This is a post in a continuing translation comparison series. Focused on “the literary Bible”, my intent is look at passages or phrases where translations that have been especially noted for their literary translation qualities seem to capture the meaning of the text with an extra dash of written flavor, at least in comparison with other standard English translations.
Previous posts: The winner’s wreath | A wilderness of words | Deeds of doom!
* * * * *
This summer I’ve been reading through some of the later letters of the New Testament, namely those of James and Peter. One of my recent book acquisitions was a Library Edition of the New English Bible NT, which proved to be an upgrade in binding only, as the footnotes and annotations are identical to those in my NEB Oxford Study Edition (unlike in the OT, where the Library Edition reportedly does contain additional reference material). Nonetheless, I’ve been reading the NT in the NEB and enjoying it quite a bit, as you might expect.
The passages on the depravity of the tongue in James 3 caught my attention with their florid language and imagery. What follows is a short look at several verses, comparing the NEB to multiple modern translations.
| NEB: James 3:1-2 |
REB |
| My brothers, not many of you should become teachers, for you may be certain that we who teach shall ourselves be judged with greater strictness. All of us often go wrong; the man who never says a wrong thing is a perfect character, able to bridle his whole being. | My friends, not many of you should become teachers, for you may be certain that we who teach will ourselves face greater judgement. All of us go wrong again and again; a man who never says anything wrong is perfect and is capable of controlling every part of his body. |
 I want to focus on the change in the latter part of verse 2 where the NEB follows the traditional KJV rendering (cf. RSV/ESV, NASB, NRSV) in using “bridle” as a translation for the Greek chalinagōgeō, while the REB updates this to “controlling”.
Presumably the equestrian reference has been deemed too arcane for modern, idiomatic readers, as virtually every other functional translation includes a similar rendering as the REB. The bridle, of course, is the contraption that goes over the horse’s head, holding the bit in the horse’s mouth and attaching to the reins. Is this really too difficult for the modern reader to understand without it being painted over? By doing so, the functional translations sever a delightful connection between this verse and the following one (see next), where James uses the illustration of the controlling power of a horse’s bit. This transition seems too logical and natural to ignore through a semantic equivalent. |
|
| NEB: James 3:3-5a |
NLTse |
| If we put bits into horses’ mouths to make them obey our will, we can direct their whole body. Or think of ships: large they may be, yet even when driven by strong gales they can be directed by a tiny rudder on whatever course the helmsman chooses. So with the tongue. It is a small member but it can make huge claims. | We can make a large horse go wherever we want by means of a small bit in its mouth. And a small rudder makes a huge ship turn wherever the pilot chooses to go, even though the winds are strong. In the same way, the tongue is a small thing that makes grand speeches. |
The NLT’s convention of breaking down the source texts into bite-size morsels conveys much the same general meaning as the NEB, but I can’t help but feel that the logic of the passage has been weakened. The NLT drops the “obey/will” in favor of “go wherever we want”, which feels somewhat more whimiscal or capricious than directed. The NEB admittedly is awkward here, especially in verse 4 - somewhat cleaned up in the REB revision:
My preference for accurate nautical terminology has already been documented; needless to say, the use of “gales” and “helmsman” earns points in my book. The latter is perhaps a little more precise than “pilot” in that the helmsman is the one who actually steers the ship, while a pilot is more of a local guide with the authority of a ship’s captain, telling the helmsman where to go in order to navigate a particular passage of water. That said, often the roles are combined from a functional sense, especially where a local pilot is not required. But I suspect this is more than translators need to take into account - I simply prefer the traditional language and welcome it in the NEB. Finally, by translating the Greek melos as “thing” instead “member” or “part of the body”, the NLT loses the comparative aspect of the size of the tongue to the overall body. |
|
| NEB: James 3:5b-6 |
HCSB |
| What an immense stack of timber can be set ablaze by the tiniest spark! And the tongue is in effect a fire. It represents among our members the world with all its wickedness; it pollutes our whole being; it keeps the wheel of our existence red-hot, and its flames are fed by hell. | Consider how large a forest a small fire ignites. And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among the parts of our [bodies]; it pollutes the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is set on fire by hell |
| Compare the use of adjectives between the NEB and HCSB: “immense/tiniest” and “large/small”. How drab is the latter, while the former immediately conjures a more active illustration of a fire, crackling into a blazing roar that echoes the “huge claims” and “grand speeches” of verse 5a. The NEB noted “What a huge forest…” as a textual variant to “stack of timber” - though that would have created an awkward repetition of the adjective “huge” in 5a/b. I might humbly suggest “swath” instead of “stack” as a mediating translation between the two approaches, with “timber” as a literary image of a forest.
