Just got my copies of the current CRI Journal, and the cover article is my own two-part series on Bible translations: “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” I’m sure I’ll take some heat on this series, but mainly for not being as mean and nasty as my alleged reputation. When it comes to Bible translation, I have found that 90% of the heat is generated by tradition, and 10% by really important linguistic and translational issues. So if you are expecting a series where I recommend only one or two translations and bash all the others, you will be disappointed (and possibly shocked). Instead, I seek to explain the translational issues and recommend two really radical concepts: 1) English speaking Christians should know about how they got their Bible and should be able to understand and recognize the difference between a formal and a functional translation, and 2) (this gets really, really radical) Bible translation and interpretation should be done within in the context of the church, that is, I recommend the use of more formal translations for the preaching ministry with the more functional interpretations taking place in the pulpit, handled by trained elders whose focus it is to do that very kind of thing (I told you it was radical). That should get some interesting response.
James White, , Misc