Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Bible Translation

  • Translation Comparisons in Isaiah 63

    Why Isaiah 63? Well, I was reading it in Hebrew for my devotional time this morning, and then I compared some modern versions purported to be readable, and I thought it would be valuable to provide a complete comparison.

    Note that I’m not attempting to provide a comprehensive list. I’m just comparing some poetic and idiomatic phrases that caught my eye. The versions I will use here are the ESV, TNIV, CEV, and NCV. Of these, I have recommended the TNIV, CEV, and NCV as options for outreach Bibles, that is, Bibles suitable for people who are not well versed in the church environment and dialect.

    I would first note that all four of these versions capitalize “Holy Spirit” suggesting divinity in an Old Testament passage in which this was likely not in view. That is not terribly surprising, but it does illustrate the evangelical Christian roots of all four of these versions.

    I am only going to post the phrases I’m comparing, so you may need to get out your own Bible and work with the context.

    Verse Version Phrase;
    1 ESV crimsoned garments
    TNIV garments stained crimson
    CEV clothes stained red
    NCV dressed in red
    In this verse, the ESV strikes me as not quite being English, and I’m not certain of the value of its text in literal terms. Just what does “crimsoned” mean? I believe I know, but I read the text in Hebrew first. The NRSV uses “garments stained crimson” just as the TNIV does. Both the CEV and the NCV simplify with “red.” There is a significant difference in meaning between “clothes stained red” and “dressed in red.” In context one can still get the picture, but the phrase itself is a bit weak. I give the CEV points for both “clothes” and “stained.”
    2 ESV and your garments like his who treads in the winepress
    TNIV like those of one treading the winepress
    CEV your clothes look stained from stomping on grapes
    NCV as if you had walked on the grapes to make wine
    The ESV wording in this verse is extremely awkward, and I don’t think they gain poetic value from it, though it does follow the KJV tradition “and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat.” TNIV is again content to provide natural English, though treading the winepress is no longer a common term. NCV is the most explanatory.
    9 ESV In all their affliction he was afflicted
    TNIV In all their distress, he too was distressed
    CEV It troubled the Lord to see them in trouble
    NCV When they suffered, he suffered also
    This is another completely non-radical rendering by the TNIV. CEV and NCV are much bolder, and with good effect, in my view. I would ask the ESV translators whether when their child is in pain they would say, “In all your affliction I am afflicted,” or whether they might instead say “I’m hurting with you” or something similar.
    10 ESV and grieved his Holy Spirit
    TNIV and grieved his Holy Spirit
    CEV and made his Holy Spirit sad
    NCV and made his Holy Spirit very sad
    One thing I’m noticing in this chapter is how frequently the TNIV and ESV have the same reading. With all the exaggerated criticism, you might expect more radical renderings from the TNIV team, but they seem quite restrained.
    14 ESV to make for yourself a glorious name
    TNIV to make for yourself a glorious name
    CEV The name of the Lord was praised for doing these things.
    NCV and by this you won for yourself wonderful fame
    Note that the CEV rendering combines thoughts in different lines of Hebrew poetry and thus doesn’t fully correspond with the phrase cited from the other versions. NCV conveys the information that “name” in this context refers to fame or reputation.
    15 ESV the stirring of your inner parts
    TNIV Your tenderness
    CEV Show us that you care about us
    NCV your love
    This is a clear instance of an idiom translated word for word in the ESV, but idiomatically in the other three versions. The difference in the amount of text I quoted is based on other issues in the translation of the verse, in which the CEV and NCV both deal with repetition in poetic lines by combing them into more standard English style. That type of translation of Hebrew poetry, which loses the form, but may well convey the meaning more clearly is not my topic here.
    17 ESV and harden our heart, so that we fear you not
    TNIV and harden our hearts so we do not revere you
    CEV Why did you make us want to disobey you?
    NCV Why do you make us stubborn so that we don’t honor you?
    Again, combination of parallel thoughts into single elements tends to make it difficult to quote precisely the phrase desired. I think TNIV’s “revere” is better than “fear” in this context.

    I would have just a few observations on this. First, of course, studying a few instances that caught my eye in a single chapter does not fully characterize Bible versions. That should be obvious, but I don’t want there to be any mistake.

    Second, one of the clearest differences between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence comes in the translation of idioms. Do we preserve the source language idiom, however little sense it may make in the target language, or do we find a good target language idiom to convey the same meaning. Depending on what the reader is looking for, one could answer that question either way. The ESV consistently translates idioms word for word in this chapter, while the TNIV takes a few steps away from that, but the NCV and the CEV generally seek a new idiomatic way of expression.

