Shots were Fired but Never Hit their Intended Target: A Response to Tim Challies
After a hard days work at the office, Tim Challies decided to visit the local shooting range. Mr. Challies, who is pro-ESV, took a few shots at the NLT, but I believe he missed his intended target. In fact, he inadvertently hit a target that he was not even aiming at. Though Mr. Challies targeted three texts in the NLT, I’ve decided to respond to only two of them, since the aim of this post would have been clearly established after my second response. Below are two of the three texts that Mr. Challies took aim at:
Romans 13:4:
“But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong.” (NLT)
Mr. Challies took a shot at the NLT for not translating the Greek word μάχαιρα as “sword” in Romans 13:4. In this passage μάχαιρα should be understood as a metonymy, a word that is used for that with which it is associated, in this case “punishment by the government.” Furthermore, to somehow bolster his argument Mr. Challies goes to Acts 12:2, where μάχαιρα is rendered “a sword” in the NLT, and has charged the translators with inconsistency. I believe Mr. Challies meant well in his appeal to Acts 12:2, but he committed a fundamental error. The Greek term μάχαιρα is not used the same way in both texts. In Romans 13:4 it’s a figure of speech, but in Acts 12:2 it’s a literal μάχαιρα, “sword.” The NLT translators recognized the difference.
Let me add that the goal of any translation is to render accurately the meaning of the original language in its receptor language. Mr. Wayne Leman expressed it better than I could have on Mr. Challies post:
Accuracy of translation of the words of God’s Word should always be our highest goal of translation. If we have to explain the meaning of some words in a translation to Bible readers, even words such as “bear the sword”, then our translation job is not finished. We must never add to the meaning of the original text but we must also never take anything away from it. Many times by literally translating those words we do one or the other, resulting in some form of inaccurate translation…read the entire comment
If Mr. Leman is correct, then Mr. Challies missed his first intended target, and the NLT should not have been targeted, at all.
After taking aim at a text in the New Testament, Mr. Challies decided to go for the Old Testament:
Psalm 32:1:
Oh, what joy for those whose rebellion is forgiven, whose sin is put out of sight!
Mr. Challies took aim at the NLT’s “put out of sight,” charging the translators with not translating God’s words faithfully. Mr. Challies thinks that the only acceptable translation of the Hebrew kâsâh is “covered.” Mr. Challies asks, “But is “covered” not one of the words God breathed out and wrote in His book? Should we, as the reader, not have access to that word?” No, Mr. Challies! “Covered” is only an English construct. Besides the Hebrew word can also be rendered “to hide/concea,” hence the NTL’s “put out of sight.” Again, Mr. Challies has missed his intended target.
You see, Mr. Challies is pro-ESV, which claims to be “essentially literal.” In fact, in his concluding remarks, Mr. Challies says:
“What I mean to show in these examples is that anything other than an essentially literal translation of the Bible may work to subtly undermine the Christian’s confidence in the Scriptures.
Remember I said that in taking shots at the NLT, Mr. Challies missed his intended target and inadvertently hit a target he was not even aiming at. Well, that target is his very own ESV.
Let me demonstrate: In attacking the NLT at Psalm 32:1, Mr. Challies asks, “But is “covered” not one of the words God breathed out and wrote in His book? Should we, as the reader, not have access to that word?” Now let’s apply these questions to a passage in the ESV:
Matthew 20:15 in the ESV:
Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?
In this one verse alone, the ESV is guilty of the very thing the NLT is charged of by Mr. Challies. You see, Matthew employs two Greek idiomatic expressions that if translated literally look something like this: “”Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my things Or is your eye evil because I am good?”
The questions Mr. Challies asks of the NLT at Ps 32:11, Do you think he is prepared to ask them of his beloved ESV at Matthew 20:15? I think he is obligated to ask them if he is to be deemed a man of consistency.
In his effort to hold up the ESV and put down versions like the NLT, Mr. Tim Challies has missed his intended target and has inadvertently hit another. Mr. Challies needs to spend more time at the shooting range of Bible translating, so that when he takes aim at a target, he stands a greater chance of hitting it.
What is up with the ESV Only crowd? Why the need to attack other translations?
Translation (something I know very little about) is a bit more complicated than they (the ESV Only crowd) make it out to be. If they applied their ideas to a Spanish I course they would soon realize their folly.
I’ve always told salespeople to show me how good their product is by showing me its merit, not by slamming the competition. The ESV Only crowd has very much turned me off of the ESV.
A tongue-in-cheek observation: I noticed Tim Challies had nothing negative to say about the REB. Hmmm.
