Favorite Bible version
- Thread starter caspianrex
- Start date
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
A word-for-word translation does not alter the grammar at all; the same order is kept.
But this means that it may not sound right or have the same meaning in the target language.
This is the style of an interlinear text translation.
A literal translation preserves the meaning of the words, as does the above, but also rearranges them so that it is syntactically correct in the target language.
However, I was commenting only on the English word "literal" and not necessarily in translations.
It doesn't necessarily pertain to a translation. Thought for thought is dynamic equivalence.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I don't know, now, what you mean by "It". The comments I have made about the word "literal" have not been aimed at the subject of translation, but rather, at the subject of scriptural interpretation, for a start, within the English language. It is only when we understand the real meaning of the word in our own language can we then apply it to the subject of translation.
But I will comment on dynamic equivalence and it's cousin functional equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is not thought for thought at all. It is commentary, personal opinion, supplemental information masquerading as a translation and includes far more of the translator's personality than is realized.
Basically, translations of this sort are far too dependent on preconceptions, ego, greed and limited linguistic knowledge. It is assumed by these translators that those who have come before have not sufficiently excelled at their task and only they can sort out what God really said. And make a buck along the way.
Formal equivalence, on the other hand, should be the highest goal; regardless of the difficulties involved. It is the closest to "literal" because literal means "not counterfeit". There must be times, when reading the Bible in our language, that our culture interferes with our understanding to such an extent that we are forced to dig and dig and dig some more until we understand the true meaning of the original almost as if we knew the source language itself; but in our own language. A simple example of this is the use of the word "charity" in 1 Cor 13 by the KJV translators. Were it not for the use of this English word, much of Paul's intent, a characteristic of the word "agape", and an important insight of language nuance would be largely lost to generations. (no time to expand on this)
We need to be able to read, in English, what was said in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This is where the translations of the last 2 centuries have substantially failed. We have increasingly demanded the facilitation of drive-thru religion. Grab-and-go theology; and our Christian culture is suffering because of it. Formal equivalence is the closest thing to "literal" translation (using this loosely) that can be found.
It is closest to the original if you mean a word for word translation. The difficulty, however, with word for word translations is that words are used differently in different language and often have different meanings depending on how they are used. There are aplications where the NASB would prove useful but different languages just don't use words the same way and so word for word translation often miss or can confuse the meaning behind those words. This is why I think nearly any other translation is superior than the NASB for everyday reading.
To give a very simplistic example of the difference let's translate something from Spanish to English.
"Casa Bonita"
The NASB would have translated that "house beautiful" but the correct translation into English would be "beautiful house" because of the way English uses adjectives. Word order is way more important in English than is nearly any other language and the NASB doesn't completely ignore this but it serves as an easy to understand example of the sort of issues that can come up with word for word translations.
Martin Luther made a similar (but way better) observations about translating the bible into German (what follows is, of course, an English translation of his German letter)...
For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I am to follow these donkeys, they will lay the original before me literally and translate it thus: "Aus dem uberfluss des hertzen redet der mund" [out of the excessiveness of the heart the mouth speaks]. Tell me, is that speaking German? What German could understand something like that? What is "the excessiveness of the heart"? No German can say that; unless, perhaps, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too generous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be correct. "Excessiveness of the heart" is no more German than "excessiveness of the house, "excessiveness of the stove" or "excessiveness of the bench." But the mother in the home and the common man say this: "Wes das hertz vol ist, des gehet der mund über" [What fills the heart overflows the mouth]. That is speaking good German of the kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always successfully. The literal Latin is a great obstacle to speaking good German.
For another example, the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: Ut quid perditio haec? and in Mark 14, Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est? According to these literalist donkeys I would have to translate it, "Warumb ist dise verlierung der salben geschehen?" [Why has this loss of ointment occurred?] But what kind of German is this? What German says "loss of the ointment occurred"? And if he understands it at all, he would think that the ointment is lost and must be looked for and found again, though even that is obscure and uncertain enough. Now if that is good German why do they not come out and make us a fine, new German Testament and let Luther's Testament alone? I think that would really bring out their talents. But a German would say Ut quid, etc., this way: "Was sol doch solcher unrat?" [What is the reason for this waste?] or "Why this extravagance?" Perhaps even, "it is a shame about the ointment." That is good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the ointment she poured out and had been wasteful. That was what Judas meant, because he thought he could have used it better.
