MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Spiritual Various: Bible: World English Version

HarryT · 08-16-2007, 04:20 AM

Allow me to expand a little on Nat's excellent post about Bible translation. It's not really about "accuracy" - one can reasonably assume that every worthwhile Bible translator is familiar with Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek - but more about the compromise between "word for word" translation and paraphrase which exists with every translation.

There's basically a spectrum of methods of translation.

At one end of the scale you have what are called "formal" translations, which attempt a "word for word" rendering of the original language into English (or whatever the "target" language is). These attempt to translate, as literally as possible, the original language into English, with word for word equivalence. Formal translations of the Bible include the KJV, NKJV, RSV, and NASB.

The problem with formal translation is the language is full of idioms, and they don't translate at all well in this method. For example, if you look at the KJV, at 1 Samuel, 24:3 you'll find:

"And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave."

What on earth is this "cover his feet" stuff all about? It is in fact a Hebrew idiom meaning "to relieve yourself", but I suspect that the typical reader of the KJV wouldn't have a clue. Formal translations are linguistically accurate, but not at all good for actually understanding what's being said.

At the other end of the scale you have what are called "paraphrase" translations, which take whole sentences, or even paragraphs, and rewrite them in modern, idiomatic, language. These versions generally don't have the traditional "verse" markings; they are laid out like a modern book, in continuous text. They can be very readable, but many people dislike them because you aren't reading the "original language" in any sense. There are lots of paraphrase translations, such as "The Living Bible" and "The Message".

The best translations - IMHO - are those which take the "middle ground"; these are called "dynamic translations". They start off by translating "formally", but then replace idiomatic and culture-specific words or phrases by their modern equivalents. Such translations include the NRSV, NIV, and NEB. Eg, if we look again at 1 Sam 24:3 the NRSV has:

"He came to the sheep pens along the way; a cave was there, and Saul went in to relieve himself. David and his men were far back in the cave."

Which I think most people would agree is much more "understandable" to a modern reader than the KJV version quoted above.

Different "dynamic" translations, though, differ in what they actually change. Eg, both old and new testament society was male-dominated, hence the Bible uses "male" language even when the meaning obviously applies both both men and women. Some translations such as the NRSV replace "brothers" by "brothers and sisters", "he" by "he or she" (or "they"), etc, to make this clear; others leave in the "male" words. This is an area in which the more "conservative" churches tend to differ from more "liberal" ones in terms of what translations they prefer to use.

I could go on ad nausiam about this, but that's enough to be going on with, and gives an impression as to why many people feel that there is a real need for better translations than the KJV, and why there are such a range of different translations available.

For the record, my personal favourite translation is the NRSV - a "liberal dynamic" translation.

08-16-2007, 04:20 AM	#32
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,557 Karma: 93980341 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Allow me to expand a little on Nat's excellent post about Bible translation. It's not really about "accuracy" - one can reasonably assume that every worthwhile Bible translator is familiar with Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek - but more about the compromise between "word for word" translation and paraphrase which exists with every translation. There's basically a spectrum of methods of translation. At one end of the scale you have what are called "formal" translations, which attempt a "word for word" rendering of the original language into English (or whatever the "target" language is). These attempt to translate, as literally as possible, the original language into English, with word for word equivalence. Formal translations of the Bible include the KJV, NKJV, RSV, and NASB. The problem with formal translation is the language is full of idioms, and they don't translate at all well in this method. For example, if you look at the KJV, at 1 Samuel, 24:3 you'll find: "And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave." What on earth is this "cover his feet" stuff all about? It is in fact a Hebrew idiom meaning "to relieve yourself", but I suspect that the typical reader of the KJV wouldn't have a clue. Formal translations are linguistically accurate, but not at all good for actually understanding what's being said. At the other end of the scale you have what are called "paraphrase" translations, which take whole sentences, or even paragraphs, and rewrite them in modern, idiomatic, language. These versions generally don't have the traditional "verse" markings; they are laid out like a modern book, in continuous text. They can be very readable, but many people dislike them because you aren't reading the "original language" in any sense. There are lots of paraphrase translations, such as "The Living Bible" and "The Message". The best translations - IMHO - are those which take the "middle ground"; these are called "dynamic translations". They start off by translating "formally", but then replace idiomatic and culture-specific words or phrases by their modern equivalents. Such translations include the NRSV, NIV, and NEB. Eg, if we look again at 1 Sam 24:3 the NRSV has: "He came to the sheep pens along the way; a cave was there, and Saul went in to relieve himself. David and his men were far back in the cave." Which I think most people would agree is much more "understandable" to a modern reader than the KJV version quoted above. Different "dynamic" translations, though, differ in what they actually change. Eg, both old and new testament society was male-dominated, hence the Bible uses "male" language even when the meaning obviously applies both both men and women. Some translations such as the NRSV replace "brothers" by "brothers and sisters", "he" by "he or she" (or "they"), etc, to make this clear; others leave in the "male" words. This is an area in which the more "conservative" churches tend to differ from more "liberal" ones in terms of what translations they prefer to use. I could go on ad nausiam about this, but that's enough to be going on with, and gives an impression as to why many people feel that there is a real need for better translations than the KJV, and why there are such a range of different translations available. For the record, my personal favourite translation is the NRSV - a "liberal dynamic" translation.