Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Translation

  • Threads Post on KJV Only

    I have posted a couple of YouTube embeds and some short comments on the KJV-Only preaching on my Threads blog.

  • New Life Version: Simplified Vocabulary

    One way to get my checkbook or bank card out nearly every time is to present me with a substantially new edition, or a new translation of the Bible. A substantial part of my bookshelves is occupied with these various versions and editions. The majority of them even get read on a reasonably frequent basis.

    I picked up a copy of the New Life Version (NLV) several months ago, and even added it with very brief notes to my Bible Version Selection Tool. Today I grabbed it for my daily lectionary reading, in which I’m reading the texts for the third and fourth Sundays in Lent for cycle A. This is a good way to improve my impression of the version.

    A key goal of this version is simple vocabulary and readability especially by those for whom English is a second language. My overall impression is that the task of simplifying the vocabulary is well done. At the same time, I thought that the syntax was not nearly as well done. I don’t mean it was choppy or too simple stylistically, but often excellent vocabulary choices were embedded in difficult sentences. Perhaps some folks with more experience in English as a second language teaching or related work might comment. Are the examples I provide below actually easy to follow? In any case, the simplified vocabulary is quite worthwhile.

    Two additional points that do not relate to either of these two issues. The common standard of translating YHWH as LORD is abandoned. It is translated Lord throughout. That probably is in accord with the desire to simplify. Also, poetry is not broken out into lines. That is also probably part of the simplification.

    First, here are some examples of simplified vocabulary. Note that I will present these in two columns, with the more common rendering first. The “more common” rendering is in no way intended as a standard, nor as a better translation. It’s just for comparison. Note also that the reference given is just as an example. The word may be used in many other verses.

    Common Term NLV Term Reference
    murmur or complain argue Exodus 17:2
    Stone throw stones at Exodus 17:4
    Rod special stick Exodus 17:5
    Sacrifice give a gift 1 Samuel 16:2
    Anoint pour oil on 1 Samuel 16:13
    Kneel get down on ___ knees Psalm 95:6
    Wilderness place where no people live Psalm 95:8
    Ancestors early fathers Psalm 95:9*

    * I have to wonder about this one. It makes sense to me, but does it work in the English as a second language setting? I can only assume the translators are better acquainted with the need than I am.

    Second, syntax issues. The following sentences seem more clumsy than necessary to me:

    He called the name of the place Massah and Meribah because of the arguing of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” — Exodus 17:7

    In this case the normal pattern of shortened sentences seems to be abandoned, and the syntax seems much more complex to me than the vocabulary.

    The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you be filled with sorrow because of Saul, since I have turned away from him being king over Israel? — 1 Samuel 16:1

    I would note particular “turned away from him being king.” I wonder how easily speakers of English as a second language would understand it. I have to think about it myself.

    I was angry with the people of that day for forty years. — Psalm 95:10

    I hate putting this one down because I’m not sure how I would rephrase it, but again, I’m not sure it is all that easy to read.

    They said to the woman, “Now we believe! It is no longer because of what you said about Jesus but we have heard Him ourselves. We know, for sure, that He is the Christ, the One Who saves men of this world from the punishment of their sins. — John 4:42

    This one could do with some more use of the short sentences used elsewhere in the NLV, or so it seems to me.

    I think that gives enough of the flavor. This version seems to me to make an excellent effort to fill a need, but I’m not sure that the syntax doesn’t work against the valuable work on simplifying the vocabulary.

  • A United Methodist Bible?

    A friend e-mailed me notice of a new Bible translation project which is being sponsored by a subsidiary of Cokesbury, which in turn is associated with the United Methodist Church. (He also passed me a link to this post at Metacatholic.)

    There is a basic outline of the purposes and intentions of this translation at Our New Bible. I can only hope that they translate with greater clarity than they use in their writing. (And no, my writing would not provide the clarity necessary in a translation that aims for an eighth grade reading level.) I noted the same paragraph that Metacatholic quoted:

    A new translation must attend to evocative language that is more engaging emotionally than precise, systematic syntax.

    Does this sentence actually mean anything? I am not too certain just what the translators are trying to say. Far be it from me to oppose a translation project, but I certainly hope that the cost of this translation has been well considered, and that the translation will effectively meet a real need that current translations do not.

    One further note: I am aware that the translation committee will be ecumenical, which I applaud, but the translation committee is sponsored by a denominationally connected group, albeit one that is involved with interdenominational curriculum development.

  • The Value of REB Eccentricity

    Or perhaps I should say REB uniqueness.

