Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Versions

Comments on various translations of the Bible and relation translation issues.

  • Reading from the NIrV

    The New International Reader’s Version never got much traction, especially here in the United States, but I do have a copy, and I chose to do my lectionary reading from it this morning. That kind of reading is helpful in getting a quick feel for a version. I can ask myself how I would teach this passage if I were using this particular version. Because the lectionary includes a variety of types of passages, I get a feel for how it will read.

    This version is to some extent aimed at the same readers as the New Life Version, about which I blogged a couple of days ago. Those for whom English is a second language should do well with this version, as should children, and those working on their literacy. Christian programs designed to teach reading could use this as a reader.

    It pretty much reverses the comments I made on the NLV. First, it is much more even in its style. This probably results from committee work, and from the fact that it is the revision of an existing version. One person will have a hard time matching a committee in terms of making the style even. Of course, one should note that a committee will never produce the likes of The Message either, while one man did!

    The NIrV uses very simple syntax. Let me quote a couple of verses from 1 Samuel 16 to illustrate:

    The LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you be filled with sorrow because of Saul? I have refused to have him as king over Israel. Fill you animal horn with olive oil and go on your way. I am sending you to Jesse in Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”

    But Samuel said, “How can I go? Saul will hear about it. Then he’ll kill me.”

    The LORD said, “Take a young cow with you. Tell the elders of Bethlehem, ‘I’ve come to offer a sacrifice to the LORD.’ Invite Jesse to the sacrifice. The I will show you what to do. You must anoint for me the one I point out to you.” — 1 Samuel 16:1-3

    Now you’ll also notice that unlike the NLV, the NIrV uses some of the somewhat technical terms, “anoint”, “elders”, and “sacrifice.” The NLV avoids all of these. The NIrV answer to the problem of this sort of vocabulary is a dictionary provided in the back, at least of my edition. Many Christian I encounter cannot understand the problems with these words that seem common to them. But if you grew up in church, you actually speak a “church” dialect. Even many unchurched people in the United States grew up with this church dialect. Versions that aim for readers whose English is at all weak, or who are not part of the church community already, have to take such issues into consideration.

    This type of simplified syntax, and partially simplified vocabulary works better in some types of passages than others. I was reading lectionary passages for Lent 4 and 5 of cycle A this morning. Let me list the passages in the order of how effective the NIrV translation was. I’m considering here public reading, preaching or teaching, as well as conveying the intention of the passage as it was written. Any Bible translators reading this will almost certainly be able to predict this list if they know the eight passages.

    1. 1 Samuel 16:1-13
    2. John 9:1-41, John 11:1-45
    3. Ezekiel 37:1-14
    4. Romans 8:6-11; Ephesians 5:8-14
    5. Psalm 23, Psalm 130

    Basically, the simplified syntax is quite effective in narrative portions. I wouldn’t mind preaching from those passages at all using this version. It is a little bit less effective in the gospels, and that difference is accentuated because it is the gospel of John which is somewhat subtle in vocabulary and symbolism. Normally, I think a passage from the prophets would be difficult to work with in this simplified of a version, but Ezekiel 37 is narrative in form, and it’s actually quite effective there. The epistles lose something in translation. Paul is writing complex, and the translation is simple. Finally, such simplified syntax does very poorly in poetry, though the NIrV does break out poetic lines unlike the NLV.

    All of these differences are not faults of the translators or translation; they are simply facts of life. When you translate poetry, for example, you can translate either the literary quality and nuances, to whatever extent possible, or you can stick with the intellectual content. The NIrV, quite understandably, sticks with the intellectual content. You can’t write great poetry with simplified syntax and vocabulary.

    There was one really awkward wording, and I’m not sure exactly how I would explain it in teaching. I’d probably simply give my own translation and explain from that. It’s in 1 Samuel 16:5, where Samuel tells the elders of Bethlehem, “Set yourselves apart to him . . . ” I’m not sure what that would mean. I know what the Hebrew means, but I don’t recall heard “set apart to ___” unless the blank was verbal.

    Overall, I maintain my initial impression. This version is a good version for outreach or for use by anyone who is working on reading skills in English. Though there are a number of good alternatives, such as the CEV, NCV, or the TNIV. The last of these is not quite a simplified as is the NIrV, or at least that is my impression.

  • More Positive Note on New Bible Project

    Peter Kirk has a more positive view of the new Bible translation project I blogged about yesterday, though he also hedges that positive view a bit. I think he makes some good points, and if things go in that positive direction, I believe I would alter my own attitude.

