Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Translation

  • Practical Problems with Word for Word Translation

    A nice, short note at mmm-BELLY-may Day (HT: Kouya Chronicles).

  • Preserving Literary Quality?

    Bryon’s Weblog has a quote from Leland Ryken and some commentary, followed by some rather silly comments by an obvious troll.

    What I found interesting here, however, was the idea of preserving the literary qualities of the Bible.  Let me reproduce the quote Bryon used:

    “If your essentially literal translation is the RSV, the ESV, or the NKJV—in other words, if your essentially literal translation rides the literary coattails of the matchless KJV—you can trust it to preserve the literary qualities of the Bible that the KJV gave to the English-speaking world for nearly four centuries.” [I did different emphasis than Bryon–HN]

    My hope here is that he means that the KJV passed on literary qualities of the Bible to the English speaking word, though I think he would still be wrong.  Since I don’t have the book I can’t check the context, but is it possible he’s praising literary qualities introduced by the KJV?  There was a time when I would have dismissed such an interpretation out of hand, but now I don’t know.

    Let me assume the best, however.  Even so, there seems to be a very strong tendency to regard representing something like the literal forms of the source language in words in a new language as somehow reproducing those literary qualities.  But that is not correct.  A similar combination of grammatical forms in one language need not, and in fact likely does not, mean the same thing to a reader.  And if the reader doesn’t read or hear the form in the way it would have been read or heard in the source language, has it been passed on?

    Creating some new literary quality that pleases certain academics or people of particular literary tastes is easy.  Actually producing a form that has a similar impact is much harder.  To support the value of literal translation over dynamic or functional, other than as a sort of crib sheet for the source language, requires more than finding badly done dynamic translations of which there are plenty.  It requires demonstrating that the nuances and literary features presented by the literal translation both occur in the source language, and are conveyed to the target audience by the literal translation.

    Other than amongst the advocates of these literal versions, I don’t see that happening.  In fact, most of the people who “get” the literary nuances do so not because they were actually conveyed by the translation, but because that person knows enough of the source languages to recognize the construction and thereby reads that literary quality into the English.

  • Using the NLTSB, NISB and NOAB: Exodus 15:1-21

    I’m continuing looking at the NLT Study Bible (NLTSB) in comparison with the New Interpreter’s Study Bible (NISB), which I have also acquired recently. Today I’m going to add a comparison to the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB). Note that I am still working from the second edition.

    I think many Methodist ministers or ministerial candidates may be looking into the NISB as an alternative to the NOAB, and thus far my impression is that this is a good direction to go in terms of having a Bible that lays out useful sermon material for you efficiently.

    This time I’m covering Exodus 15:1-21, also a lectionary passage this week. I will try to complete this comparison on this week’s lectionary passages by looking at Matthew 18:21-35. The actual lectionary passage is only Exodus 15:1b-12, 20-21, but I am making my comparison for the entire block of text.

    Quantity of discussion. The NLTSB continues to surprise me by having the most words, over 800 this time in notes on this passage. (I am using an average line length for each edition and multiplying lines to get these approximations.) That compares to the NISB at just over 400 and the NOAB at just over 320. I don’t think any of them are wasting words, so there is more discussion in the NLTSB.

    In addition, the NLTSB has an excursus titled The Exodus as History which presents an essentially conservative view of the historicity of the passage. This discussion is not part of the 800 words, and it is not matched in either of the other works. Each of those does discuss historicy in general in various essays, they simply don’t do it as part of this passage.

    Themes. The NLTSB focuses on the power of God, his care for the Israelites, and the faith and trust that would result from these action. This theme goes well with the excursus on historicity. Both the NISB and the NOAB emphasize the literary relationship between this song and ancient near eastern literature about the battle of various gods against the sea, and to the idea of gods dwelling on mountains.

    The NOAB is more specific, but provides less explanation than does the NISB. The NLTSB avoids this mythological connection altogether and emphasizes the uniqueness of Israel’s religion in the ancient near east. The excursus (The Exodus as History) includes this: “The most reasonable explanation for the distinctiveness of Israel’s understanding is that, as the Bible describes, God broke into their experience and showed himself to them in events that have been recorded as history.”

    General Impression. The NOAB is extremely abbreviated and data oriented, a kind of “just the facts” approach, though along with much of secular Bible scholarship it focuses on the similarities between Israel’s religion and literature rather than the distinctive points. The NISB lessens this focus and looks a bit more at the implications. The NLTSB provides a moderately evangelical explanation of the data.

    Obviously none of these will replace a good commentary, but they do each present some unique value for someone preparing a sermon or Sunday School lesson.