The HCSB is one of the few translations to use “pollute” in verse 6 - most opt for a variant of “corrupt” or “defile”. The Greek is spiloō, which means “to make a stain or spot” in a moral sense. The study notes to the NEB Oxford Study Edition state that the translation “wheel of our existence” in verse 6 is a reference to Greek mystery thought meaning the whole of our existence, from beginning to end. Some take this as support for the idea of reincarnation, but that clearly is beyond the pale of Christianity and presumably beyond what James had in mind. Finally, the NEB’s literary quality shines through again with the alliterative “flames are fed”, drawing out the all-consuming quality of sin and wickedness, just as fire consumes every inch of a forest unless checked. |
|
| NEB: James 3:7-8 |
TNIV |
| Beasts and birds of every kind, creatures that crawl on the ground or swim in the sea, can be subdued and have been subdued by mankind; but no man can subdue the tongue. It is an intractable evil, charged with deadly venom. | All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by human beings, but no one can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison |
First, I want to briefly comment on the rolling alliteration in the NEB: beasts/birds, creatures/crawl, swim/seas. This type of poetic prose, continued from the previous verse (”flames are fed”), elevates the English language beyond the pedestrian list of beasts illustrated by the TNIV. The literary characteristics of the word choices make them seem deliberate and my memory naturally finds in them an allusion to the Creation accounts in Genesis 1:
The question then begs: did the TNIV translations fail to underscore an allusion to Genesis 1 in James 3:7 or did the NEB translators take liberties with the Greek text to draw out this connection? The two phrases that stick out in the NEB are “creatures that crawl on the ground” and “swim in the sea”, translated as “reptiles” and “sea creatures”, respectively, by the TNIV. The former is translated from the Greek herpeton, which generally describes “a creeping animal, reptile”; the equivalent Hebrew seems to be remes, which permeates the Genesis creation account as “creeping thing” in traditional translations. The latter is from the Greek adjective enalios, which means “that which is in the sea, marine”. In these cases, the NEB’s choice of verbose nouns and verbs to translate what can be more simply described does seem to be deliberately creating an echo of Genesis 1. With that conclusion in mind, we look at the Greek damazō (NEB: “subdue”, TNIV: “tame”). The NEB’s rendering more definitely recalls the Creation language of Genesis 1 quoted above, while the TNIV (and many other translations) anticipate perhaps Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew”. Strong’s defines damazō as “to tame” or “curb, restrain”, which certainly would seem to lean toward the TNIV as a more literal translation, though “subdue” as a synonym for “restrain” is well within the scope of possibility, and fits with a Creation motif. Finally, the NEB’s translation of thanatephoros ios as “deadly venom” is a striking allusion to the serpent of Genesis 3, unifying a theme across these two verses that seemingly ties the evil of the tongue to the fall of Creation. And indeed, unifying this entire passage in James with the contrast of the serpent’s deadly venom with the perfect character of a man who never says a wrong thing (3:2). |
|
Concluding thoughts
James’ descent from simply cautioning teachers regarding judgment to perhaps finding an image of the Fall in the deadly venom of the tongue is sudden and vicious. The images, metaphors and hyperbole are mixed together in a literary brew that demands language as artful and colorful as the jumble of images conjured up in our imaginations. The NEB navigates this passage with aplomb, weaving words together with suggestive allusions that revel in semantic meaning. The arc from the perfect teacher to the relentless evil of the tongue is captured in the images of the bridle, bit, rudder, blazing hellfire and fiery course of our lives, all set in relief against the glory of our God-given mandate to subdue creation as its sovereign masters.
A glory, of course, that we have all fallen short of. All, but Christ that is; He who now reigns over Creation as Lord and Master is the only one who has mastered the tongue and doused the flames of the curse with living water. Praise God!
15 Comments
NEB really shines here. I spend more time in the Old Testament - and am sensitive in particular to the oddball translations the NEB OT is known for. But the NEB New Testament, based on this example, would seem to deserve another look.
But the NEB New Testament, based on this example, would seem to deserve another look.
Indeed. The critical difference between the NEB OT and NT is that the latter had almost 10 years to gel after its initial release in 1961 and underwent a general revision in time for the release of the “complete” Bible in 1970. In contrast, the NEB OT was never revised until the REB text came out in 1989, which of course was a significant revision that smoothed out many of the NEB’s oddities.
