Intelligible Is Not Preferred If the Rendering Is Inaccurate: Matthew 16:18-19 in the TNIV
10/29/2007 11:56 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Lest anyone think I'm overly critical at times of the ESV and never of a translation like the TNIV, let me offer a couple of brief translation-related notes from yesterday's Bible study.
Our focal text for the day was Matthew 16:13-28. As I do on most Sundays, I was teaching from the TNIV. When I'm teaching, I prefer not to have to undermine the translation I'm using in order to clarify actual meaning in the text. But the TNIV was lacking, in my opinion, in two very important places in our study. Had I been thinking, I probably should have grabbed my HCSB when I walked out the door as it was much better.
First, I'm not fond of the rendering in v. 18: "and the gates of death will not overcome it" (emphasis added). The original NIV simply had Hades here, transliterated from the Greek. On the one hand, hell (KJV, NLT) is too strong of a translation. But in my opinion, the TNIV's death lacks a certain amount of punch. Hades certainly does carry the meaning of death, and at times could be legitimately translated simply as death or grave (Acts 2:27 for instance, although here the TNIV ironically uses "the realm of the dead"). But my concern with death in Matt 16:18 is that the reader will miss the spiritual aspect of Jesus' words. Yes, I know that theologically speaking, all death is a spiritual event. But many don't realize that and merely see it as a physical act at the end of existence.
I perfectly realize that Hades by itself isn't any clearer and many will still need explanation, but again, I feel that death simply doesn't say enough while hell overreaches. I know that many readers will disagree with me and see death as a fine translation. Please realize, I'm not calling it inaccurate, just less effective and incomplete. But that does lead to the next issue where I believe there is an actual inaccuracy in the TNIV (and the majority of translations in use today).
I was disappointed in v. 19 to see that the future perfect aspect of binding and loosing that is in the Greek (δεδεμένον and λελυμένον, respectively) were ignored in favor of a fairly traditional rendering: "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” But if misery loves company, very few translations render this correctly. In fact, only three major modern translations even attempt to bring out an accurate understanding of the passage:
“...and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (NASB) “...and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.” (HCSB) "Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." (NET)
Certainly, the alternatives above are a bit more awkward, but the difference theologically is enormous, and more importantly, they are more accurate. So, since I have said before that "literal is not more accurate if it's unintelligible," I might also suggest that intelligible is not preferred if the rendering is inaccurate.
It cuts both ways.
Final note: alternate (and more accurate) renderings for v. 19 are found in some translations including the ESV and TNIV:
Or shall have been bound . . . shall have been loosed (ESV)
Or will have been. (TNIV)
Our focal text for the day was Matthew 16:13-28. As I do on most Sundays, I was teaching from the TNIV. When I'm teaching, I prefer not to have to undermine the translation I'm using in order to clarify actual meaning in the text. But the TNIV was lacking, in my opinion, in two very important places in our study. Had I been thinking, I probably should have grabbed my HCSB when I walked out the door as it was much better.
First, I'm not fond of the rendering in v. 18: "and the gates of death will not overcome it" (emphasis added). The original NIV simply had Hades here, transliterated from the Greek. On the one hand, hell (KJV, NLT) is too strong of a translation. But in my opinion, the TNIV's death lacks a certain amount of punch. Hades certainly does carry the meaning of death, and at times could be legitimately translated simply as death or grave (Acts 2:27 for instance, although here the TNIV ironically uses "the realm of the dead"). But my concern with death in Matt 16:18 is that the reader will miss the spiritual aspect of Jesus' words. Yes, I know that theologically speaking, all death is a spiritual event. But many don't realize that and merely see it as a physical act at the end of existence.
I perfectly realize that Hades by itself isn't any clearer and many will still need explanation, but again, I feel that death simply doesn't say enough while hell overreaches. I know that many readers will disagree with me and see death as a fine translation. Please realize, I'm not calling it inaccurate, just less effective and incomplete. But that does lead to the next issue where I believe there is an actual inaccuracy in the TNIV (and the majority of translations in use today).
I was disappointed in v. 19 to see that the future perfect aspect of binding and loosing that is in the Greek (δεδεμένον and λελυμένον, respectively) were ignored in favor of a fairly traditional rendering: "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” But if misery loves company, very few translations render this correctly. In fact, only three major modern translations even attempt to bring out an accurate understanding of the passage:
“...and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (NASB) “...and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.” (HCSB) "Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." (NET)
Certainly, the alternatives above are a bit more awkward, but the difference theologically is enormous, and more importantly, they are more accurate. So, since I have said before that "literal is not more accurate if it's unintelligible," I might also suggest that intelligible is not preferred if the rendering is inaccurate.
It cuts both ways.
Final note: alternate (and more accurate) renderings for v. 19 are found in some translations including the ESV and TNIV:
Or shall have been bound . . . shall have been loosed (ESV)
Or will have been. (TNIV)