    While it was not my focus for this comparison, the same differences could be noticed in handling poetic lines. ESV and generally TNIV reflect the Hebrew poetic lines, while the NCV and CEV scramble them as necessary to express the meaning. That conveys certain elements of meaning to audiences who are not acquainted with Hebrew parallelism–a very large percentage of Bible readers–but at the same time it loses the opportunity to see the structure of the Hebrew poetry.

    The differences occur on a scale, i.e. there is not a clean break between the two styles of translation. If you compare the CEV and the ESV, it looks like two completely different approaches, but the TNIV is somewhat mediating, and I know that if I added several more translations, the scale would be even more evident.

    Being aware of such differences, we can more intelligently select a Bible version for any particular setting and use.

  • Bibles: Turning a Blessing into a Curse

    I have blogged a number of times on the benefits of having multiple English Bible versions to use in Bible study, especially for the student who does not know Biblical languages. I did so most recently in my post From Word to Study, in my series on word studies.

    Yesterday I got an e-mailed link to a blog post titled all these translations, arrgh in e-mail in which the writer narrated a journey through confusion to some sort of solid ground with reference to Bible study. It’s not his conclusion that causes me to disagree, but rather the fact that he and so many others have to go through such a journey. I do disagree with his preference for formal equivalence versions for study, but that’s another topic. Others may be less careful than he was and get stuck in some very dangerous places.

    Why is it that the blessing of having the Bible readily available in English can so often be turned into a curse. Here are some of the common complaints I hear:

    1. I can’t follow the pastor’s scripture reading. It’s not the same as in my Bible.
    2. I like the rich language of the KJV
    3. The differences in versions causes confusion. Nobody knows what to believe.
    4. There are missing/added passages in that Bible!

    How do we respond to this? Well, it’s valuable to educate people on the process of translation and the reasons why translations differ. I try to do this in my book What’s in a Version?, which is actually simply the lesson materials for a seminar I’ve taught several times. I’m looking at extracting from this a shorter version titled “Choosing a Bible” with additional material on choosing Bibles with study notes, and then expanding the current book, which only has a couple of paragraphs on the major issue of gender language, for example. Such education is good, and of course I like to sell books! 🙂

    But let’s look at these objections and some things we can do to help people understand through what we do in church, Sunday School, and other such studies on a daily basis.

    1. Have a pew Bible.
      We like people to bring their Bibles to church, but the one way to be sure everyone can read together is through use of a pew Bible. Then identify the translation you’re using and let the congregation know that it is in the same version as the one in their pew. This can also help with unison reading and responsive reading. People can still choose to use their own Bibles, but then they’re on their own. Consider also preaching about Bibles, and perhaps also sponsor a missionary who is translating the Bible. Bring your missionary to the church to speak.
    2. It may be difficult to deal with the “rich language” issue. In some churches, the answer may be a Bible that has more majestic language, though in modern English, such as the REB or the NJB. In other cases you may simply have to explain to some members that in order to reach the unchurched who don’t understand “churchy” language, you’re reading from a more modern version. To those who love the KJV, I suggest setting up a small study group of those who are of like mind, and using the KJV in your group. This will have the added advantage of adding a Bible study event to your week.
    3. Differences in Bible translations are generally only a major problem to those who use the proof text method. The best answer to this is to train your congregation (whether you are a pastor or other leader) in how to study and to lead them to base their beliefs on a broader range of scriptures and a more secure foundation of interpretation.
    4. It’s a bit more difficult to deal with the whole passage differences simply because you need to deal with how texts are copied, but again, educating people to broaden their scriptural base will help, because no major doctrines are based solely on disputed passages. Education and study are still the key.

    More important than any of the specifics is to constantly celebrate the availability of the scriptures in your teaching, preaching, and in your daily life. Be aware that even very good technical criticism can drive people from the Bible. My own dislike for the Living Bible had to be sidelined just a bit when I found that it was the first Bible my wife had read, and resulted in her coming to the Lord. What if someone had gotten to her first with a charge of corruption? Criticism of Bible versions is healthy, and often required. There is no Bible version that cannot be justifiably criticized. But such criticism should always be put into context.

    The abundance of Bibles is a blessing–let’s strive to keep it that way!

