First, no, I’ve never been inclined to try to perfect the “Guidelines.” Sorry for the short answer.
Concerning Sproul’s “Principles,” leading up to the Colorado Springs meeting in three days (May 27, 1997), I had been urging our men (Piper, Belz, Grudem, Poythress, Sproul) to see that the only way to really forestall Evangelicals continuing to use the NIV (after Fee and his Committee on Bible Translation of the International Bible Society got done with their neutering) was to produce a new Bible version. No one wanted to do it—too much work. But as the weeks passed and I kept up my urgings, some interest coalesced. That was the context for Sproul sending out his “Principles” to me, Vern, Wayne, John, and Joel—see my cc names.
But no, RC’s work was not in any slightest way related to what was written and adopted at the May 27 Focus on the Family Colorado Springs Guidelines meeting. Why?
Because CBMW was opposed to any coherent theological and Biblical doctrine of sexuality. CBMW was terminally exegetical without ever allowing itself to become theological. So this by RC was too thoughtful/holistic/negative/incisive for them.
Of course, none of them would ever agree to this description, but they didn’t know each other, while the proof is in the pudding there for all to see when they finish reading RC’s “Guidelines” below.
From my email files:
Sat, May 24, 1997, 10:11 AM|
Note: My rough draft input on translation principles.
PRINCIPLES OF BIBLE TRANSLATION
-
We agree that language is fluid and dynamic. The nuances of word meanings are subject to change over time and these changes must be subject to ongoing revision to insure accuracy in translations from language to language and culture to culture.
Examples-the meaning of “cute” in Elizabethan English was “bow-legged”, or the shift of
“scan” from “careful detailed reading” to “skimming lightly”.
-
We agree that the two chief considerations in lexicography are: a) etymological derivation
b) contemporary customary usage. We acknowledge that of these two considerations the modern
science of lexicography gives the greater weight to the latter in determining word definitions.
-
We agree that the task of translation involves a complex multi-faceted process of
balancing questions of verbal correspondence, stylistic coherency, readability both for private
study and corporate public reading, literary smoothness, and the like.
-
We agree that no two languages have exact verbal correspondence between them, making
the balancing of the factors in #3 all the more difficult.
-
We agree that there are critical differences among the disciplines of translation, exegesis,
and hermeneutics.
-
We agree that though these disciplines may be distinguished from one another, they ought
not to be separated or isolated from one another.
-
We acknowledge that a crisis exists in which sharp differences in hermeneutics have
provoked controversy in matters of translation and exegesis.
-
We affirm that one’s view of the nature of Scripture has a crucial impact on one’s
hermeneutic and consequently upon one’s approach to translation.
-
We affirm that the classical evangelical hermeneutic includes grammatico-historical
exegesis as a cardinal feature whereby efforts are made to seek the original meaning of the text.
The application of this principle requires such efforts as determining a) the original text of the
Bible via textual criticism b) the historical situation in which the original writings were composed
c) refinements of our understanding of ancient lexicography and grammar d) genre analysis of the
original texts to determine elements of genre such as poetry, historical narrative, didactic, etc.
-
We reject hermeneutical systems such as found in Bultmann’s principle of Vorverstandnis
that give license to revisionist exegesis designed to accommodate modern philosophies and/or
ideologies. Such approaches tend to subjectivize, historicize, and relativize the message of
Scripture.
-
We affirm that the issue of gender inclusive language is closely tied to a contemporary
ideological/political movement that reflects a modern world-view rather than the view of
Scripture itself.
-
We believe that the application of gender inclusive language can have a serious distorting
influence on major influence of Biblical content. For example, the title “Son of Man” as applied in
Scripture to Christ, has enormous bearing on the church’s historical understanding of the person
and work of Christ, functioning as a terminus technicus in Biblical and theological literature.
-
We acknowledge that the publishing of Bibles in our culture is an enterprise of significant
commercial value. We recognize that publishing companies are under great financial pressure to
maintain sales levels and market share of products. We believe, however, that such concerns must
not be allowed to intrude into the task of Biblical translation.
-
The achieving of a standardized version of the Bible has great benefit to the Church and
the public, enhancing unity in the Christian community not only in Scripture itself but in ancillary
such as the language of hymnody, choral music, and literary citations. The language of Scripture
finds its way into a multitude of sources other than the Bible. How we sing, write, pray, etc, are
all influenced by the text of Scripture with which we are familiar.
-
We applaud the efforts of updating translations when such updates are driven by
considerations such as:
a) improvements of textural reconstruction
b) improvements of Biblical lexicography
c) archeological discoveries
d) significant changes in modern lexicography
We do not applaud such updates if driven by:
a) financial concerns for market share
b) political or ideological agendas such as “PC” language.
- We believe if improvements in the four areas mentioned above are achieved at a level that
warrants a new edition of a version, that they should be incorporated in all editions of that
version.
RC Sproul
May 24, 1997
|### Timothy B. Bayly cbmw@earthlink.net|May 25, 1997, 9:54 PM||
Reply
|
| — | — | — |
|to Joel, Wayne, John, Vern, RC
|
Dear Dr. Sproul,
This set of principles is helpful. Thanks for taking the time to do this work and for using a format which includes denials as well as affirmations.
A couple suggested changes/additions:
Number 10: We reject hermeneutical systems such as found in Bultmann’s principle of Vorverstandnis that give license to revisionist exegesis designed to accommodate modern philosophies and/or ideologies, and it is immaterial to this rejection whether such revisions are given birth to within liberal or conservative communities.
Number 13. We acknowledge that the publishing of Bibles in our culture is an enterprise of significant commercial value and that publishing companies are under great financial pressure to maintain sales levels and market share of products. We question the practice of using the copyrighting of God’s Word to produce profits (as opposed to simply recouping production costs) at these publishing houses. Further, we believe that the granting of permissions to use particular versions of Scripture should never be a commercial decision. God alone holds the copyright of His Word and it is our conviction that Bible publishers should cease their efforts to make the Word of God a means of profit. We believe that commercial concerns have intruded into the task of Biblical translation, thereby harming that process, and we seek the implementation of safeguards which will guard against such intrusions.
(Note: I realize this would be a radical change of direction within evangelical Bible publishing, and that some means of protecting the text of a particular translation, as well as recouping the cost of the work of translation, would need to be created. Nevertheless, I’m convinced we must get at the root of the problems within evangelical publishing and that this is a key one. It may be there are some works which will be accomplished with much higher quality if they’re funded by patrons rather than anticipated profits.)
Number 14: add memorization to the list
Number 16. We believe if improvements in the four areas mentioned above are achieved at a level that warrants a new edition of a version, that they should be incorporated in all editions of that version. However, we believe that, as a rule, such revisions ought not to be more frequent than once every 350/200/100/50/25/15/10/5/1 year(s)?
THE END OF OUR RC’S EMAIL AND MY REPLY.
One last comment.
Keep in mind the chief spoils the victor enjoys is writing the history of the battle. At key points, the histories of the meeting as well as the origins of the ESV are lies. And many of the truths that are not directly lies are, nevertheless, careful dissimulation. “To be wrong and to be carefully wrong…” as Chesterton says. Truth is, those histories closest to the truth are the ones written by the proponents of Bible neutering.
Love,