    I would suggest also reading the comments to his post. With reference to both comments, I am always amazed at people who talk about “accuracy” apart from considerations of the audience. Accuracy is not something that exists in a vacuum. A text must be translated so as to have an impact on and be understood by a particular audience. This isn’t either/or. It must be both/and.

    I use the metaphor of the one-ended telephone cord, which I talk about here on my Threads blog, and also in my book When People Speak for God.

  • 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!

  • Nelson Study Bible Note Problems

    I’m not going to link to a specific edition on this, because there is no ISBN in the edition from which I’m working. It appears to be a match for this item on Amazon.com, and to be essentially the same notes as this item, though I cannot be absolutely certain. If you have a similar version, you can simply check your notes to see if they say the same thing as mine.

    First, of course, I’m a bit prejudiced because I think the NKJV is one of the less useful translations. It is literal, but less readable than the ESV or the HCSB. I don’t call any of the major modern versions bad Bibles, but the NKJV is fairly low on my list.

    What I want to comment on today, however, is the notes, part of Nelson’s Complete Study System. I used this Bible today for my lectionary reading. Each morning I read both the current week’s lectionary passages and the next week’s, thus giving me 14 opportunities to meditate on them. I use different Bible versions and also read the notes if I’m using an edition that has notes.

    In my reading on Isaiah 42:1-9 today, I noticed this note in a “wordfocus” block:

    . . .While ‘ebed can mean slave (Gen. 43:18), slavery in Israel was different than in most places in the ancient Middle East. Slavery was regulated by the Law of Moses, which prohibited indefinite slavery and required that slaves be freed on the Sabbath (seventh) year (Ex. 21:2)–and the Year of Jubilee–the fiftieth year (Lev. 25:25-28). . . .

    Now there is certainly value in pointing out the slavery laws in Israel, and comparing them to those in the ancient near east. Notice, however, that if one reads on in Leviticus 25, there is something that is not mentioned in this little note, and it is significant.

    44But as for your male slave or your female slave who are yours, from among the nations who are around you you may acquire both male slave and female slave. 45And also from among those who are [foreigners] living in your land and from those who are sojourning among you you may acquire them and from their clan that is with them which they bring forth in your land, and they will be your possession, 46and you may leave them to your sons after you to possess; they may enslave them permanently. Only with your brethren, the children of Israel, each person must not make his brother labor harshly.

    The problem here is that the note implies that somehow Israel’s form of slavery was entirely benign, without mentioning the exception to the rule. Anyone from the nations around or from foreigners who were in their land could be bought and possessed permanently.

    This is important because there are two ways of handling slavery passages in the Bible. The first is to try to deny the similarity between the slavery practices in the Bible and that in other countries or in more recent times, such as slavery in the United States. The second is to view the rules of slavery as a cultural accommodation, i.e. slavery was not good, but was not yet forbidden.

    I take the second approach. My point about this note is that that the editors of these notes presumably take the opposite one, but that they gloss over a substantial element of the Israelite rules for slavery. This is one of the ways in which study notes can be deceptive, even unintentionally.

    The second note comes on Psalm 40:1, in which it discusses the words translated “waited patiently” in the NKJV:

    The Hebrew translated I waited patiently is literally “waiting I waited.” The emphasis of this phrase is not really on patience but on the fact that David waited solely on the Lord. . . .

    I have to wonder where they got this interpretation. The phrase “waiting I waited” is simply not good English. It is formally equivalent to the Hebrew, but this is one of those cases where the literal translation does not suggest the right set of options to English ears. It is a Hebrew idiom of intensification. I WAITED! Now you may think of a few options, such as the intensity of the expectation, or the length of the wait, but the verbal structure itself does not specify who is waited on, or anything about how this person is the sole person on whom the Psalmist waits.

    The context suggests that YHWH was the sole one in whom the Psalmist placed his hope, but the verb form suggests only the intensity of the experience. For modern American English, I don’t even like the word “waited” here, though the REB and the NRSV both use “waited patiently.” I would prefer the JPS Tanakh’s “I put my hope in the LORD.” They lose the intensification, but I think they catch the essence of the verb more clearly.

    What I would hope to show from these examples is the danger of depending on notes, along with the value of looking at more than one translation. Looking at more than one set of notes is also a valuable hedge against incomplete or misleading notes.