  • Better Bibles on Translating Idioms

    A couple of days ago I blogged about the idiom “brokenhearted” and closely related phrases, particularly in Isaiah 61:1. I’ve been collecting additional information via e-mail, and I may blog further on that one, though I am still pretty much looking at something like “give courage to those in despair.”

    Today, Wayne Leman blogged about another idiom from Hebrew scripture, “in the eyes of.” He has provided a range of translation options for this into English and I think it’s worthwhile checking those out.

    What is the best approach to translating an idiom such as this one? How important is it to you to transfer the source language idiom, if it is important at all?

    One thing I have found is that the more I study idioms, the more important it seems to me that we get a clear and natural rendering in the target language. We are frequently unaware of the idioms in our own language, and for best effect, an idiom should be just that subtle, not something that makes you stop and wonder about its meaning.

  • Brokenhearted in Isaiah 61:1 – a Brief Note

    I was reading this for my morning reading, and I noticed the phrase “nishberey lev” which is nearly universally translated as “brokenhearted” or something very close to that in English translations. This is an extremely familiar passage, and it is quite possible that translators are wary of moving from the familiar phraseology.

    But as I read it in Hebrew, I had to note that I would not get the same meaning from the Hebrew text as I do from the English “brokenhearted.” Merriam-Webster’s 10th (in my Logos software) gives “overcome by grief or despair” as its definition. Thus the terms overlap, I would think but the semantic range differs substantially. I believe English readers will hear more “grief” than “despair.”

    HALOT suggests “oppressed or humbled” for this particular instance, again overlapping the semantic range of despair, though much less so of “grief.” Since the heart is not the seat of the emotions, but rather of the will and to some extent the mind in Hebrew thought, perhaps we would do better to find an alternative to “brokenhearted” to translate this phrase. The current translation leaves one with the impression that one has a clear understanding, but that understanding may well be skewed.

    Note: One useful online resource on idioms is Wayne Leman’s Evaluating Translation of Old Testament Idioms available in PDF or Microsoft Excel format. It’s taken from his Studies evaluating English Bible Versions page. He doesn’t have this one in there, but I will surely be e-mailing him with it.

  • More on the TNIV

    I was a bit put off at first by certain rhetoric on the new TNIV Truth blog, and I must confess that anonymity doesn’t rank high with me, even when I understand the motivations. Now the blogger there has “outed” himself and also posted a note on the TNIV on one of my pet peeves–discussions of translator motivations.

    First let me quote from Lane Wiemann’s profile:

    I have a passion for the Bible being worded in the language of the majority of English speakers. I also have a passion for truth.

    Excellent! This is precisely where we want to be.

    Much criticism of the TNIV, often combined with advocacy of the ESV is motivation based. While the sophistication of the rhetoric and arguments is better than the old KJV only stuff, there is a distinct nasty odor in this type of argument. It seems extremely odd to me, and even borders on dishonest, to criticize a translation based on some assumptions about translator motivations when the translation itself is available to check alongside the source documents.

    I have never encountered any translators who are not motivated by a desire to help people understand the Bible. There are plenty of disagreements about how to accomplish that, and sometimes I have thought translators get way off the mark on the method, but I would be very slow to question any of their motivations.

    Thus this from the post Have you stopped beating your wife (TNIV Truth blog) is right on target:

    Rather than speculating about the motives of the TNIV translators, it would be better if we objectively examined each verse with which there is a difference of interpretation. In most cases we will discover that good Bible scholars differ on the interpretation of those verses and that the TNIV wordings are supported by lexical and exegetical evidence from the Bible itself as well as from good scholarship.

    Wow! What an amazing concept! Let’s look at the actual evidence and see what conclusions we come to! (I am not aiming this sarcasm at Lane Wiemann, but rather at those who somehow miss this obvious method and go instead for unknown and often unknowable motivations.

    While I have not encountered actual Bible translators who do not want to express God’s message clearly and accurately, I have encountered many church members who are primarily concerned with other things. Unlike Mr. Wiemann and the folks over at Better Bibles, I’m not a translator except for what I do as part of my own teaching and writing work. Where I encounter this issue is in churches with actual church members when I teach classes in how translation works. Those church members are often confused.

    Because some people have attacked the motivations of Bible translators, and the TNIV seems to be the main target right now, and so people are afraid of corrupted Bible translations. Their concern often keeps them from using new versions that provide clearer translations. My own choice for use in writing and often in teaching has been the CEV. One common complaint has to do with the way a version sounds when read from the pulpit. Now oral reading is something that needs to be given consideration in translation, but these members are often not concerned with whether it is easy to understand when read orally or has good rhythm. What they want is something that sounds “Biblical,” generally meaning “like the KJV.”

