Luke 17:35—The ESV and Dirty Dancing (Monday with Mounce 41)

It is good to be back. I have had a good break over the summer, moved to Washougal, WA, and took a job as Vice President of Educational Development at BibeGateway.com. (Disclaimer: I now not only write for Zondervan but am now a Zondervan employee.) Lots of cool stuff coming down the pike.

I am also starting to write my paper for the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society entitled, "Can the ESV and TNIV Co-exist in the same Universe?" This is in response to Mark Strauss’ invitation in his paper last year, "Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version." So you will understand if my blog posts for some time are comparing the ESV and the TNIV.

(And I have told Mark I am doing this and have invited him to comment on my blog as he sees fit and has time. We are good friends, and no translation debate is going to ruin that friendship.)

Of course, in light of the recent announcement, I am tempted to stand before the ETS crowd, read the title, answer, "Evidently not," and sit down. Do you think that type of humor would go over in an academic setting?

The announcement, if you missed it, was two-fold. Zondervan will discontinue publishing the TNIV and TNIV related materials. Moe Girkins, the President of Zondervan (and my boss’s boss’ boss), said that the translation had divided people and this should not happen.

The second announcement was that Biblica (the new name of IBS, who owns the NIV copyright; Zondervan has some print rights) was going to return to their original charter and continue to update the NIV in light of ongoing changes in the English language (and other reasons I am sure). Both Biblica and Zondervan were genuine (I believe) in their admission of past mistakes and their desire to move forward. It remains to be seen as to the nature of the battle that may or may not loom in front of them when the NIV 2011 is published, 400 years after the publication of the King James Version.

At the heart of Mark’s paper is the conviction that the only "proper" and "right" translation is a colloquial translation. Again and again he asks the fundamental question, "Would anyone speaking English actually say this?" "Is that how I would say it?" If not, then he labels it as "not English," although at times Yoda it would appreciate.

There are many problems with this definition. Here are two.

1. On this definition, Shakespeare is not English. Keats is not English. Much of what is written for an academic meeting is not English, because we write things like, "It is I" (who says that anyway?), or we don’t end a sentence with a preposition (how pretentious: "With whom would you like to study?") or split an infinitive (even though that is Latin grammar, not English). To confine "English" to a colloquial form does not give due credit to the true breadth of language.

2. Whose colloquial English? Someone from southern California, dude? Or someone from Texas? The deep south? New English? According to Henry Higgins, English hasn’t been spoken across the pond for years. Time and time again on the ESV translation committee I was shocked to find how different we all heard words depending on the subculture to which we belong (or is it, "we belong to")?

One example Mark raised is the ESV translation of Luke 17:35. "There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left." He says, "In contemporary English, ‘grinding together’ suggests seductive dancing or something worse.… Most versions clarify that this means grinding ‘grain.’ "

Whose contemporary English? I am 56, and that meaning never suggested itself to me. Call me naïve, but as I read that passage, in context, I never would have thought of a Patrick Swayze or a Kevin Bacon movie. One of the ESV translators was a pastor and acutely aware of how high school students would hear the words of the ESV. He never heard it.

And on top of this, one of our principles was not to do the work of a commentary, or in this case common sense, and so we felt no need to "clarify" its meaning. Its meaning is perfectly obvious

Is there a place for colloquial translations? Sure, although I wonder if a publisher would really want to invest millions of dollars in a truly colloquial publication that will be out of date within a few years, which is how fast language can change, or one that is limited to such a small subculture that you actually can identify "how would we really say this." The answer to this question changes several times as you drive across the United States.

Let me go on the record as saying I was disappointed to see the death of the TNIV. It was a magnificent and artfully crafted work that consistently held to its translation guidelines. And part of its beauty was that it was not colloquial. It has a beautiful style that transcends many subcultures and one that doesn’t mind ending a few sentences with prepositions. May someday grammarians learn that English is not Latin. I need to go find an infinitive to split.

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek (third edition coming in 2009!), and general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.

Comments

[JasonS]

"One example Mark raised is the ESV translation of Luke 17:35. "There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left." He says, "In contemporary English, ‘grinding together’ suggests seductive dancing or something worse.… Most versions clarify that this means grinding ‘grain.’ "

Whose contemporary English? I am 56, and that meaning never suggested itself to me. Call me naïve, but as I read that passage, in context, I never would have thought of a Patrick Swayze or a Kevin Bacon movie. One of the ESV translators was a pastor and acutely aware of how high school students would hear the words of the ESV. He never heard it."
I'm sorry, but I had to laugh :-)
Ok, so I'm not sorry ;-)

On colloquialisms, I think you are correct. I'm from the south...Dixie, a rebel, and a redneck to those Yankees....if ain't ain't in the Bible, it ain't colloquial for me. So what? Just as long as I can read and understand. There must be limits to how far we go in this. The vulgar language is the common language. If it is common to English, the distinction must be between American English or British English, not between New York and Mississippi. To do otherwise is to cause way too much confusion.

[bill victor]

Great post. You defended your position without trashing the other side. That is rare at times in this discussion.

[Gary Zimmerli]

"Moe Girkins, the President of Zondervan (and my boss’s boss’ boss), said that the translation had divided people and this should not happen."

To tell you the truth, I don't think the blame should be laid on the TNIV.

"...I am 56..."