    One of the major reasons for using multiple Bible versions when studying the Bible in English (or any other language other than the originals) is to make yourself aware of alternate translations for particular passages. This goes beyond different ways of expressing the thought in English, to places in which the source language could be interpreted multiple ways, but even in the most literal translation, one must choose one or another option.

    This morning in doing my lectionary reading, I chose the REB, and quickly found two examples: Genesis 12:3b and Psalm 121:1-2.

    In Genesis 12:3, most translations use “in you will all nations of the earth be blessed” or something very similar. It is possible, however, to translate as the REB does:

    All the peoples on earth
    will wish to be blessed as you are blessed.

    Now it happens I prefer the option presented in most other versions, but most people would not be aware of the alternate possibility unless they check a footnote, or use the REB. This is a positive value for a version which is known for accepted readings that are a bit out of the mainstream. (Note that I love the REB for my own reading; I will disagree with any translation on various renderings, and I don’t let that concern me. As long as a reading is well supported technically, I would never count it against the translation.)

    The second one is in Psalm 121. Verses 1 & 2 are normally translated in a slightly ambiguous way. Is one looking to the hills for help? Is one rejecting the hills in favor of the Lord? This becomes more interesting when one seeks a Sitz im Leben for the passage. For example, if it is a processional song going toward the temple mount, looking to the hills could stand in for looking to the Lord.

    The REB, on the other hand, renders unambiguously (or less ambigously, if that is possible!):

    If I lift up my eyes to the hills,
    where shall I find help?
    My help comes from the LORD,
    maker of heaven and earth.

    In this case, I like the REB rendering slightly better. But my preference is not the point here. I think the REB can be a valuable addition to the library of the serious Bible student who does not know the source languages simply because it showcases some unusual readings. Of course, one hopes the student will be directed to the footnotes in all versions, as they often provide the same service.

  • Some CJB Terminology in Romans

    I did my lectionary reading today from the Complete Jewish Bible. Each day I read two sets of lectionary texts, one from the current week, and one from the week following. I try to choose a different version each day, and also read them at least once from the original languages.

    This week’s epistles passage is Romans 5:12-19, and next week’s is Romans 4:1-5, 13-17. I’m going to stick to some terms in those to give a flavor of the use of terminology. I will work through these in the order in which they appear in Romans. Note also that I would not criticize all of these renderings. I’m just trying to provide a flavor for those who have never worked with this version. Some of these are not bad, in fact, though they will sound very unusual to the ears of one who is accustomed to one of the more standard English versions.

    Romans 4:1 Avraham replaces the familiar Abraham. In the CJB all names are replaced with something close to their Hebrew equivalents, even when translating Greek.

    Greek kata sarka (according to the flesh) translated “by his own efforts.”

    Romans 4:2 Greek ergon (works) translated “legalistic observances.”
    Romans 4:3 Greek graphe (scripture) translated “Tanak.”
    Romans 4:13 Greek dia nomou (through the law) translated “through legalism”
    Romans 4:14 Greek ek nomou (from the law) translated “by legalism”

    Greek pistis (faith) translated “trust”

    Romans 4:16 Greek to ek tou nomou monon (to one who holds to the law) translated “those who live within the framework of the Torah”
    Romans 5:13 Greek me ontos nomou (when there is no law) translated “when there is no Torah”
    Romans 5:15 Greek Iesou Christou (Jesus Christ) translated “Yeshua the Messian.”

    Again, as I mention in my notes on this version, the literary style and quality is quite variable as the translator makes an effort to clarify his understanding of Jewish concepts in the text. He may be hyper-literal or ultra-paraphrastic in order to accomplish that goal.

  • CJB Detail Entry Updated

    I have updated the entry for the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) in my Bible Version Selection Tool. This adds notes on the version, which were vanishingly brief before, and now it’s merely brief!

  • Dynamically Wrong? Exodus 24:12 (NLT)

    Exodus 24:12 in the NLT reads:

    And the LORD said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain. Stay there while I give you the tablets of stone that I have inscribed with my instructions and commands. Then you will teach the people from them.

    The phrase I’m interested in here is “stay there while.” That may seem like an odd fragment, but consider the NRSV: “and wait there.” What’s the difference? I might not have noticed if I hadn’t written a devotional based on the NRSV translation. Now when I first read the NRSV of this verse, I had to go back to the Hebrew and check, because “wait” looked wrong to me. In Hebrew it reads simply “and be there.” So the reason could be any number of things. But after reading the context a bit, I decided the NRSV had the idea right. Moses was to go up into the mountain and wait for the Lord. If that is the case, the NLT is clear and natural, but misses the point just a bit.

