John Hobbins has entered the fray with regards to “beautiful English”, focusing his critical eye on the CEV and NLT translations. Notwithstanding his unintended proposition that the original Biblical texts were written in 12th grade English, these excerpts should serve to sum his thoughts:
[The] CEV and NLT, on the other hand, have problems of their own. Their English style is often pedestrian and lacks sparkle. That’s fine if the underlying text is written in pedestrian Hebrew or Greek. But it’s not fine to take a text in Hebrew which is thick with cultural content and rich in metaphor and reduce it to a string of colorless propositions.
[O]ne can’t just do away with phrases like “the way of all the earth,” “be strong,” and “show yourself a man.” From the point of view of the history of Western literature, it amounts to an act of vandalism. An entire intertextual web is shredded in the process. If you are looking for a translation suitable for 4th graders, by all means, the NLT is the way to go. But, when you become a man – or woman, put childish things away.
The ultimate question is to what degree you can take “a text in Hebrew which is thick with cultural content and rich in metaphor” and translate it into English. This gets back to my previous thoughts on what I called “literary equivalence“, in which the semantic and syntactic “intertextual web” of an original text are ideally maintained in translation to the target language. It was correctly pointed out that literary equivalence really is what dynamic equivalence (DE) was intended to be. However, most true DE translations have “vandalized” the sources into easy-reading texts, suitable for children and those for whom English is not their first language.
Because higher reading-level DE translations are sorely lacking (the KJV, REB and New Jerusalem perhaps being the exceptions), mature, meat-not-milk Christians have been forced to choose from the “essentially literal” form-driven translations like the ESV, NRSV and NASB or median translations like the T/NIV and HCSB. It should come as no surprise, then, to see the ESV as popular as it is, despite its inherited warts and ugly English.
12 Comments
This again proves the difficulty in translating into another language.
How do you keep an accurate ear to the biblical text and at the same time to the contemporary culture?
Frankly speaking, I love a translation that tries to preserve the ancient metaphors, allowing the reader to do some meaningful study.
But I think there should be different versions for different readers.
Digg3, nice…
Language is just a medium for thought. Translations that try to mimic the original distract from the message. God chose to communicate his intentions through translations because he hoped to promote the glories of Ancient Hebrew and Greek.
Shoulda said…
Language is just a medium for thought. Translations that try to mimic the original distract from the message. God chose to communicate his intentions through translations because he hoped to get his message across in the language that each person spoke best. Not in order to promote the glories of Ancient Hebrew and Greek.
Lingamish clarified:
I was gonna say…
…. what I called “literary equivalence“, in which the semantic and syntactic “intertextual web” of an original text are ideally maintained in translation to the target language. It was correctly pointed out that literary equivalence really is what dynamic equivalence (DE) was intended to be.
It’s a great proposal ElShaddai for an ideal situation to get both FE and DE together. At least that is what I think if I understand you correctly. If so, this would be very very hard to achieve, if not down-right impossible. That’s why I like to have my NLT, TNIV, and NASB next to me. That would make for a good parallel bible.
Yes, probably impossible to achieve both, so ultimately I fall on the side of dynamic equivalence. I tried to gauge where folks were at in my post, Which translation would you choose? Wayne Leman captured the essence of my thoughts in this comment to John’s post:
I’ve chosen to use the HCSB as my preferred bible translation for study, but I love to read the REB. Those two, plus the NLT, cover many bases.
The REB is one of the only major translations that I do not yet have a copy of. There have been a few occasions where I’ve had one in hand to purchase (used) but changed my mind. I noticed last thursday my university has one on the shelf so I may check it out and possibly buy one after that. I guess I’m just not certain where it falls in the translation space-time-continuum. Also, some of the scathing comparisons of it to the NEB had me wondering whether or not that version might be better to obtain. I took the plunge with my NJB (vs. JB) and really like it, so perhaps I will give the REB a shot.
As far as which translations I prefer right now, I’ve been reading a little pocket TNIV with a magnetic closure that makes for easy traveling. My wife just bought me The Books of the Bible (the one w/o chap & verse) and it will become my new ‘daily reading bible.’ For study however I always go to my NASB, my greek/hebrew interlinears and concordances. I’ve got a few commentaries and other books as well but I really don’t understand how people can attempt to gain insight into scripture based solely on a single english translation. Even with all of my helps it is a difficult though rewarding task.
So perhaps what I’m trying to say is that in the light of the current discussion, I prefer an easier to read modern English translation such as the (T)NIV, CSB, or NJB for daily reading and usage. However when it comes to looking into the deeper (original?) meanings or to clarify a passage, I always go to a variety of translations, the source languages, and the commentaries. I’ve only recently been exposed to the philosophy that one should read the bible in large chunks and that under girds my present approach. I can’t remember whose blog I read this on, but he recommended reading the bible in large swathes 5 days a week, and doing in depth study 2 days.
If you like dynamic translations that are daring and push the envelope, then definitely find a copy of the NEB. The REB is still outstanding, but they definitely pulled back a bit in the revision. The NEB took a lot of chances, especially with variant texts and reordering verses to tighten up the various threads of thought. A little too aggressive perhaps to be a primary translation these days (the REB is better suited for that), but definitely worth having for reference.
I can’t remember whose blog I read this on, but he recommended reading the bible in large swathes 5 days a week, and doing in depth study 2 days.
That loosely fits what I’m able to do – I try to read each day on the bus to/from work (30-40 minute trip), then study on the weekend mornings before the rest of my family gets up.
Thanks for the reply. I’ll check out the REB from the library this Thursday. Will take me some time to read through it enough to get some idea for it’s style vs. others, but I’ll try to remember to post back here with some observations.
After a few days reading I’m finding that I much prefer the layout of the NEB over that of the REB. The single columns with ch. & verse off to the side makes for easier reading. If I were to only buy one of these translations I wonder how much revision I’d be missing if I went with the NEB. I’m actually quite surprised that the layout on the page has affected my perception of the translation differences. The revisions may make it a better bible overall, but I’m beginning to think that maybe I should go with the original for both it’s layout and for being more daring in comparison with other translations.
As far as beauty in translation, I had noticed the literary quality of these translations immediately. I think they compare closely to the NJB more than to any other translation that I can think of. Also, I hope I’m not taking your comments on too much of a tangent, but your advice has been helpful and is appreciated on my end. Any other ideas would be great, thanks.
Nate
Interesting. I only have the Oxford Study Edition of the NEB, which is a double column setting like the REB. However, I’ve heard plenty of good things about the original NEB layout as well, so perhaps you’re on to something. See this link for some related discussion.
The OT revisions were probably the most significant between the two, as the NEB OT (released later than the NT) had never been re-reviewed after the complete Bible was released in 1970 (whereas the NT, originally released in 1961, had been revised for the 1970 publication).
The layout is identical to those images in the link. The Message uses a very similar layout, not sure if it’s identical but I think it is.
One Trackback
[...] Language is just a medium for thought. Translations that try to mimic the original distract from the… [...]