Again, when the angel greets Mary, he says: "Gegruesset seistu, Maria vol gnaden, der Herr mit dir" [Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you]. Up till now this has simply been translated according to the literal Latin. (7) But tell me, is that good German? Since when does a German speak like that, "du bist vol gnaden" [you are full of grace]? One would have to think about a keg "full of" beer or a purse "full of" money. Therefore I translated it: "du holdselige" [thou pleasing one]. This way a German can at least think his way through to what the angel meant by his greeting. Now the papists are throwing a fit about me corrupting the Angelic Salutation, yet I still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. Suppose I had used the best German and translated the salutation: "Gott grusse dich, du liebe Maria" [God greet you, dear Mary], for that is all the angel meant to say, and what he would have said if he had greeted her in German. Suppose I had done that! I believe that they would have hanged themselves out of their fanatical devotion to the Virgin Mary, because I had so destroyed the Salutation.
An Open Letter on Translating - By Martin Luther, 1530
For another example, the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: Ut quid perditio haec? and in Mark 14, Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est? According to these literalist donkeys I would have to translate it, "Warumb ist dise verlierung der salben geschehen?" [Why has this loss of ointment occurred?] But what kind of German is this? What German says "loss of the ointment occurred"? And if he understands it at all, he would think that the ointment is lost and must be looked for and found again, though even that is obscure and uncertain enough. Now if that is good German why do they not come out and make us a fine, new German Testament and let Luther's Testament alone? I think that would really bring out their talents. But a German would say Ut quid, etc., this way: "Was sol doch solcher unrat?" [What is the reason for this waste?] or "Why this extravagance?" Perhaps even, "it is a shame about the ointment." That is good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the ointment she poured out and had been wasteful. That was what Judas meant, because he thought he could have used it better.
Again, when the angel greets Mary, he says: "Gegruesset seistu, Maria vol gnaden, der Herr mit dir" [Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you]. Up till now this has simply been translated according to the literal Latin. (7) But tell me, is that good German? Since when does a German speak like that, "du bist vol gnaden" [you are full of grace]? One would have to think about a keg "full of" beer or a purse "full of" money. Therefore I translated it: "du holdselige" [thou pleasing one]. This way a German can at least think his way through to what the angel meant by his greeting. Now the papists are throwing a fit about me corrupting the Angelic Salutation, yet I still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. Suppose I had used the best German and translated the salutation: "Gott grusse dich, du liebe Maria" [God greet you, dear Mary], for that is all the angel meant to say, and what he would have said if he had greeted her in German. Suppose I had done that! I believe that they would have hanged themselves out of their fanatical devotion to the Virgin Mary, because I had so destroyed the Salutation.
An Open Letter on Translating - By Martin Luther, 1530
If any of you haven't read that open letter by Martin Luther, it is well worth the read!
Resting in Him,
Clete
By it I was simply relating to what you said.
I believe that you have it wrong here. Dynamic equivalence is thought for thought. Something else is word for word. You said functional and formal. I do not know which it is.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
No, dynamic equivalence is said to be thought for thought but it is not.
Thought for thought is not possible and does a dis-service to the reader who thinks only in his own language. Translations of this sort try to deny the readers their thought processes by guiding them toward a certain interpretive conclusion about a text. The Bible was never meant, in my opinion, to be easy. This whole modern idea of dumbing it down is wrong.
Thought for thought is dependent on knowing intimately the mind of the author of the source language; his life experiences, cultural pressures, moods, vocabulary, etc. But the mind of the author at a particular moment, cannot be fully known; we must rely only on the words and phrases to give us any insight that might be available. Therefore, translate the words and phrases, not what you may think the author was thinking.
The NIV (the New International Version) is dynamic equivalence or thought for thought. The idea is that a word for word translation suffers in regard to giving the true or full meaning.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I agree that your statement is true but not with the concept.
The problem is that sometimes ideas are inserted that are not there because the translator(s) likes the idea.
Example Mat 12:33NIV, Mat 12:33KJV
The Greek text does not contain the idea that making the tree good causes the fruit to be good. It just conveys that good trees and good fruit go together, and that bad trees and bad fruit go together. This was an idea that the translators of the NIV inserted.
Formal equivalence is superior to dynamic equivalence in my view.
