Ship of Fools: Mary’s fiat and the NIV

Thread: Mary’s fiat and the NIV Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029331

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Mary’s words at Luke 1.38 – “Here am I, the servant of the Lord: let it be with me according to your word” in NRSV – have been the basis of much theology and devotion around the figure of Mary. Mary is cooperating with God and the salvation of the world depends on her acceptance. And this - the cooperation and acceptance - is a pattern for all Christians.

In the NIV this is translated:

“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.”

Am I just being suspicious but isn’t this trying to exclude the idea of Mary’s cooperation – she just accepts what will happen in any case?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The NIV is a biased, protestant translation so it is going to downplay Mary's role in the salvation of the world.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Maybe it's just cos I'm a biased protestant, but apart from the NIV using less poetic language (which is consistent throughout the translation) I'm not reading any significant difference in the meaning. Mary gets a message that she's going to have a son (despite being a virgin) who will be saviour of the world, and she says "I'm the Lords servant. Bring it on".

For me, the more significant part isn't the actual detail of the translation of these verses. More interesting is the parallel to Gethsemane, where Jesus says basically the same thing.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.”

Am I just being suspicious but isn’t this trying to exclude the idea of Mary’s cooperation – she just accepts what will happen in any case?

She says, "May your word to me be fulfilled." To me this indicates cooperation. She could have said, "No way." In that case God would not have insisted.

Moo

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The literal translation seems to be something like "May it be to me [or 'be accomplished to me'] according to your [spoken] word".

There does seem to be an implied idea of submissiveness here.

I am no Greek scholar, but I think the NRSV captures the meaning better. And I agree with Leo that the NIV would want to downplay Mary.

The New Jerusalem Bible has "let it happen to me as you have said", which IMHO is the best of all worlds!

[ 02. July 2015, 11:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Isn't it a Catholic translation, Baptist Trainfan ...

[Big Grin]

Intriguingly, I once heard Bishop Kallistos Ware say that if Protestant converts to Orthodoxy wanted to continue reading the NIV because it was the translation they were most familiar with - he had no issue with that. He accepted that the inclination/bias of the translation lay in the direction of more conservative Protestants - but he didn't see that as necessarily a bad thing -- provided people were exposed to the wider spiritual life of the Orthodox Church.

Some of his hearers objected but he roundly defended the NIV whilst accepting its limitations as it were.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I don't really understand what difference you're pointing to in the English versions. My suspicion with the NIV version is that porting in the concept of fulfillment is foreign to the text, even though it may be theologically on point.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Isn't it a Catholic translation, Baptist Trainfan ...

Indeed it is, I chose it on purpose!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I don't really understand what difference you're pointing to in the English versions. My suspicion with the NIV version is that porting in the concept of fulfillment is foreign to the text, even though it may be theologically on point.

Surely, importing the concept of fulfillment into the verse adds theological importance to the reply Mary gives, making her role more important than that implied by the translations which don't import this concept. Surely that would make the NIV more supportive of Marian theology than the NRSV or even the New Jerusalem.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

More interesting is the parallel to Gethsemane, where Jesus says basically the same thing.

That's very interesting and makes Mary and Jesus parallel,

I also thought of "Thy will be done" in the Lord's prayer. Looking up Luke's Lord's Prayer, I see that although AV includes that phrase, the NIV puts it in a footnote.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I'm struggling to see any significant difference between various translations, and if any difference were due to theological agenda, then I'd expect it to be reflected in the ESV as well.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I have NIV on an app on my ipad and it is the most convenient way to look up texts at short notice. Having heard Terrible Things about it, I have not been particularly fussed. Luke 1.38 was the only place where I could suspect protestant influence, but even that is questionable. (For Orthodox readers of course it is incomplete.)

Like Moo, leo and Metropolitan Kallistos of course I take the text to mean Mary’s cooperation, but that is not totally unambiguous. The compelling reason I accept that reading (which NIV doesn’t deny) is because that is how I understand Christian discipleship. God doesn’t want us to be automatons.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The Christian faith (and, for that matter the Jewish faith) has always had high regard for those who respond to the call of God on their lives. Whether that's Abram leaving his home for a far off land, the first disciples leaving their nets, or Mary accepting the shame and hardship of being pregnant while not yet married. It's a consistent thread, and certainly "they will be done" in the Lord's Prayer fits in with that very well. I don't know any Evangelical, no matter how fervantly (and idiotically) anti-Catholic, who would deny Mary a place amongst those who have heard and obeyed the call of God.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Indeed and she stands for and represents all those who have heard and obeyed the will of God.

But her obedience if of a significance far exceeding that by anyone else.