Yes, the NEB is definitely the most flavorful literary translation out there. I don’t think there’s anything out there that is comparable. I still love it for casual/devotional reading.Which do you like better ElShaddai–NEB or REB?
Which do you like better ElShaddai–NEB or REB?
Kevin, that’s a good question. I think for the sheer audacity of some of the renderings, I lean toward the NEB. Certainly the NEB has sentimental value to me, as it was the first “alternative” translation to the NASB that I read with any regularity, having been introduced to it as a required college text. The REB is “safer” in much the same way as the NLTse is “safer” than the NLT1 or Living Bible.
The REB is also easier to use in a larger community, even while it has many differences compared to more well-known translations. But for daily, personal reading, the NEB is a delight! And the larger-font, single-column layout of the text only enhances it for this purpose.
Yes, I find myself picking up the NEB more often than the REB–maybe because I also like it better too, but maybe also because it’s just so different from the rest of the translations. I don’t think it’ll be as authoritative as other translations but I don’t read it for that reason anyway. I think the NEB likely out sold the REB too.
I think the REB got caught in the crossfire, so to speak, between the NIV and the NRSV. The complete NIV, especially, was on the market for over 10 years before the REB and NRSV were published in 1989.
I think the NEB likely out sold the REB too.
Oh, to be sure. According to the histories that I’ve read, the publication of the NEB was a major event, with worldwide support. Interestingly, the publishers were unsure whether the edition with the Apocrypha would sell as much as the edition without. So they did a series of small print runs in order not to have excess inventory.
Back in 1989, it seems like the mainline churches chose to back the NRSV with more enthusiasm than the REB because you hardly ever hear the REB being quoted these days. It shows how authoritative the RSV was back then in comparison to the NEB. Perhaps this also shows that formal translations tend to end up being more authoritative than dynamic translations.
I think there was some consternation on the NEB team that the translation was “out of date” even as the full Bible was being released in 1970 (NT, 1961). Certainly the appearance of the RSV a decade or two earlier in the 1950s (NT, 1946) gave that translation significant traction.
Thank you for using “authoritative” instead of “accurate”. It’s an interesting distinction and one that I’ve been thinking of exploring rather than needlessly continuing the translation philosophy wars.
Yes, I do like the use of “authoritative” when I’m not talking about the formal-dynamic equivalency issues. This is a totally different issue when it comes to translations. These days, the NIV, NKJV and NLT seem to be gaining the most authority in evangelical churches. But it’s funny how we tend to ignore the NKJV on our circle of bibliobloggers, and we also tend to think that the NIV is way out-of-date. Nevertheless, they are still authoritative.
As a relatively new member of a church that uses the NIV as their pew/pulpit Bible, I’m becoming more familiar with the idea of the NIV as “authoritative”. My former church had standardized on the NLT…
Yes, the NIV is definitely still one of the most authoritative translations today . I think that’s why HC/Zondervan is still sticking with the NIV and not moving on to the TNIV…yet. The popularity of a translation makes it more authoritative. In my opinion, the next most authoritative translation is the NKJV but the NLT is gaining a lot of ground too.
The interesting thing about “authoritative” is that it can be contextual… For example, we can say that the NRSV is accepted as “authoritative” in academic settings, even while conservative evangelicals reject it for various theological or cultural reasons.
I agree with your comment about Zondervan and the NIV - they would be crazy to dump the NIV from a market perspective, even if the TNIV offers more modern scholarship and improvements to the accuracy. It’s a shame that they got boxed in with the gender issue and couldn’t simply update the NIV itself, though then they’d be dealing with “upgrade” issues for a massive install base.
Exactly ElShaddai. I agree. It’s all relative or contextual. The only way to assess a translation’s “authority” is to look at it objectively to see how often a translation is quoted by teachers, pastors and Christian publications of any sort (books, news magazines, ministry publications, academic journals, websites, etc.) This is why I pick the NIV, eventhough the TNIV is a better translation. I think this is an issue worth blogging about so I’ll blog about this issue. I would like to ask for people’s opinion and rankings of translation authority including yours.
Sounds good - I’m working on a post as well, but there’s no reason we can’t both tackle it. Looking forward to your thoughts!
Yes, we’ll both blog about it. I’ve posted on NewEpistles. Looking forward to your rankings and comments. Anyways, got to run for a doctors appointment.