Fair enough. I like the NASB (the New American Standard Bible).
The insertion of ideas that are not there does not occur because of a fundamental flaw in the idea of dynamic equivalence but because of intellectual dishonesty and/or simple errors on the part of the translators, whether intentional or otherwise.
Besides, even if it were true (which it isn't) that dynamic equivalence automatically means that ideas that aren't actually there will be inserted, how would it be preferable to adopt a system that is flatly guaranteed to not communicate ideas that definitely are there because the system translates the text word for word, which by it's very nature ignores the nuances and common usage of both languages?
Clete
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Well, either you didn't read what I said prior or you think that formal equivalence is the same as word for word which it is not.
Formal equivalence, not dynamic equivalence, includes all of the nuances, culture, idioms, metaphors, perceptions, perspectives; in short, the linguistic distinctives of the source language and expresses them in the target language. But it adds nothing that is not there. If it is impossible to duplicate in the target language, a particular concept, because the words do not exist or to do so would convey the wrong message, the word or phrase is rendered as to be faithful to the author and the burden of correct interpretation is handed over to the reader in the target language.
No, I hadn't read what you said before but I'm somewhat sceptical of your take on this.
If "all of the nuances, culture, idioms, metaphors, perceptions, perspectives; in short, the linguistic distinctives of the source language" are included then what in the world is the difference? How is that not, in effect, a thought for thought translation?
Take for example the common English sentence, "It's time to hit the road.". If I were to translate that into another language with a set of words that conveyed anything other than that it was time to leave then it would be a poor translation, but a literal translation might make someone think that it was time to get some sledge hammers out and start pounding pot holes in the street.
When translating from one language to another it is the meaning of the words that is important, more so than the words themselves, is it not?
Clete
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Let me give you an example.
1Sa 24:3KJV, 1Sa 24:3NIV, 1Sa 24:3ESV, 1Sa 24:3NASB
Some translators have added something that is not in the Hebrew, thinking that they are doing the reader a favour. They translated it as if Saul went into the cave to urinate but one of the English definitions of relief is the discharge of either bladder or bowels.
Not only that, it is difficult to imagine how David was able to cut off part of Saul's skirt while Saul was performing this task, but not if he went in to lie down and rest.
But that is not an example of dynamic equivalence but rather an example of the translator taking license. If it's an incorrect translation then it's the translator's error not an error that is systemic to the notion of dynamic equivalence.
It seems to me that the attitude that Martin Luther had concerning how one should translate the Bible is the correct one to have. Regardless of what you call it, his goal was to be as faithful to the original as his mind was capable of being while still translating the Bible into what he called "good German", which is just the German language the way it was correctly and commonly used in his day.
Luther gives several examples in his letter about the topic, which I've linked to below. If you haven't read it, you really should. It is very much worth the read and happens to do an excellent job of communicating just the sort of attitude and approach one should have when attempting a translation of the Bible.
An Open Letter on Translating - By Martin Luther, 1530
Clete
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Taking license is the hallmark of dynamic equivalence and sometimes results in a blatant error like this one but most often in hidden ones.
Formal equivalence reduces or eliminates possible errors. In the KJV, for example, the use of "ye" for plural is formal equivalence. It is the only English word that exactly represents the original. The word is in the dictionary. Let's use it when the need arises.
Thanks for the article. I recognize having read some of this before now. But it mostly deals with how proficient he was with German and his defense of inserting 'allein' into the German text because that is how Germans speak. I will have to take his word for that.
I notice that English translators did not follow his example.
Last edited:
It seems like we're mostly in agreement except that I think it's overstating it to say that "taking license is the hallmark of dynamic equivalence".
Also, the reason they shouldn't ever use the word "ye" in an English translation is because no one ever uses that word and most wouldn't have any idea that it is plural word. There are perfectly good ways of communicating plurality without using that specific word, people do it every day without ever uttering the word "ye". It was terrific for the 17th century because that's how people spoke in those days but that isn't the case today, whether it's in the dictionary or not.
Clete
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I agree that we are mostly in agreement - lol. We are most agreeable fellows; don't you think?
I would like you to give me an example or two of how to communicate plurality succinctly without using the word that is, in our language, the perfect one?
When a language is established, should we then have a revision of the Bible every few years to bring it up to date with current vernacular? If so, what standard for vernacular should be used? British? American? West coast valley girls? Rap? I see this as the tail wagging the dog.
