Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Versions

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

  • Reading Psalm 100 Out Loud

    One of my Bible study methods, though most important for devotional reading, is to read a passage aloud.  Since the lectionary Psalm for this week is Psalm 100, which is very short, I thought I’d read it aloud in a number of versions and then write my subjective impressions.

    I chose to read it from the REB, NJB, CEV, NRSV, The JPS Tanakh, and the NLT.  There was very little method to all this; those versions were just nearest my computer at the time.  I could have read from more by either walking farther or by using my Logos library, but I didn’t.

    Prior to reading these aloud in English I had read the Psalm a few times in Hebrew and had done a draft literal translation myself.

    The purpose of the exercise, beyond “whatever” was to get a feel for how each version would function in public reading.  I’m frequently asked what the “best” translation is, and one obvious question is always “best for what?”

    First, whether more functional or more formally equivalent, the translations were more similar than I would have expected when read side by side.  The NJB was fairly choppy.  I like its use of “Yahweh” in the Psalm, though I don’t use that as a rule in reading publicly.  The REB was similarly a bit choppy and appeared to use vocabulary that didn’t fit well.  (Note that I normally prefer the REB, though today was an exception.

    I disliked the use of “love” to translate Hebrew “hesed”, as was done by the CEV and the REB.  I understand the reason in the CEV, but the REB uses “acclaim” in verse 1, “acknowledge” in verse 3, I think they might have employed a few more letters on “hesed.”

    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.  You’re going to lose something, and if your goal is to translate for a fairly basic set of English vocabulary.

    The JPS Tanakh is an excellent translation, though it didn’t seem to read as well as the NLT read aloud.  The NRSV sounded remarkably good to me, which again is not usual.  I usually like the NRSV for the formal equivalence, but dislike its sound.  Unfortunately, it is the Bible used for most scripture readings at my church.

    Overall 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.

    All this is, as I have said, very subjective.  One impression is very strong–all of the translations seemed less smooth and readable when read aloud than when read silently.  I know the CEV is designed to be read orally, but I think there it is very hard for me to come from reading the Hebrew text with the parallelism and some sense of similar length poetic lines, and then go to a translation that deliberately eliminates both elements.

    I suspect that a major reason why the NRSV sounds good to me in this case is that this is one of those Psalms I memorized in the KJV as a child, and the NRSV is the closest to the KJV amongst those I read.

    One thing I believe I should think about is the quality of reading involved.  There are some readers who can make a scripture reading really resonate.  I wonder how much my own inclinations about reading impacted the way I felt about what I read aloud?

  • Trashing Bible Translations is Trivial

    . . . not to mention easy.

    In the just completed presidential election here in the U. S., were I to list all of the reasons why I might not vote for the candidate for whom I eventually did vote, the list would be fairly long, and might convince someone I thought that candidate was quite a scoundrel.

    Similarly, I could quite easily make a list of only the positive points of the candidate for whom I did not vote, and make someone think he was the man!

    Candidates are rarely perfect.  They rarely fully reflect one’s own views, so there is some compromise involved when one goes out to vote.

    So what does this have to do with Bible translation? Quoth the apostle Paul:  Much, in every way!

    Critics of one Bible translation or another, or even one method of translation or another often simply find cases in which the particular translation or method produces results they regard as less than the best, or perhaps just plain bad.  Like negative political ads, these notes are supposed to add up in our minds to an eventual rejection of that particular translation or method.

    The problem is that every translation is susceptible to this approach, as is any particular mix of translation methods.  That’s because, like political candidates, translations are imperfect.

    It’s very easy to get into advocacy rather than evaluation.  I know.  I do it all the time.  But no accumulation of negatives ever turns into a positive message.  Unless, that is, in Bible translation it turns into motivation to learn the Biblical languages.  Since I suspect that isn’t going to happen as a mass movement, we’ll probably be living with translations for the forseeable future.

    A particular example of this kind of criticism of translation can be found in the preaching and teaching of many pastors who are well-versed in the Biblical languages.  Because of their extensive knowledge, and based on their extensive study, they can proclaim some particular translation misleading or just plain wrong.

    Now doubtless they have good reason for making this claim.  I recently heard it made and I agreed fully with the speaker.  The translation in question was, in my view, unfortunate.

    Since I have studied the process of Bible translation, however, I know that the rendering that the speaker and I both thought was poor, was actually produced by a committee of well-qualified scholars in the relevant field.  Their decision was reviewed by many others.  Comments were gathered, and then a final rendering was chosen.

    Does the speaker wish to take on that powerful committee?  Does he wish to suggest he knows better?  Of course he does!  So do I!  It’s fun.  It’s what this study is all about.  That’s the normal give and take of scholarship.

    But the congregation doesn’t really hear it the way we do.  First, most of them are not so well aware of how translations are made.  What they actually hear is that the translators are wrong, and they may infer possibly that those translators are less intelligent, less well-trained, and or less careful than their pastor or teacher.  They learn to distrust the translation, and instead of trusting the source languages instead, they have to trust their pastor.  Of course, in their personal study, they still have to trust some translation.

    I have written before about those who know very little Greek or Hebrew and yet proclaim, based on some commentary or other reference, that a particular word means some particular thing, contrary to the text of their translation.  In that case I’m talking about people with inadequate knowledge misleading because they are not fully competent to say what they say.  In this case, however, I’m talking about people who are very competent accidentally misleading people.

    What do I suggest?  To pastors or teachers skilled in the Biblical languages:

    1. Moderate your vocabulary.  Even when you are very certain, claim your statements about translation as your opinion.  “I believe” goes a long ways here.
    2. Don’t just work from the source languages.  Educate people on translation and on how to make effective use of the numerous English translations.
    3. Make both positive and negative statements about translations, when they are applicable.  Don’t just talk negatively about the ones you don’t like.

    To Bible students I suggest:

    1. Use multiple translations.  If you don’t know the source languages, try to get a better idea.  Choose translations that use different philosophies as well.
    2. Read prefaces, introductions, and footnotes.  Know the strengths and weaknesses of your particular Bible version(s).
    3. Learn as much as you can about the Biblical languages even if you don’t have time to actually learn them.  This will help you sort through the many, many claims.

    Note that I’m not talking about blog posts here for the most part.  You can’t always cover everything in a blog post, so you might simply include something negative from one verse but cover something positive at another time.  In that case the balance is in reading more than one post.

  • Valuable Summary Post on Bible Translation

    Brian Russell of Real Meal Ministries has posted a summary on Bible translation that is quite good.  It’s hard to keep things straight in a short, readable essay.  (HT:  Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup by Allan Bevere.)

    I would note that he uses the popular rather than any of the technical definitions of “paraphrase,” but I find it necessary to deal with that term when publicly discussing Bible translations as well.  Many will find his answer to the question of what Bible translation he uses inadequate, but there’s no way around that!

    Overall, this is a good overview.

  • 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!

  • NCV Duct Tape Bible from Thomas Nelson

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

  • NRSV Study Bible

    Westminster/John Knox Press is publishing a study Bible including the apocrypha, The Discipleship Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version Including Apocrypha. There are some notes on this at New Epistles. It looks like an interesting one.

  • 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.