Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Translation

  • Greek and Ministry

    Thomas Hudgins is teaching Greek, and he thinks students should study with the intention of actually using their Greek in ministry (HT: Dave Black).

    I’m delighted to see more and more effort put into this type of teaching. I was very frustrated as a graduate student when I saw how students in the MDiv program were merely trying to get by in their Greek course. The structure of their course work helped foster this particular attitude, because basic Greek was largely an effort to get enough knowledge of the basic vocabulary and grammar to slip through the test so Greek could be ignored from there on. The same applied to Hebrew.

    Since my undergraduate degree was in Biblical Languages, and I was in the academic MA program rather than the MDiv program, I got tapped to help tutor Greek students. (My undergraduate program involved the equivalent of five years of Greek, with two year-long courses taken simultaneously, as well as textual criticism.) These students would try to catch me a few hours before their tests so I could drill them on the things they would have to regurgitate on a test paper. They had no patience for any of my efforts to help them understand the material.

    Starting with a mastery of grammar actually works well for me. I learn languages fairly easily, but more importantly, I was already convinced of the value before I started my first Greek class, and I was willing to put in the effort necessary to learn the language well enough so I could use it. But for someone who is not planning to specialize, the focus needs to be a bit different.

    One of the major differences is simply attitude, both on the part of teacher and of student. Are we acquiring data in order to check off a box on our list of requirements, or are we acquiring a tool?

    I think linguistic concepts should be introduced right at the beginning. How does language work? Why do you have a hard time with pronouncing certain sounds? How does etymology help you learn vocabulary, and how can that in turn lead you astray? How can you study deeply, yet share with the people in the pews or in Sunday School classes in a way that is accessible?

    I like Dr. Hudgins’ approach and his brochure. I’m sure his students will be blessed. As Dave said, may his tribe increase!

  • The Attractiveness of Etymology

    The etymological fallacy is one of the most well known fallacies in biblical exegesis. In fact, many people “know” it who don’t understand it.

    I was reminded of why etymological explanations are attractive this morning as I was reading Isaiah in the LXX. I came to the word “toparcos” in Isaiah 36:9. Now I couldn’t remember seeing this word before, though I know I have seen it, since I’ve read this very passage before. Almost instantly the etymology of the word struck me, “topos” and “arc-” (in its various forms), thus “rule of a place,” possibly district governor.

    Of course, I looked it up. And that is indeed the definition provided.

    Those who work with languages will not be at all surprised by any of this. My point is simply that the reason people tend to be attracted to the etymological fallacy is simply the general value of etymology. It solves a few problems for you, and then you try to make it solve everything else. To someone with a hammer, everything is a nail.

    Which has led me to use the term “anti-etymological fallacy” by which I mean the fallacy of accusing everyone who appeals to etymology at any point in their argument of the etymological fallacy.

    Etymology is useful. It’s sometimes a helpful pointer to meaning. It can help one discover the options when one is deciphering an ancient document. It doesn’t determine meaning.

  • Good and Bad Translation

    Simon Cozens discusses good and bad translations (HT: Kouya) and concludes:

    So when it comes to Bible translations, I don’t really care, relatively speaking, about the methodology behind the translation. I don’t necessarily care if it’s literal or dynamic or whatever. The more important question is, is it a good translation or a bad translation? I wonder which the authors would have wanted.

    Any time I teach classes in church about Bible translations I include the note that the dynamic/formal debate is not a part of general translation discussion other than when Bible translation is at issue. When translating a sign, as Simon does in his post (I know no Japanese, so no comment on accuracy!), there are pretty clear objectives that define what a good translation is.

    And that’s the problem with Bible translation. We don’t have a clear objective. Well, to be more accurate we each have a fairly clear set of objectives, but we don’t agree on them. Some people want something that is clearly understandable in the target language. Others want to transfer idioms and cultural ideas from one time and culture to another. Others are concerned that the specific words are dictated by God, and thus believe that we must come as close as possible to reflecting even the wording of the source text. Yet others are concerned with literary issues and want to have the register of the source text reflected in translation. Hebrews should thus be translated at a higher reading level and with greater rhetorical skill than Mark, for example. (I might argue about literary skill, but those are terms I have heard in this discussion.)