  • Using the NLTSB and NISB: Exodus 14:19-31

    Yesterday I looked at Romans 14:1-12 in these two versions. Today I’m looking at another of this week’s lectionary passages, Exodus 14:19-31. Those who aren’t seriously interested in these two study Bibles should probably skip this whole series. Watch for the first part of the title (Using the NLTSB [NLT] and NISB [NRSV]) and flee when you see it! Each of my notes will be short, however, so don’t panic.

    There is a greater difference in emphasis in this passage than there was on Romans 14:1-12. In that passage the theological themes emphasized in the notes were only slightly different. In this passage, we see more substantial emphases.

    Miracles: The NLTSB makes particular note of the miraculous aspect and comments that “. . . [a]s with the plagues, naturalistic explanations for this event are beside the point.” The NISB simply narrates the passage and looks at meaning without comment.

    Sources: The NISB notes differing interpretations of the rescue from Egypt according to sources. NLTSB does not mention this aspect. (This information involves reading beyond the limits of the notes on the specified verses, but such reading is necessary to place the notes in context for either edition.)

    Choosing Excurses: In the NLTSB we find an excursus title “A Hardened Heart” which deals with issues raised by the statement that “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” The discussion is really quite good, especially for the limited space provided and references a number of texts where one can look at the interplay between God’s sovereignty and human choice or human responsibility. In the NISB, there is also an excursus, but it is titled “Salvation and the Sea” and deals with the relationship between this passage and other ancient near eastern liturgy and symbols.

    I have a certain bias toward the emphasis of the NISB in this case, because I’m very conscious of comparative ancient near eastern materials, and I really like their introduction to the ideas involved. Apart from that bias, however, I would be hard pressed to call one of these better than the other. They choose different things to emphasize, but either choice is a good one and might be what a pastor or teacher would find most useful.

    Using these two study Bibles for a period of time is increasing my respect for both editions. I may have to add them to my reading more often!

  • Using the NLTSB and NISB: Romans 14:1-12

    I thought it might be useful to look at the information available in each of these study guides for a few passages. Since I regularly read the lectionary passages during my personal devotions, I will compare the information available in each Bible for some selected passages from the current lectionary.

    I’m choosing to compare only the NISB and the NLTSB, because these two Bibles are the my most recent acquisitions, and also because they are the ones that interest me the most out of the numerous ones I consult.

    I chose Romans 14:1-12 today, and my post can be quite short, because there is remarkably little difference. The one surprise for me is that comments in the NLTSB use a few more words (around 600) than the ones in the NISB (a bit over 400). The layout makes the NISB look more dense, but the word count doesn’t bear out appearances.

    In terms of themes, both sets of notes are remarkably similar, even though one is largely from a mainline protestant perspective, and one evangelical.

    There are two divergences, though these are minor, and not contradictory. First, the NISB is at pains to point out that the adjectives “strong” and “weak” refer to faith, not character, which is, of course, part of the point. Second, in discussing the judgment based on days, the NISB says that “perhaps” this might refer to moving the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday, while the NLTSB makes the explicit statement “With Christ’s provision of salvation, observance of the Sabbath in its original form is not required of Christians.”

    Otherwise, had I chosen this text on which to base a sermon, I would glean pretty much the same outline points from it. Neither is comprehensive, but that is not expected in a study Bible. Both are solid in what they do say. I confess that in most areas I prefer the NLTse as a translation to the NRSV.

  • NCV Duct Tape Bible from Thomas Nelson

    There is some discussion of this edition of the NCV at Bryon’s Weblog (HT: Better Bibles.)

  • NLT Review

    Via a comment I received a link to this review of the NLT2 which is quite useful, especially because it includes specific examples supporting the major points.

  • NLT has a Blog

    Wayne Leman at Better Bibles Blog notes that there is now a blog for the NLT.

    I note with pleasure that the first post deals in a very balanced way with the widespread belief that dynamic equivalence translation is the same thing as paraphrasing.  (One should note that in this case “paraphrasing” is not used in its technical meaning, but rather for an excessively loose rendering that goes beyond the limits of translation.)

    Various approaches to translation convey various things well, and often other things poorly.  The CEV is easy to read, but doesn’t convey the literary style of the original.  A good example is the elimination of parallelism from Hebrew poetry in favor of clearly representing the meaning to English readers.