Forgive me TC…
Excellent post.
Great post. Your observation about the ESV’s translation of Matthew 20:15 illustrates the folly of two different traps some people fall into when discussing Bible translation:
(1) Thinking any translation is a perfect, consistent example of a specific methodology.
(2) Casting aspersions on other translations in an attempt to show the value of one particular translation.
Either trap will inevitably lead to egg on the face. The fact, as you know, is that all good translations have their strengths and their flaws. There is plenty of room for different English translations that will help Christians understand the Bible in complementary ways.
Excellent. Tim is among those who extol the ESV as though it was the KJV – he has no idea whatever about translation issues – like the translators of the ESV he lets his personal theology govern the translation instead of letting basic principles of linguistics and translation lead the way.
BTW – I am certainly glad my sins are not merely covered. The blood of Jesus more than covers my sin, it washes them away!
Stan, at one point I use to recommend the ESV as an alternative to the NASB. I don’t do that anymore. The ESV has garnered a cult-like following, and it’s advocates are quite militant.
Keith, I read your initial response to Mr. Challies. Good job! I had to respond after I noticed the weaknesses in Mr. Challies arguments. I’m afraid that an ESV-Onlyism movement has already been formed and is growing in blogosphere, preying on the unsuspecting.
You’re correct, there’s no perfect translation. They all have their flaws. Mr. Challies has failed to take this fact into consideration.
By the way, congrats on the NLT blog!
Brian, you slipped one in on me, while I was responding…:-
Yes, theology has trumped faithful translating at times in the ESV. Mr. Challies has failed to realize that when you take mud to throw at others, you cannot do so without getting your own hands dirty.
Good job, TC! I’m sitting here laughing about ESV-Onlyism! You’re right, it’s happening! I think the attitude of complementary translations is far healthier.
I think people should be careful in rejecting a translation because of its followers. I’m not saying this in support of any translation. I’ve seen it happen with more than one.
I commented on his blog that the “summary” argument doesn’t make sense.
I won’t comment on any translations since that’s the mode I’m in right now but your post is very illuminating and it’s always interesting to see how and why translators chose certain words and phrases which is always educational.
Jeff
Jeff, I’ve not rejected the ESV altogether. I still use it, but it is becoming more and more difficult for me to recommend.
Translating the Bible into accurate and readable language is no easy task.
I agree that there’s no reason to avoid the ESV because there are ζηλωται (zealots, in the first-century sense of the word) promoting it. In fact, it’s a fine translation in many ways, and I have enjoyed reading it and using it alongside the NLT and others.
I believe that people glom onto this or that translation as “the authority” because they want to feel that they are accessing God’s words “directly,” in an unmediated fashion. They don’t realize that (1) languages are really quite different from each other, and (2) every translation is unavoidably an interpretation. Both of these facts mean that translation is unavoidably mediated—through translators. If people really want direct access, they should take some of this energy and focus that they’re using to attack other people’s work, and learn Greek and Hebrew!
I haven’t thrown my ESVs out or anything. I do refer to it occasionally for comparison. I just don’t sit down and read it (by itself) any longer. I’m also not going to be purchasing a Cambridge ESV as I had originally planned. I still may purchase an ESV Study Bible. I’m definitely getting the NLT Study Bible.
Sean, thanks for stopping by. I’ve commended the ESV for its departure from tradition in Eph 4:11, which was also featured on the ESV blog.
Mr. Challies blog is quite influential among ESV-advocates, so it’s no surprise that Mr. Challies would attack the NLT.
Stan, I’m gonna get both the ESV SB and the NLT SB in hardcover. They are going to be great additions despite translations’ differences.
I started off over at Tim Challies and have now read this one and I am absolutely fascinated as to how different people approach the same subject and can show reasons why their argument is as it is.
I originally commented on Challies.com and said that I was glad that my Bible seemed to have the correct verses as he saw them. But on reading all the comments on each (and the blog content) I still can’t make up my mind as to which Bible I should actually be reading, but have decided to buy a more “simple” Bible so that I can read it without worrying about whether I have understood it!
All fascinating stuff anyway!!
TC, a very illuminating post. Thanks.
It’s too bad some people are so narrowly-focused on their own favorite translation that they miss out on the good things in other translations. It’s always to see what lays beyond our own range of perception. We should be concerned about what we cannot see, not just on the things that we can see. Didn’t Jesus teach that those who think they can see will remain blind? Same concept applies here. As I’m not one to bash any translation, I still have to say that the ESV is a great translation.
