Again, I find myself agreeing with you. Maybe rather than dissing the various translators we should be looking at them and saying, “What is this translation appropriate for?”

My goal as a teacher, preacher or parent is always to explain the Bible not the translation. That’s why I insist my students use a dynamic translation because otherwise I will spend all my time explaining 17th century Portuguese instead of 1st century Greek. And with my kids I find that they get deeper into the message of the Scriptures when I use CEV, because too often the strange vocab and syntax of NIV loses them.

By the way, I enjoyed your post on Yeats. The Second Coming is a hymn for our time.

I’m also sorry that some of the terms I’ve used are overly technical. I honestly didn’t realize that they were out of place. Such terms are just shortcuts.

“Tradent” is the person within a “tradition” who passes it on to another person. “Teacher” doesn’t quite fill the same shoes, as “teacher” is not necessarily a link in a chain, which “tradent” connotes.

“Intratextual” means “within one text” while “intertextual” means “among several texts.” The difference lies, when using these about the Bible, in one’s borderline for “text.” If you see the Bible as one big inspired book, from Genesis to Revelation, then all the interaction between those books is intratextual. Connections with other texts outside of the Bible would then be intertextual. If you see the Biblical books as individual books only incidentally collected in one volume, then all the connections between them would be intertextual, as well as connections with all non-Biblical texts.

Rest assured, if you start talking geometry, I’ll be the one who’s bewildered….

I don’t think we’re at the point where a properly literary Bible such as we were describing is really all that possible. There’s still too much discussion about the different literary qualities of the various OT and NT (and Apocryphal!) writings, and no one has done the mapping of those levels to any corresponding English styles of writing. Overall, I think it’s safe to say that the style would bend closer to high-fallutin’ than not. But then there’s also the issue of not just style but content. In the legal texts, for instance, the style is recognizably pretty simple, but the technical terms are very precise. Vocabulary is a component of style, but not the only one. That’s another issue to look into. But that these were insider texts seems pretty clear. You’d have to already be a part of the tradition to understand it fully. So in that sense, I’d say, yes, the Reformation could be seen as wrong if the Reformation actually requires reading without instruction. But that’s surely not the case, is it? (I honestly don’t know.)

I just like to ask a lot of questions, I guess, and think out loud. I apologize for the technical vocabulary. I honestly just wasn’t thinking considerately.

This only confirms for me that Kevin, John and the rest are just specialists talking over our heads and any so-called literary translation they produce will be intelligible only to them.

That underscores my question on the need to narrow down the target audience of the original texts. Were they written for the average Hebrew in an hut or for the priests and academics of the palace? If the latter, then the whole reformation principle of putting the texts in the hands of the general populace is un-Biblical so to say and the texts should be in elevated language that only our pastors can explain.

But then there’s that pesky New Covenant that shifts the relationship to the individual. So maybe the Hebrew Bible has to be explained to us, but the New Testament can be carried around by Christians on the street. That certainly would decrease translation costs…

Is “Biblish” the new catch phrase for division among the body? Is it being used in lieu of bawdy language? Is it meant to be derisive?

My specific understanding (and use) of the term “Biblish” is the familiar Bible English that is rooted in the KJV/Tyndale translation tradition. John Hobbins expands that definition to include any use of language that is copied from the original form in Hebrew or Greek. So, for example, Hebrew metaphors that are transliterated into English rather than a dynamic equivalent being used.

I view it “derisively” only in the sense that I believe English translations should be written in proper English, whether that’s a literary register or a common vernacular.

The Bible is not just an old book, it is the revealed word of God. Although there isn’t a translation guide, the Bible should be translated as a holy book, meant to be separate from all other literature just as we were made separate.

Are the original Hebrew texts, inasmuch as we have them, written in a separate linguistic style than all other Hebrew literature? I agree that the meaning of the text is holy and meant to be separate, but is the language itself different?

That’s what I meant when I asked if “Biblish” has come to be viewed as “sacred”. The phrasings and combinations of words that appear only in that translation tradition are exalted to the point that the translation is worshiped as “the word of God”. To me, that’s making an idol.

