My Favored Translation Method
John Hobbins divided translations into two classes in a recent post.
Which do you prefer: (1) a translation that makes sense on its own, without off-site explanation, or (2) a translation that is a head-scratcher until an explanation is given which clears things up, and even then leaves you wondering if you have it right?
Almost everyone I know, except J. K. Gayle whom I wish to congratulate for his well-earned doctorate, prefers, all others things being equal, a type (1) translation. …
Now I have a bit of a problem with that division of the types of translations. I’m guessing that John thinks I prefer type 1 translations, since he has responded to some of my comments and I’m not J.K. Gayle, so I’m going to respond as though his answer refers to me. As for J.K. Gayle, he has produced a new blog on Bible translation, which I won’t claim to completely understand, but will certainly read regularly.
That leaves me as a “type 1 preferer” by default.
But is that actually the case? Frankly I have a hard time understanding this division. I am, in fact, an advocate of just about every variety of translation, depending on the purpose for which it is used.
Thus when one is going to sit at one’s desk and study out a passage with commentaries, concordances, and other reference sources, I would often be quite happy with John’s variety #2.
On the other hand, if I’m giving a Bible to a child or young person, or someone who has not previously read the Bible, I’m likely to start with #1.
I frequently ask people to read lengthy passages from the Bible, such as whole books, and again for that purpose I like a Bible that is easy to comprehend without going to external references.
Some may wonder if this is not giving people a wrong impression of the meaning of the various passages they read. The problem here is the assumption that the result of one person’s long study of an obscure verse in a translation that leaves it obscure will result in enlightenment. (John does not partake of this error. He recognizes the tentative nature of conclusions in the post I cited above.)
A person who uses an easy-to-read translation in order to get an overview will not discover all the possibilities for interpretation of the text. That should be no surprise. One won’t do that while reading for overview in any case. Getting an overview of a passage or book is simply one part of studying the passage and should be supplemented by others.
So I would have to say, if asked whether I choose the Bible versions behind door #1 or door #2, “Yes.” On any particular occasion it would depend on the individual (or audience) and the purpose for which the translation would be used.
No translation conveys all that the source text will convey, nor can it be expected to. One must match what is conveyed to the needs of the situation.
Well, sure, and let me quote you:
“Note that I normally prefer the REB, though today was an exception.”
“The very positive thing about the CEV is that it is very easy to understand when heard, with no difficult vocabulary. At the same time, it loses all sense of Hebrew rhythm and parallelism. This is one of those necessary trade-offs in translation.”
“The NRSV sounded remarkably good to me, which again is not [un]usual. I usually like the NRSV for the formal equivalence.”
“I would give the edge to the NLT as a compromise between easy to understand, decently flowing English text, maintaining some sense of the parallelism, and not translating any of the Hebrew words in too jarring a manner.”
That’s all in relation to Ps 100. You’re an omnivore. You prefer them all. So do I. The trouble is, most people choose one translation, and stick with that. In my post, I gave reasons for my conclusion that NLT and NIV/TNIV rewrite a passage in Jeremiah to an unacceptable degree. My point is simple: most people, if they knew how many liberties translators take, would be appalled.
Thanks for the link and the sympathy, Henry. John, how about a translation “that is a head-scratcher until an explanation is given which clears things up, and even then leaves you wondering if you have it right” but only because of personal perspectives and positions? I’ve tried to explain the “personal” in translation here (which adds to what you’d said John) — thanks for your link to that, Henry. And today, I tried to explain a bit more about more than only two possible motivations / methods for translation.
For all – right now two links gets a post put to moderation. Since I work in front of the computer most of the time, moderation is usually pretty quick. Apparently the new version of wordpress counts the link from where you enter your URL as the first ink. I’ll fix this shortly.
John-you’re right that I’m an omnivore, but I’m not talking about what I do, I’m talking about what I recommend others do.
You cite a particular text that you consider “unacceptable” in certain translations based on your exegesis, an exegesis that I think you present masterfully. I haven’t put a similar amount of work into the same passage, so my agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, but there are those who disagree, and are also good exegetes.
Why do I bring this up? Because I haven’t yet found a version in which I cannot find some translation that I think is unacceptable. At the same time I know many people to whoom I cannot recommend certain translations that I like.
So while I’m an omnivore in terms of translation, and I study in the source languages supplemented by the translations so I can test myself against what others think, I cannot recommend that procedure to everyone, for example those who don’t have the time to gain proficiency in Biblical Hebrew or Greek.
Thus there are those to whom I recommend the CEV, the NLT, the NRSV, the REB, and yes, even the ESV, which I don’t like personally, but nonetheless does have its place. I’m not recommending they become omnivores, though I try to recommend each supplement their primary translation with something very different (NSRV-CEV, ESV-NLT, REB-NRSV), obviously the combinations also reflect different levels of Biblical and English language knowledge.
I think we’re having some difficulty communicating on this, on my part because I often agree with almost all of your arguments, but yet don’t see that your conclusion follows, but there are also other points of disagreement. I risk the accusation that I’m mischaracterizing your views if I try to characterize them at all, so I think I’ll let this play out.
