/
Wallace, Daniel.Textual Criticism (Biblical Training) Lecture 34, accessed May 8, 2020, https://www.biblicaltraining.org/textual-criticism/daniel-wallace.
[1] Daniel Wallace. Textual Criticism (Biblical Training) accessed May 5, 2020, https://www.biblicaltraining.org/textual-criticism/daniel-wallace.
[2] Rodney J. Decker. “The English Standard Version: A Review Article” Journal of Ministry and Theology JMAT O8:2 (Fall 2004): 9.
[3] D. A. Carson, “The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation---and Other Limits, Too” in The Challenge of Bible Translation ed. Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003) 71.
[4] Mark Strauss. The Inclusive Language Debate (Christian Research Institute) Article ID: DI401, accessed May 9, 2020, https://www.equip.org/article/the-inclusive-language-debate.
[5] Ibid., 82.
[6] Daniel Wallace. Textual Criticism (Biblical Training) Lecture 34, accessed May 8, 2020, https://www.biblicaltraining.org/textual-criticism/daniel-wallace.
[7] Mark Strauss. “Current Issues in the Gender-Language Debate” in The Challenge of Bible Translation ed. Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003) 140.
[8] Rodney J. Decker. “The English Standard Version: A Review Article,” 53. Decker quotes Poythress and Grudem in Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, 80 expressing the same philosophy and also Mark Strauss in “Form, Function, and the ‘Literal Meaning’ Fallacy,” 17–18