    The NLT is an important translation because it provides evangelical Christians with a clear, dynamic equivalence translation.  I personally prefer the REB, but for numerous reasons the NLT will be more acceptable to conservative, American churchgoers.  For the same reasons, however, it is more subject to attack.  Tim Challies, in the post to which Keith Williams is responding, attacks the CEV, the NLT, and The Message, all of which have a reach into evangelical circles.

    So I think it is very important that the NLT be properly defended, and I welcome this new blog.

    PS:  While I commend Keith Williams for his very balanced post in an irenic tone, I frankly think that Tim Challies’ post is simply riddled with misunderstandings of translation in general and many specific points.  But I’ve probably responded to enough such posts recently.

  • The Foreignness of the Bible

    Richard Rhodes doesn’t think it’s all that foreign.  Read about it at Better Bibles.  I give this one 5 stars out of 5.

  • What is the Best Bible Version?

    There a teacher’s saying that there are no bad questions, except the ones you don’t ask. There’s another saying that says that once you know the right question, the right answer will follow. As with many one liners, these two seem to clash.

    On the front of my book What’s in a Version?, I have printed the line, “The best Bible version is one you read.” That saying suffers from the same problems as any one liner. It may quite easily be construed in ways that would make it quite false.

    On the other hand, such sayings do have the value of making us think a little bit about our assumptions, and even a question you might evaluate as “bad” may well help you understand an issue as you analyze the question.

    Every time I have been at a show or a teaching event at which I have used or displayed my book, I’ve heard the question “What is the best Bible version?” That’s even after they look at the cover of my book. If I point to the line on the cover they’ll laugh and say, “Yes, but what is really the best version?” That question is, in a sense, a bad question. It doesn’t really have a very good answer, and that’s because of things that are lacking in the question. But it can lead us to think profitably about the question.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I can’t say what the “best” version is without asking just what the version is to be used for. For example, if you want to read extensively for pleasure and to get an overview, then I might recommend an easy reading version, such as the CEV, because it is easy to read rapidly. Yet if I were personally going to read for an extended period of time, I wouldn’t prefer the CEV. I’d more likely use the REB, or as an intermediate point, the NLT.

    For rapid reading, I would regard all three translations as adequately accurate in the way they convey the general story, but they differ in style and vocabulary. Some people find the CEV very attractive. Attention has been paid to style and to how it will sound when read orally. But other people find its shorter sentences and simpler vocabulary tedious. The REB is music to my ears and to my mind, yet I find that most people to whom I read passages don’t hear the same thing I do in it.

    So which of these translations is best? I go back to the line on the front cover of my book: The best Bible version is one you read–especially in this case.

    No translation conveys all meaning from the source to the target language. To simplify that, when you read the Bible in English, no matter what English version you use, something will be missing over what might be received by a person reading in the source languages. (Another point that should be mentioned here is that different amounts are conveyed to the reader in the source languages depending on language and other skills.)

    Here are some things that a translator might try to convey:

    • Style of the original writers
      Hebrews is written in a substantially different style of Greek than Mark, 1 John, Revelation, or Galatians, and each of those four examples differs from one another. Translations tend to obscure these stylistic differences. The CEV, for example, is aiming at an easy reading level, and will break up long, complex sentences in the Greek of Hebrews in order to make them easier to read, thus losing much of the sense of literary style in the book. At the same time, the intended audience of the CEV will probably get more of the sense of the book than they would if it was translated into a style of English that matched the elevated style of the Greek. A translator has to choose. What to you convey? What do you leave behind?
    • Literary devices
      If you want to get an argument going about translation mention literary devices. In this case I use the term broadly. In translating Hebrew poetry do I want to convey the style of Hebrew poetry, i.e. make an English representation of the structure of the Hebrew, or do I want to provide English poetry with a similar impact to that of the source? Personally, I’m happy to have translations that try for either option or a variety of compromise approaches, but the translation will be quite different depending on how one answers this question.
    • Form and vocabulary
      This issue was discussed extensively by the KJV translators. Do you want to have a single English word always represent a particular Greek or Hebrew word? How about a limited subset? This question lies somewhere near the foundation of the dynamic equivalence/formal equivalence debate.

    That is just a very basic start at looking at the various questions. Every translation I have read or studied includes passages I wish were translated differently, or makes choices I wish had been made differently. Yet nearly every one has some quality I can appreciate as well.

    To answer the question in the title, requires that one consider these questions, and consider the audience as well, without knowing who will read, for what purpose they will read, and under what circumstances they will read, I can’t even take a stab at saying what Bible version will be best.

    The final step in choosing a good Bible version should always be to read from it under the circumstances for which you are choosing it. The best test of a tool is whether it performs the intended task.

    I have complaints about