  • Literal Nonsense – the HCSB of 2 Corinthians 8:11-12

    I’m doing some studying in 2 Corinthians right now, and I encountered the following translation while reading it through in the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB):

    11But now finish the task as well, that just as there was eagerness to desire it, so there may also be a completion from what you have. 12For if the eagerness is there, it is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have.

    If you get additional context, more than I want to quote here, it will make it just a bit clearer, but it is still somewhat hard to follow. Also, I don’t intend this particularly as a criticism of the HCSB, though obviously I think such a translation in a major Bible version should be fixed. Rather, I think it is a good example of how a very literal (or formal equivalence) translation can be nonsense in the target language.

    This HCSB version follows the Greek fairly closely. In fact, it looks a bit like a student Greek exercise, following which I would tell the student, “Now that is a good draft and shows me you have found the words in your lexicon. Now we need to make it into English.”

    The English Standard Version (ESV) is only slightly better:

    11So now finish doing it as well, so that your readiness in desiring it may be matched by your completing it out of what you have. 12For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have.

    Now compare those two translations to a dynamic equivalence version, the New Living Translation (NLT):

    11Now you should carry this project through to completion just as enthusiastically as you began it. Give whatever you can according to what you have. 12If you are really eager to give, it isn’t important how much you are able to give. God wants you to give what you have, not what you don’t have.

    Now certainly the NLT has made some choices is clearing up the confusion. I don’t think the text as it is even suggests the real possibilities for translation. This isn’t preserving ambiguity–it’s nonsense.

  • Capitalization as a Translation Issue in the Hebrew Scriptures

    In my ratings for the Bible Version Selection Tool, one of the areas on which I compare translations is capitalization of pronouns referring to God or to Jesus. The interesting thing about this is that the Hebrew text has no analog to capitalization of any kind, while edited Greek texts and some late manuscripts can mix majuscule and miniscule forms, the rules are hardly the same, and such capitalization cannot derive from the autographs which, like the Hebrew, did not use capitalization rules.

    There are two reasons I rate this. The first is practical. I regularly encounter people who consider it disrespectful to write a pronoun referring to God in all lower case. This is a peculiarity, I think, and I certainly don’t capitalize pronouns referring to God any more than any other pronouns in my own writing. A number of modern versions, such as the NRSV, ESV, and CEV don’t use such capitalization.

    Recently, while reading some texts in the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), I noted this capitalization in Isaiah 42, which illustrates some of the potential problems with this practice. (For those interested, Psalm 22 presents similar issues in the NKJV, but the HCSB does not follow the same practice there as in Isaiah 42.)

    This is My Servant; I strengthen Him,
    this is My Chosen One; I delight in Him;
    He will bring justice to the nations. — Isaiah 42:1 (HCSB)

    Notice that pronouns referring both to God and to the servant are capitalized. I found this practice in the NKJV and NASB as well for this passage. “Spirit” is a special case, which I have discussed elsewhere. Should the word “spirit” be capitalized in the Hebrew scriptures which do not teach the doctrine of the trinity? My personal answer would be “no,” and the REB and the NRSV follow that practice. The NLT and CEV, which do not capitalize the pronouns in this passage do capitalize the word “Spirit.”

    The potential problem here is that the nature of the servant is somewhat controversial. Elsewhere (Isaiah 49:1-6 for example) the servant is identified as Israel. In Isaiah 53, Christians generally identify the servant with Jesus. There are those who would identify the servant as Jesus throughout the servant songs, dealing variously with passages identifying Israel in that role, while others would view Israel as the servant throughout. One option describes the servant as the remnant of Israel, taken into exile, and then redeemed, and sees Jesus as the ultimate representative of Israel, and thus the servant can be properly read as both Israel as a whole and the one individual, Jesus. Some would hold that different servant songs require a different identification of the servant.

    I am in no way trying to cover all the options on interpreting the servant songs. I’m simply pointing out that there are a variety of views. I would say that the scholarly consensus is Israel (see notes in the Oxford Study Bible and the New Interpreter’s Study Bible for good summaries of the consensus view). Thus with something as simple as the choice to capitalize or not capitalize certain pronouns, the translators tip their hand as to how they would interpret the passages in question.

    I doubt that most readers would notice this detail and make anything of it. The impression would be relatively subtle. And I would not automatically condemn translators for doing so. If the dialect into which they are translating the passage requires that pronouns referring to deity be capitalized, then they are subtly passing on their interpretation whether they capitalize or not. For what it’s worth, I believe that modern American usage tends against capitalizing. Readers who do not expect capitalization will probably simply think the text looks a bit odd.