@Stan, the ESV Study Bible is still a good investment.
Kevin,
Thanks. I’ve added it to my wish list on Amazon.com. Not that I want anyone to purchase it for me, of course.
Sam, thanks for stopping by. I understand your “frustration” in choosing that one Bible to read as your primary text. I was once there. One think you must keep in mind: there’s no perfect translation. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. I’ve written on three marks of a good Bible translation. Maybe you might find it helpful.
Kevin, in all this translation war, I’ve learned to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each. Some have, however, gone to one extreme or the other. I’m ashamed to say that a cult-like following is being built around the ESV. I might be wrong.
Yes, I still think the ESV is a good translation. I still plan on getting the study Bible.
TC, the ESV does seem to have a cult following, especially amongst the reformed-minded folks. I don’t know why though, maybe because it’s such a good translation that Reformed circles rallied around it, it grew to become their accepted translation, and now fully identify it as “their” translation. It’s almost like family for them. It almost became the official translation for the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod worship hymnal too. I have to say that I really do like it too.
Kevin, I’ve observed exactly what you’re saying. Overall I think it’s a good translation, but it has some gender-bias spots that don’t particularly care for and I’m no egalitarian.
I think it’s a good practice for the preacher and the congregants to be on the same page with Bibles, but that’s just my bent.
Oh I don’t think it hard to figure out why it is the reformed translation. Its a translation which deliberately shades the translation to support their positions in various contemporary ideological struggles. It takes a strong position on gender than the Greek does, on most verses that are ambiguous reformed arminian it translates in a way highly supportive or reformed doctrine, it harmonizes the synoptic gospels to be more similar to John ….
CD-Host, It takes a strong position on gender than the Greek does
No question about that. Two things of note: (1) They (the ESV translators) footnote most (if not all) occurrences of men, man, brothers, etc… to indicate that it refers (or could refer) to men and women or brothers and sisters. (2) I have heard and read several of the big supporters of the translation using “gender nuetral” language recently.
on most verses that are ambiguous reformed arminian it translates in a way highly supportive or reformed doctrine
How does it do that? Any references? I would be interested in looking into that.
CD-Host, thanks for stopping by. I’ve visited your blog and left a comment on a related post. Thanks. The more and more I look into the ESV it’s the more and more I’m becoming increasingly frustrated with its claims. In a number of places, theology has trumped accurate translating.
I look forward to your posts on these matters.
Those that create and print the ESV Bible are spreading some interesting dogma. In the intro for the ESV Study Bible, it has a section called ‘A User’s Guide to the ESV Study Bible’. In the chapter ‘Divine Words and Merely Human Words’ it states,
“The ESV Study Bible contains two kinds of words. The first is the actual words of the Bible, which are the very words of God to us.”
The statement “actual words” is a falsity since it’s a translation. I think this causes people like Challies to have views similar to King James Bible adherents. Views from the ‘essentially literal’ crowd divide believers and wastes the energies of those having to respond.
Your post was a brilliant response in showing the accuser shooting himself in the foot.
Bryon, thanks for stopping by. It seems like the editors are feeding the misleading notions about the ESV. I’m afraid that an ESV-onlyism camp has already been established. I remember when I was at Blogger some ESV fanatic called me an idiot for not using the ESV but the TNIV.
This is a danger in being a “fan” of a particular translation. The more ardent one’s enthusiasm is for a translation the more likely they are to overlook its faults, which they all have. Not that we should be perfectionists regarding (a) translation(s), but we shouldn’t idolize them or promote them at the expense of promoting, learning about and teaching the word of God.
However, many of the comparisons can be educational and give us some insight into what the inspired writers were saying.
Jeff,
You’re not implying the REB has faults, are you?
Jeff, thanks for your kind words of caution. I’m a fan of the TNIV, but I never go around bashing anyone for not using it. If you look through this blog, from time to time, I take swipes at my beloved TNIV. Yes, it all can be educational.
Stan, It’s the Bible Jesus and the apostles used. Just ask, Elshaddai.
Brian said:
Brian, I missed this comment you made. Sorry about that! I’m in agreement with you. Personal theology indeed has trumped accurate translating. It’s sad, I say.
TC – you are starting to overstate my use of the REB, I think.
So my quota has been used up?
I own 2 ESV bibles, and I’m sure I’ll buy the upcoming ESV Study Bible.
It’s a nice translation, but I too am a little concerned at how vehemently its proponents seem to attack other translations.
Why can’t we just all agree that it’s useful to use a variety of translations?