    If you read further you will see that after Moses goes up into the mountain he does, in fact, have to wait. He does so for six days, and then on the seventh day he is called into the cloud. I think the best connection in the context for the phrase “be there” is to that waiting time, and thus the NRSV is the better translation in this case.

    (Before someone misunderstands, the NRSV and NLT are both translations that I commend highly. There will always be points of disagreement in any translation, so this shouldn’t be taken as an “unendorsement” of the NLT. It’s just a single case where I agree with one excellent translation over another.)

  • Isaiah 49:5 – An Insignificant Variant

    So why do I want to talk about an insignificant variant? The answer is simple. In many cases the reliability of Biblical texts is stated simply in terms of the number of variants that exist in the manuscripts. This number is quite high, but most of these variants are not significant. They may involve identical meanings, orthography or spelling, or be so unlikely to be the original text that nobody would claim they were.

    I’m sometimes asked just what such insignificant variants might look like. This is an example. First, however, let me mention the range of variants, in this case working from Hebrew scripture.

    1. Variant spellings; no matter what text you choose the meaning is the same.
    2. Variants in vowel pointing only. At least most Christian scholars place less emphasis on the vocalization than on the consonantal text. Some translations will alter the vocalization without a footnote, but require a note if they use something other than the Hebrew Masoretic consonantal text.
    3. Ketib / Qere variants. The Masoretes included notes in some cases indicating that a word included in the consonantal text (ketib) should be read (qere) as something else. Different scholars judge the value of these variants differently.
    4. Variants in the consonantal text over one or two words.
    5. Variants in whole passages.

    At some later date I may provide examples of each of these, but right now I just want to establish the range. Examples of each one do exist.

    Once someone hears that the vast majority of the textual variants are insignificant, they are sometimes tempted to believe that textual variants really aren’t important. But some of the variants are very significant.

    In this case, we have the Hebrew phrase, consonants only, WYSR’L L’ Y’SF,* in Isaiah 49:5. Now if I rendered this literally, without other considerations, it would read “and Israel not will-be-gathered.” A glance at the context will indicate that this is precisely the opposite of the intended meaning. If I then look in the margin, where the Masoretes provided me with a very useful note, I will find LW instead of L’. (For those not used to transliteration that’s lamedh-waw insteand of lamedh-aleph.)

    Now generally first year Hebrew students could translate the two words. LW means “to him,” and L’ means “not.” What is less clear, unless you know Hebrew, is that both are pronounced the same. The probability is so high that the intended meaning is “to him” (And Israel will be gathered to him), that normally that is simply translated without any note. I checked all the translations in which I expect to find notes, and there was none. And that is as it should be.

    Nobody makes a case for the alternate rendering because the evidence is so strong. Besides the logic of the passage, ancient versions also translated this as do modern versions. Translators should not convey every such instance, and they don’t.

    *I am not distinguishing samekh from sin, as that does not impact this point.

  • Ambiguity in 2 Corinthians 2:5

    This is a brief note expanding my query about ambiguous passages. I have discussed passage that are ambiguous in Greek, but where translating them ambiguously in English results in a different range of options from those a Greek reader would likely perceive.

    This passage seems to me to be a case in which one must make a choice, and the English provides no option for ambiguity. If one is required to reflect ambiguity, just how can one do it?

    The question is whether “apo merous” in 2 Corinthians 2:5 should be taken as referring to some of the Corinthians, as in “he grieved some of you” or it could mean that various Corinthians have been grieved to a different extent. Furnish attempts to reflect both:

    Now if some one has caused grief, he has caused it not to me but to some extent (I don’t want to exaggerate) to all of you. [p. 153]

    He comments:

    The tr. offered here (cf. NEB, NIV) permits either of these meanings, and Paul may indeed have intended to qualify his statement in both respects. [p. 155]

    I don’t hear the English statement in the same balance as it seems Furnish is stating it, and as I read the Greek text. I’d be interested in how you read or hear this, especially if you read Greek.

  • Textual Emendation in Isaiah 49:7

    The JPS Tanakh of Isaiah 49:7 reads, in part:

    Thus said the LORD,
    The Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One,
    b-To the despised one,
    To the abhorred nations,-b . . .

    Note b reads: Meaning of Heb. uncertain. Emendation yields “Whose being is despised / Whose body is detested”; cf. 51.23.

    I noticed this first when I read this in Hebrew, and found that I was not able to produce a translation that I found satisfactory. I remained in doubt. So I looked it up in a few translations. Note also that the reading adopted in the JPS text is itself an emendation.

    (more…)