I'm 56 too, Bill, and I want to know how you kept your hair and your youthful looks! ;-)

[Mark L. Strauss]

Thanks for this insightful response to my paper, Bill. I especially appreciate the positive and constructive tone. Two quick responses. First, I would never say that the only “proper” or “right” translation is a colloquial one. In the paper I extol the value of various translations. My point is that in terms of a standard reading Bible for the church, idiomatic ones are better than literal ones because they more accurately reflect the meaning of the original. Literal versions are good supplements. Second, I would never say that translation should always be colloquial, in the sense of casual or conversational. Translation should always try to reflect the register (reading level and style) of the original. If the original was written in high or formal language, then the translation should be done in high or formal English. My point in the paper was that the readings identified in the ESV would not appear in any contemporary English, whether spoken, written, formal, or technical. In this regard, I don’t criticize the ESV for using “propitiation” (though I would question its wisdom for most readers) but for using things like “he opened his mouth and taught them saying.” This is not English in any written or spoken form in the world today. Shakespeare is an example of Elizabethan English, which I don’t think is our goal to reproduce since no one writes or speaks in this language today. It is worthy of study and enjoyment, just like any foreign language document would be, but unless we are creating a period piece (like a movie or novel), I don’t think we would want to reproduce its style in Bible translations. In other words, it is not contemporary English, which should be the goal of a “standard English version.” Keats is poetry and so a different animal altogether. Translation of poetry is immensely complicated because it is not just about meaning but about aesthetics. All translations struggle with this (see Silva’s brilliant little article in The Challenge of Bible Translation).

You are absolutely right that Luke 17:35 would not be noticed by everyone (it was fine in the RSV for 50 years!). My point is that we need to be attuned to contemporary English. John Piper says the ESV is the perfect Bible for children, youth, adults, etc. But we need to think about how youth will hear it it if we want to lay claim to the church’s “standard” Bible.

I still think that a good test of a translation should be, “Would anyone speaking or writing English today use this expression.” If not, it is hard to call it “standard English.” My main criticism of literal versions is not that they produce archaic English (though that would not be good), but that they create artificial English, an English that no one speaks or writes. If people don’t speak it or write it, how well will they understand it?

It is, as you say, a challenge to find an English that is “standard” across the country, but the television media does it quite well, as do movies, as do books and magazines. I do think there is such a thing as standard English (within broad parameters) that is neither regional nor colloquial. This is the language the best translation should utilize.

Well, more grist for the mill,

Mark (Strauss)

[Robert Jimenez]

I am 43 years old, so maybe that is the cut off date for getting it? "...There will be two women grinding together." I would not be able to read this at my church with a straight face especially to our youth. ;-)

Great post, love the tone.

[Stan McCullars]

I'm 44 and "grinding" would be way out of bounds with most people I know.

[Rich Tatum]

I'm merely 41, but I would be amused! :: grin ::P

On a lark, I thought I'd look up "grinding together" via our modern Oracle, Google. The first 8 hits had to do with dentistry, industry, or biblical exposition. But, lo, the 9th hit was:

« Quote From The Ghost Whisperer - Delia (seeing two teenagers grinding together): "I am as open minded as the next person, but who calls that dancing? This is a public place...!" »

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

[Wendy]

I'm 31, really like the movie Dirty Dancing, and I would never think of "grinding together" being dancing in this context! V. 34 says there will be two in one bed... what are they doing?! This is ridiculous. How someone wants to interpret it seems to say a lot about the person's frame of mind. Such a mind is going to pervert anything no matter how it's written.

[Richie]

A common mistake in this debate - stated or implied time after time in Dr. Straus' article on the ESV - is that the English Standard Version (ESV) is either attempting to use, or should use, "standard English" if it is to truly qualify as being the "Standard English Version". Certainly people are free to think that one should use "standard English" (whatever that is) in a translation; however, the ESV itself has never claimed that it is the "Standard English Version" nor has it stated that it is trying to use standard English.

Instead, it clearly states in its preface that it stands "in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half millennium." It then lists William Tyndale's NT, the KJV, the RV, the ASV, and the RSV as its predecessors in this line of translations. It then states that its goal is to "carry forward this legacy for a new century." In short, it seeks "to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries." These are its stated goals and it should be judged solely on how well it achieves those goals.

As a 54 year old who grew up with the KJV, RSV, NEB, and GNB until the NIV and, more recently, the ESV came along I greatly appreciate the differences in all of their goals. I use the ESV, the NIV/TNIV, and the NLT as my main Bible versions. I would hope that they all continue to stick to their stated translation philosophies so as to offer the best of each of these traditions to the Bible reading public.

[Bill Mounce]

Sorry I was not able to respond earlier; I have been out of town, although I did write Mark privately.

My basic answer is that Mark's repeated phrase "Would I say this in English" is so prevalent in the paper and especially his presentation at ETS that it is hard to imagine anyone not getting the idea that this is the basic test for a translation.

And I wonder about the statement that the best translation for the church is one that helps you understand the meaning of the text. Hmmm. Some of the best Sunday morning experiences I have had is when the pastor takes a difficult passage, the translation allows him to lay out the different options, and then chose one and preach it. I walk out of the church encouraged by the pastor's spiritual gift.

And one last note. If we used the manner of speech on television, especially the news programs, as a measure of standard English, the TNIV's decisions on gender language would have to be dismissed. Or ads: "Prius: the perfect blending of Man, Machine, and Nature" (approximate citation). English is in such a state now that there is no such thing as "Standard English" across the board in many areas.