    Without objectives, it is impossible to call a translation “good” or “bad.”

    Let me illustrate. Supposing I make a translation (or partial translation) of a text to help a new Greek or Hebrew student study. This translation would reflect as closely as possible the wording and syntax of the source text. I sometimes do this to provide a fill-in-the-blanks type of exercise in introducing students to new texts, such as using an LXX text with a New Testament Greek student. (I don’t teach in seminary. I’m always either tutoring a single student or teaching a small class at a church.)

    Contrast this with a translation of a text I might provide my grandchildren as I teach. In the latter case I’m going to be translating register, culture, and language. Is either translation a bad translation? Is it good? I think a translation is only good or bad in a particular context of usage.

    Nonetheless, Bible translators, and more importantly those who debate about translation, would do well to pay attention to what Simon is saying. Maybe we could learn a bit about our particular context and come to understand one of the major things that differentiates one translation from another … objectives.

  • KJV Better than Originals?

    John Byron comments on a web site that makes that suggestion. One of the champions of this bizarre position, Peter Ruckman, preaches just down the road.

  • Majority Text vs. Eclectic

    There’s a very brief summary on The Good Book blog, For and Against: The Majority Text Approach to Textual Criticism. I agree that the Byzantine needs to be given more consideration, though I support an eclectic approach.

  • Christianity an Incurably Irrevent Religion?

    C. S. Lewis thought so! (HT: Peter Kirk on Facebook, blog).

  • Bible Gateway Adds RSV and NRSV

    Bible Gateway has added the RSV and NRSV. This will be useful for me as these are my two favorite formal equivalent translations. This addition comes by agreement with the National Council of Churches.

  • Ephesians 3 in The Voice

    Well, I continue to read The Voice and it continues to annoy me.

    But first let me note that in reading Ephesians 3 I don’t find anything that will lead you astray in your understanding of the chapter. In many cases the material in italics just seems unnecessary. In other words, the translators have already clearly translated the message. You can leave the italicized material out of your reading and you’ll get pretty much the same message.

    For example, the first part of verse 20 reads: “Now to the God who can do so many awe-inspiring things, immeasurable things, things great than we ever could ask or imagine ….” Now read the verse without the italicized material. Has anything been contributed? It does make it a little more exhortative, and that might be the intention.

    On the other hand, breaking out the prayer of verses 16-19 as a prayer, rather than as a report of a prayer, does fulfill the goals of the translation and is helpful, in my view. Helpful, at least, if one’s goal is to get a more dramatic presentation, which is one of the purposes of The Voice.

    This prayer passage has a special place in my life, because I adapted it into a prayer some years ago and it was used as a blessing at my wedding. Our wedding bands have the reference inscribed inside as well.

  • Study Bibles and The Voice

    I think I’m beginning to understand why my original positive response to The Voice Bible has turned to one of annoyance. If you haven’t been a reader of this blog for long, you many not realize that I try to give Bible translators very wide lattitude. On the front cover of my book What’s in a Version? I put the sentence: The best Bible version is one you read.

    My intention is to emphasize the importance of finding a version that you can read and hear well. Apart from a very small number of translations that are either done very incompetently or with an intentional bias (Jack Blanco’s Clear Word Bible is an excellent example of a bad translation), I believe that the vast majority of translations convey God’s word. None do it perfectly. None fail completely.

    So I’ve been asking myself why every time I read a passage from The Voice I find myself getting annoyed. At first I was justifying this with the issues of consistency in the use of italics, and the fact that I find the frequent italics in the text distracting. Then yesterday, in sequence, I read a passage from Ephesians in Greek, then in a study Bible, and then in The Voice.

    Suddenly it hit me. Much of the material that seems to me to distract the reader from the text of scripture is very much like study Bible notes. I tell students that study Bibles are fine, provided you don’t take any one of them as definitive, and provided that you remember the difference between the notes provided in the margin or at the bottom of the page and the text of Scripture itself.