For 250 years, in America, the language was learned by using the KJV as, not only a religious standard but, an English text book. We have completely turned this around so that we now subjectively decide "what we like" instead of what is best for us. Any discussion about versions begins and ends with personal preference, and we think that is just fine. The result has been chaos and disunity; something the Bible warns us against. Is not the cry of the enemies of God that they will enact laws to protect their right to do what they want?
For all our advancements, we are worse off; it's not working for us, just against us. We are not taught to get wisdom, we are encouraged to invent it.
Umm, yeah! Of course! :chuckle:
There is no need for "the perfect one" word. If "ye", "thee", "thou" and "thine" where in common use today, they very likely would have different meanings than they did back in the 16th century. In fact, from what I understand, the use of these words was already beginning to fade when the King James was first published and these more formal words were used as a way of making the bible intentionally seperate from the more common or "vulgar" use of the English language.
The bottom line is that all of these words have been transmuted over time to the single English word "you" and/or "yours" and as such, other words are added in order to convey plurality like "You all must..." or "several of you" or else the context itself conveys the plural meaning. If you're a business consultant addressing a board of directors and you say, "You're going out of business inside of thirty days.", there's no need to say, "You and you and you and you and you are all going out of business..." The plural is understood by the context.
Of course, you know all of this already because you speak English. The point here, however, is simply that there is no need to find the perfect word. All that is necessary is to convey the proper meaning. And there is no advantage to using words who's dictionary meaning might make them "the perfect word" if that word is not used by the people reading the translation. If people have to go get the dictionary out to figure out what your translation means, then you've done a less than spectacular job of translation.
I think periodic revision would be wise. That's one reason I like the New King James so well. It's not like revision needs to be done every other year or anything like that. And there is no need for a "standard vernacular" either. Let the people doing the translating figure out how they want to do the translation and then let the quality of the product determine if they chose correctly. It's not like anyone could enforce such a standard anyway nor does there appear to have been a need for it up til now so why start down that road in the first place?
Of course this means that there will be a wide variety of translations for people to choose from and that the public will have to make a decision as to which they prefer and why. Some will choose poorly and others more wisely but I'm not afraid of that. Even the worst of the widely available translations of the bible aren't so poor that the message of the bible fails to be conveyed and the one's that exist that are intentional perturbations of the original are all widely known as such (e.g. Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible or JW's New World Translation, etc.) and even they aren't so wildly wrong that one couldn't easily discern the gospel from them.
You have a very cynical view here. First of all, the primary reason that the KJV was used was because it is what was available. It's not like there were a big bunch of options and even if there were a few options here and there, the reason why the KJV was so overwhelmingly prominent was because it was the version that people preferred. There were, in fact, several revisions of, you might even call them versions of the King James Bible. No one has used a real 1611 KJV in centuries and even the King James Bible itself was a revision of the Bishop's Bible that has been prodoced less than a decade before and which was a revision of its original 1568 edition.
Further, the plethora of available versions that we have available today is because the King James was leaving something to be desired in a sufficient number of people that someone decided it was worth their while to produce a new translation which not only sold like hotcakes but has, as a result, allowed bible publishers to produce bibles in languages that would never have been produced if not for good old fashioned market forces. Capitalism and the profit motive is a very good thing!
This conversation has made me want to reread the excellent Battle Royale XIV which is all about the King James Bible. If you haven't read that, you totally should. I know you're not a KJV only guy but its still just jock full of cool history and amazing information.
Clete
Last edited:
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Actually, not true; I am a KJV guy. The only thing I am not is a KJV ONLY guy.
These people believe that the KJV is inspired. I do not because I don't believe that any version, not even the original autographs are inspired.
What I have settled on, however, is that the KJV is, demonstrably the Word of God to English speaking people.
I often refer to other versions to get perspective and to deepen my understanding of a passage but I view them as commentaries and not serious translations.
I took great interest all along the line with the Battle Royalle KJV. I followed it nearly every day.
The comments are on this thread: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?113638-Battle-Royale-XIV-discussion-thread
The thing I learned more than anything else was how sneaky and underhanded Bob Enyart is.
As you get into it you may see what I am talking about.
Although I don't go quite as far as Will Kenny, I appreciated everything he said.
I think he was also careful not to call the KJV inspired, but I forget now.