    One class I taught was split throughout, with one group repeatedly saying that the Bible used in church and Sunday School should be one that made them feel comfortable, while the remainder of the class thought the choice should be made based on how well an unchurched person would understand the reading. Not surprisingly, when I read passages to these two groups, the first group like versions like the RSV, ESV, NASB, or the NRSV, except that they generally didn’t like gender-neutral language. The second group favored dynamic equivalence translations like the CEV or TNIV.

    I think it is extremely important for those who have a good technical knowledge of translation issues to be truthful and to reduce the rhetoric which makes church members believe there are conspiracies of Bible translators whose purpose is to conceal the truth and support social agendas by inaccurate translation.

    It would be valuable, as a start, to stay away from accusations of bad motivation except where there is very substantial evidence.

  • The TNIV has a Blog

    I got an e-mail today with just the link for this new blog–only two entries–and the blogger is [drum roll] –wait for it–the TNIV Translation. Well, I assume the book has a spokesman and he or she (or should I use the singular “they”) is typing the entries. I don’t know if this is an official site or not, and we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

    I’m glad to see blogs promoting good Bible translations in modern English, and I think the TNIV is a good translation. I also wish everyone well in promoting it. I do have a problem with some of the rhetoric in the first post. The question they’re asking is “why not the best?” They’re not shy about making claims either:

    We can confidently tell you that our Bible translation, the TNIV, is the best.

    The even try to make some mileage off of the Better Bibles Blog, where bloggers Wayne, Suzanne, Peter, and a couple of others have defended the TNIV from many attacks. It might not have been the best start to the new blog to take this approach. If they want to set the record straight, then they might be better advised to ask “best for what” before they decide to unequivocally declare their particular version the best.

    To be honest, on reading the rhetoric of the first post, I was almost convinced this was some kind of a spoof making fun of the TNIV by using overblown rhetoric, but then I encountered the second post which links (their link is broken, use this one) to a post by Mark D. Roberts reviewing the TNIV which I’ve only partially read, but appears quite intelligent and balanced.

    I hope that this blog will improve and will provide substantial, accurate, information on the TNIV which has gotten way too much unfair coverage.

  • Accuracy in Communication

    I have maintained in a number of posts that it is pointless to talk about accuracy in a medium intended to communicate without involving the audience that is intended to receive the communication. First, I would like to note that it is quite possible for the information in a medium of communication to be inaccurate for all potential audiences, i.e. the information is just plain wrong. But when one is talking about a translation, one is dealing with the accuracy with which the information in the source language is carried over into the receptor language, and that is always audience dependent. In fact, the information in the source language could be completely wrong, and yet be accurately conveyed by the translation.

    I was discussing this with my wife this morning at breakfast. Yes, we do discuss such things over meals from time to time. She provided me with a wonderful illustration. In the move Angels in the Outfield there’s a scene where the coach, played by Danny Glover, plays some baseball with a few neighborhood kids. There’s this really little guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing yet, and somehow he hits the ball, but he just stands there. (I don’t remember the details, and don’t have the movie at hand to check, but the basic point is there.) Everybody is yelling at him, “Run Home! Run Home!” So he runs home. But “home” to him is where he lives, not home base. Off he goes, off the ballfield and down the street.

    Now in a sense the communication was accurate, but the audience didn’t comprehend what was going on. He applied another definition of “home” that made sense to him and ran with it. The information was not communicated accurately.

    Our favorite word in this whole ESV discussion seems to be propitiation. Most people I encounter are not at all sure just what propitiation means. There are, in fact, a number of meanings of propitiation in various non-Christian contexts that I would not want applied to Christianity, and which I do not believe reflect accurately the meaning of the words “hilasterion” or “hilasmon” in New Testament literature.

    But more critical for the moment than the question of whether I’m right or they are on “hilasterion/hilasmon” is the simple question of whether people hear accurately what these translators are trying to communicate with the word “propitiation.” That is the real objective test of communication–how accurately does the hearer understand the meaning the writer/translator intended to convey.

    I submit that for a large number of readers, the situation will be much like that little boy in the movie–running for the wrong “home.”

  • ESV vs KJV (Better Bibles Blog)

    Those following the ESV/KJV debate might be interested in this post by Suzanne McCarthy, explaining why she prefers the KJV as her literal translation. I don’t find the language of the KJV nearly as attractive as she does, but that’s a matter of taste in my view.