    And that’s why The Voice is getting on my nerves. Despite the number of complaints I’ve voiced here on this blog, I don’t see its translators making an extraordinary number of mistakes. (What I see as inconsistency in the use of italics means I have more complaints than usual, but really that should be seen as one complaint.) The italicized material, the notes blocked out right in the text, and even some section headings strike me as “study note” material. And in The Voice that material is everywhere. It’s not just in the margin or at the bottom of the page. It’s not just in occasional introductions or excurses. It’s everywhere.

    So anyone who is reading my complaints about this version should keep my prejudices in mind. You should also realize that it is very hard to be consistent in determining what is a proper part of translation, and what should be an explanatory note. But that is a matter for another post.

    I would note that in reading through the book of Ephesians, I found the italicized material more annoying than I had in narrative passages. Here material that might seem just inane elsewhere (e.g. a note telling you what the verse obviously said) actually seems to detract from the artistry of the book itself. It reduces the impact. That’s my first impression, at least.

    As I have noted before, I’m writing these notes as I experience The Voice for myself, and I leave open the possibility of changing my mind. I certainly hope to refine my ideas as time goes on.

  • More on The Voice

    I haven’t had time to read enough of The Voice to draw final conclusions, just to make observations. I do intend to continue reading and try to come up with some more precise and well-supported conclusions. The problem is that I find The Voice the most difficult mix of good and bad ideas I’ve ever encountered in a Bible translation. It doesn’t classify easily.

    Chad Whitley commented on my previous post and linked to a review on his site. Well, he doesn’t call it a review, but an “amalgamation of thoughts” which would be  a fair description of what I’ve done thus far as well. I think his amalgamation is well worth reading.

    I would add a few notes:

    1) I’m less concerned than Chad is with the translation team. When I have the text in front of me, I’m much more concerned with seeing the product and comparing it to the source languages. For someone who does not read the source languages, however, the team is an important consideration, and I use it in my selection tool. (Note that The Voice is not listed there as I have not completed the relevant stats.)

    There are some stellar names on the translation team, but as I work my way through the product, I’m getting less and less happy. It doesn’t seem to be consistent. Consistency would allow me to read it with profit even if I disagreed with the translation choices. As it is, when I see italics, I’m not really certain what’s going on until I compare it to the source texts. I found myself thinking a few times, “I don’t think _____ would do it this way.” That leads me to wonder about the team process, which has so much to do with the consistent feel of a translation effort.

    2) Taking up from point #1, the methodology is problematic based on the results. When I had just read the preface, I was willing to defend The Voice, even though I was pretty certain the translators (or the publisher) had fallen victim to “translation preface inflation.” If we were talking TV shows, we’d say that the entire genre of translation prefaces had jumped the shark years ago.

    The problem is that prefaces tend less to explain how a translation was accomplished than they do to market the translation. Instead of seeking clarity of expression they seek motivation. It’s advertising copy. I have always recommended that Bible students read the preface to their Bible translation, but that is becoming less useful.

    3) I find the text very readable, but I also find the italics distracting. Since they don’t seem to be consistent, I can’t really work them into my mental state while reading. I’m not sure that there is any good methodology which would allow for the use of italics–or any other form of distinction within the text–and be perfectly consistent.

    Finally, on the matter of the word “logos” in Greek, I have seen and even used other terms to translate it into English. If we are not going to use “word” I often prefer “message.” Then we have the sense that God’s message took on human form. I think that works reasonably well if we compare Hebrews 1:1-3. But in the latter passage we have “spoken.” God spoke through the prophets of old and now he has spoken to us through his Son. So “voice” might work. I’m working through mentally how that might change which passages the texts in question might evoke, which is an important part of understanding.

    In any case, I think Chad’s nicely nuanced comments in turn surrounded by caveats (his nuances and caveats, not mine!) will be very helpful if you’re trying to evaluate this version for use in any particular setting.