I actually find courteous disagreement more interesting than agreement anyhow!
This is not very interesting, Henry, but I courteously agree with everything you just said. Anything I might say, you can say better.
I’m certainly not going to worry about you not agreeing with all of my conclusions. What is a conclusion, anyway? A new point of departure, to be relativized all over again.
Don’t tell David Ker. He will nail me with this the next time I say something mean about CEV.
BORING! And I’m not so sure about the “saying better” part, though I’m flattered. I’ve never had the time to comment or post about them, but I have really enjoyed your various exegetical notes, and especially when you did some work on Sirach.
But that’s what he lives for! You wouldn’t want to take away his reason for living, would you?
WRT the CEV, and related to our topic, I do recommend it, but I once read about three chapters in 1 Corinthians (I’m thinking 7-9) along side the Greek text, and marked more than half a dozen places where I thought the translation was off.
And I still give them out whenever I can.
Henry, I can think of several reasons to prefer certain translations that are often classified in category 2 that don’t require sitting at a desk with all your study tools present. One complaint against the NIV and TNIV that I believe also applies to the NLT has to do with consistency of translation. You always know when the KJV, NASB, and ESV are translating ‘hesed’, because it’s translated as the same expression every time. All you need to know is that the KJV uses ‘lovingkindness’ for that term and for no other term and that the ESV uses ‘steadfast love’ or whatever it uses. When I read the TNIV, I often wonder which term is being used. It’s actually the TNIV that I need my study tools to understand, not the ESV.
The same goes for terms often translated in the ESV as “flesh”. While the ESV isn’t as consistent on this as some of the other Tyndale-tradition translations, it’s far more consistent than the TNIV or NLT. When I read the TNIV and see a term in that general ballpark, I often wonder if it’s the same term usually translated “flesh” in the category 2 translations, but I usually know if it is by simply reading it in the ESV. So the category 2 translations are again in practice working out to fit the category 1 description and vice versa.
On the gender-inclusive issue, the same thing happens with ‘adelphoi’. The ESV always translates it as “brothers”. When I see “brothers and sisters” in the TNIV, I usually wonder if it says something explicit about sisters or if it’s the translation philosophy supplying that.
Jeremy – thanks for commenting on this. I’ll acknowledge some other options, though I think you greatly overestimate the value of having the same word in Greek or Hebrew translated by the same English word. In fact, that can be misleading, though the remedy is the same in all cases–context, context, context!
But when you say,
. . . I think you ignore the fact that Greek ‘adelphoi’ frequently does mean ‘brothers and sisters’, whether there is an ‘adelphai’, and if a Greek speaker of Paul’s time were to write ‘adelphoi kai adelphai’ the meaning, at least in emphasis, would actually be different.
In English, I’ve found a generation gap on the phrases “brothers” vs “brothers and sisters.” My own generation generally hears “brothers” generically, and doesn’t imagine it doesn’t refer to the women in the group. The next generation has many people who hear “brothers” as exclusive. Language changes, and it’s important to keep up in my view.
My view of translation is heavily built on communication–the importance of having the translation accurately communicate the message to the audience. That means expressing it in language as they use it to the maximum extent possible.
I would finally note a humorous story about a pastor, a very good friend of mine, with whom I have debated this issue. He liked the RSV, and I eventually recommend the ESV to him because it avoided thee’s and thou’s, but did not have gender neutral (I prefer gender-accurate) language. Then I was in his congregation and heard him read the scripture for the day. When he came to “brothers,” he looked up and said “and that includes you sisters too!”
I haven’t let him live it down!
Henry, I’m not saying that ‘adelphoi’ can’t mean “brothers and sisters”. I can certainly have that application. Its semantic range can include sisters, but in some contexts it doesn’t have that application. The reason I care is that sometimes it doesn’t include sisters, and I prefer to know if it has a word for sisters explicitly. That settles it without context needing to show that it includes it, and in some cases the context doesn’t make it clear. As always, I can always check the Greek if I don’t have it with me, but I might not remember the next time I’m near it, and it’s nice to know sometimes in the cases when I won’t bother later.
Jeremy, My problem here is that there is a different distinction in meaning between “brothers and sisters” and “brothers” in modern English than there was between “adelphoi kai adelphai” (or similar phrasing) and “adelphoi” in Koine Greek.
If I consistently translate the phrases by the suggested equivalents, someone like you can know what the underlying Greek is without further research, but, given that difference, someone who is unaware of the underlying Greek words can get the impression of a greater distinction between the referenced audiences.
That is why I emphasize that different translations are to be preferred for different circumstances and purposes. Too often the criteria for Bible translation are being made by people who hear the text much differently from the folks in the pews, and that ignores the wide differences in the folks in the pews. That’s why I’m a fan of Wayne Leman’s constant refrain about field testing.
That’s why I’m a fan of Wayne Leman’s constant refrain about field testing.
Me too!
🙂
Shocked I am! Yes, shocked!
Well, not so much …