The current C of E translation of the Nicene Creed is Christ "was incarnate of the Holy Spirit AND the Virgin Mary".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I have NIV on an app on my ipad and it is the most convenient way to look up texts at short notice. Having heard Terrible Things about it, I have not been particularly fussed. Luke 1.38 was the only place where I could suspect protestant influence, but even that is questionable. (For Orthodox readers of course it is incomplete.)

I am told (I have not made an exhaustive study of this) that every time the NT is referring to tradition negatively ("traditions of men" etc), it uses the word "tradition," and every time the exact same Greek word is used positively, they translate it "teachings." If one doesn't see that as Protestant slant, then one is wholly blind to Protestant slant.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Intriguingly, I once heard Bishop Kallistos Ware say that if Protestant converts to Orthodoxy wanted to continue reading the NIV because it was the translation they were most familiar with - he had no issue with that. He accepted that the inclination/bias of the translation lay in the direction of more conservative Protestants - but he didn't see that as necessarily a bad thing -- provided people were exposed to the wider spiritual life of the Orthodox Church.

Some of his hearers objected but he roundly defended the NIV whilst accepting its limitations as it were.

Just proving that even the greats can make a mistake from time to time.

Posted by Flubb (# 918) on :

There's a rather interesting look at NIV 'translations' here but what makes it a bit more interesting is that one of the NIV committee members (David Instone-Brewer) turns up in the comment sections for a bit of an argy-bargy.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

How very interesting. Though some of the mistranslations are trivial, many are not and the whole thing looks like deliberate deception.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Given that the author of that blog starts off by accusing the NIV translators of deliberately altering the meaning of the text to fit prior theological positions it doesn't seem unreasonable for one of those translators to comment on that and defend himself (and his colleagues) from such accusations.

I've not read through the list of "mistakes" in detail, much less the comments that follow. But, at first glance I notice many of them are place where the translators include a footnote to indicate the other translations that the blog author prefers. And, those footnotes also contain a lot of information about whether alternative readings are based on differences between LXX and MT, whether they are supported by only a few or a larger number of existing manuscripts etc. Those footnotes are an important part of the translation (although, obviously, not as easy to incorporate into public reading as it is for private devotion and study).

Of course the NIV is produced by the Evangelical community, and carries many of the concerns of that community. Accuracy of translation into contemporary English was certainly part of that concern. Exclusive use of the NIV wouldn't have been. With the exception of a small number of people who read the KJV exclusively, Evangelicals would always recommend that Bible study should use several different translations as no single translation will be able to fully convey the message God is giving us through the text.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It strikes me that no translation can ever be free of bias because all translators have to make conscious choices in their task. At least the NIV seems to be pretty upfront about where its biases lie.

But, equally, no critique of any translation will be bias free: it will inevitably reflect the position, beliefs and prejudices of the critic.

So to accuse translators of "deliberate deception" is a bit steep, in my book.

[ 22. August 2015, 08:17: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Flubb:
There's a rather interesting look at NIV 'translations' here...

There is also a thread in Limbo on the topic.

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
With the exception of a small number of people who read the KJV exclusively, Evangelicals would always recommend that Bible study should use several different translations as no single translation will be able to fully convey the message God is giving us through the text.

Yes, but. How many joe-or-jill-on-the-street Christians do their devotional reading with more than one translation? If a conservativish church has NIV's in the pews, and the bible study leaders all use NIV's, then the participants at a bible study may very well all turn up with an NIV. Sure, the truly serious students, theology grads, bible geeks, etc., will use multiple translations. But we really can't expect our average pew-warmer to do so. It's just not realistic.

For this reason, the translation (including the apparatus, as you rightly point out, although I'd be interested in seeing a study on how many people ignore that) needs to be reliable and as theologically-neutral as it's possible to make it. It can't be fully neutral, as sometimes word choice will perforce come down on one side or another of some theological divide. But consistently translating so as to make the word "tradition" an unremittingly negative thing is an avoidable distortion.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

OK, so although I've associated with several evangelical churches and groups I wouldn't call any of them "conservative-ish". I can't comment on what people did for their personal quiet times. But, for small group studies and main service people brought their own Bibles, and that was a range of translation. In small groups commenting on, and then discussing the implications of, differences in translation were not only very common, but usually resulted in more constructive discussion than the questions prepared by the group leader. When visiting the rooms (in my university days) or homes of other members of those groups there were usually at least two translations on the book shelf - and the NIV was not always one of them. These days it's a bit difficult to make that judgement as so many people I know use their iPad rather than have a big print version with them.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

How can Mary's role in the salvation of the world be up-played?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0