ElShaddai wrote: “If I’m reading Kevin’s comment correctly…”

You might not be reading him correctly since his vocabulary is very impressive but hardly clear: litterateurs, tradents, intratextual, etc. I think a “tradent” is some sort of three-sided shape in geometry. This only confirms for me that Kevin, John and the rest are just specialists talking over our heads and any so-called literary translation they produce will be intelligible only to them.

This is one of the reasons why CEV and NLT are beautiful. The translators did not let their deep knowledge of the original languages prevent them from communicating clearly with the intended audience: English speakers in this century. Newman called the CEV “lucid and lyrical” (itself a poetic phrase) and the fact that he has edited a dictionary of New Testament Greek did not stop him from communicating clearly in English.

That is an interesting note by Kevin regarding the KJV and the perceived vulgarity. The Geneva Bible which is 51 years younger than the KJV uses far more “common” English. It reads more modern than the KJV, at least to me it does. It doesn’t have the same exalted language but uses words like “britches” and “buggerer.”

As far as context goes, the Bible was written first to a specific people of a specific time and place. It had to make sense to them first before it is relevant to us today.

The Bible is not just an old book, it is the revealed word of God. Although there isn’t a translation guide, the Bible should be translated as a holy book, meant to be separate from all other literature just as we were made separate.

The most important thing is that the Bible should be read. If one likes the way the KJV, NASB or ESV sound(read), why should they be derided and accused of reading in Biblish? To say that a translation that is more understandable is therefore more accurate because it is understandable is circular reasoning.

In Romans 9:13 did God hate Esau or only liked him less, or rejected him? Have the newer translations, for the sake of readability, taken away from the meaning of scripture?

A short note on the KJV translators: their translation was considered too vulgar when it appeared. They used too common a dialect, and complaints of the time referred to its language, I recall, as similar to newspaper language. They were accused of modernizing the text, in fact.

Thanks for the corrective on the KJV. I find perhaps sad irony that the language of the KJV was considered vulgar in its day, but is esteemed as “sacred” today. Perhaps therein lies the satisfaction of those of us who find the REB to be beautiful English.

I wish that there was a way for those of us who do not speak/read Hebrew and Greek to know with come level of certainty what the literary registers of the original texts are. When are we dealing with Tolstoy or Clancy? D.H. Lawrence or Grisham? J.K. Rowling or Joyce? Etc., etc., etc.

Great question to begin with!

I understand where you coming from with the Biblish concept. However, I don’t know if I can quite agree with you.

Even within the canon there were technical terms and at times a word preceded by the Greek definite article will signal the same.

Hilasterion, “propitiation,” is one of those canonical technical terms.

I’m for a kind of theological continuity, without coming off as biblish. For example, this is what we see in our theologies.

But again, if we were to replace these technical term, a sort of confusion would be birthed.

Even the HCSB has “propitiation at Rom 3:25.

More accurate translation will lead to a better understanding of the original, and that’s the point of translation, not to get something passable out there, but to truly represent the ancient, inspired document. One would think that this would be much more of a concern particularly because of that “inspired” element, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Thank you, Kevin, for the excellent thoughts. I am enjoying the discussion greatly and refining my own understanding of translation.

I struggle with those who say that a literal-formal-syntactic translation (NASB, ESV) is *more* accurate than a dynamic-functional-semantic translation (NIV, REB, NLT) because the former method better conveys the divinely inspired words of the original languages, yet they ignore the semantic/referential accuracy of what those actual words mean.

Often the result of a formal translation sounds “difficult”, yet it seems many Bible readers subscribe to a “no pain, no gain” mindset that if they have to wrestle with understanding the plain meaning of a text, it must be better and more accurate.

But if someone is serious about studying the text itself, that someone should study hebrew, greek and latin. That’s what the tough guys do. Tough guys don’t read in English!

Edgar.
p.s. guys being greek for men and women.