    I always love to find the occasional comments by “anonymous”–clearly the same “anonymous” every time on Better Bibles–who has a love affair with pretending that subjective factors are actually objective beauty. Weird that . . .

  • On the ESV

    While I don’t mind being seen as a critic of the ESV, I feel that lately my posting has gotten a bit out of balance because I have largely been responding to the ESV proponents, who appear to be pretty much critics of everything else. I want to comment on the “critics of everything else” position a bit later, but right now I want to look specifically at how I see the ESV in terms of value and appropriate use.

    At the end of this post I will append some links to things I have said about the ESV previously and to some of my more general comments about Bible translation for those who want to look. Note that all links on the abbreviations of Bible versions are to that version’s page in the Bible Version Selection Tool.

    I do not advocate a single Bible version myself. I am an advocate of the CEV as an excellent Bible for use in outreach and general ministry. I personally use a variety of Bibles in my own study time. My primary study Bibles are texts in the source languages. My first Bible to put alongside such study is the REB, followed closely by the NRSV and the JPS Tanakh. For me personally, the ESV is well down the list, though I do consult it occasionally aside from when I’m busy criticizing it.

    What do I see as positive elements of the ESV?

    • It lives up to its claim of careful, literal translation.
    • It is in the KJV tradition and manages to keep some of the style that makes older church members comfortable with it.
    • It’s language is generally modern, except where the dialect is “churchese,” and this usage is consistent throughout, eliminating the archaic prayer language used in the RSV
    • It uses a good eclectic text, which is a substantial improvement over the NKJV

    In language, I regard it as better than the NASB, even the 1995 edition, and definitely better than the NKJV. I would be very happy to see someone move from the KJV to the ESV. Amongst generally literal versions, I prefer the NRSV to the ESV for a number of reasons, which should become clear as I list my negatives.

    Here’s what I don’t like about the ESV:

    • It is a literal version, and in my view goes further in this direction than good English, comprehensible to an average reader, will permit.
    • It uses church language and theological terms that are not in common enough use. These terms essential require retranslation before the reader gains adequate understanding of them.
    • It continues the use of gender language that is going out of use in the English language. While there is still an audience for such language, it does not reflect the correct understanding to the majority of modern American readers.

    Where would I recommend its use?

    • By persons who would like a modern language version, but want something that is close to a prior version they are used to. This would include people moving form the KJV to a modern version for the first time, or who dislike the RSV because of its use of archaic language in prayer, unfortunately including many Psalms, or renderings that disturb some conservative Christians.
    • For any person who wants a good literal version to use for comparison in Bible study.
    • With some distress, for a church that sees its primary mission as maintaining the status of long-time church goers. I say with distress, because the idea of such a church bothers me, while I know that many churches exist for that purpose whether they admit it or not.

    I do not recommend the ESV for the following:

    • An outreach Bible, aimed at attracting unchurched people.
    • A youth Bible
    • A primary study Bible for someone who does not have access to excellent commentaries and information on the source languages.
    • A fast reading Bible. I recommend fast reading for overviews as part of my Bible study method. The ESV would not suit for that purpose.
    • The pew Bible for any church that is not in maintenance mode.
    • A Bible for anyone who is concerned about gender accuracy in their own speech, writing, and reading.

    Now these negatives and positives apply with equal and sometimes greater force to other versions in the same tradition and translation style. The only reason I’m doing this extensive of a comment on the ESV in particular is that I’ve been drawn into the debate by the proponents of the ESV who are setting themselves up as critics of all other versions. I regard this as a dangerous approach to Bible translation. Certainly we will all have positive and negative things to say about various versions. But ESV proponents have generally joined in a war against dynamic equivalence versions and any version that seeks gender accuracy in translation. This places the ESV front and center in debates in which it would otherwise simply be one of several versions used to illustrate a point.

    I have not expounded much on the reasons behind each of these points. After all, this is a blog entry rather than a book, but I would like to link to some of my previous comments for those who are interested in pursuing this some more.

    Have fun!

  • Waiting for my Link

    Update (3/7/07 6:40 PM CST): I stand here with egg on my face. The trackback appeared on the ESV blog. I apologize for my insinuation that they would not do so. I was wrong.

    The folks over at the ESV Blog say that “[a]s always, we appreciate everyone who blogs about the ESV.” They were responding to the palmertree endorsement concerning which I blogged yesterday. Shall I hold my breath waiting for my link from them? 🙂