To be "literal" or not in Bible translation

by Wonderment 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wonderment

  Some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of Bible versions of not sticking to the original Scriptures. A few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary. Others do not believe so. Who is right?

  The answer is not that simple. Please feel free to analyze these four samples,and see what to make of these! Comments please!
  

  To be literal or not in Bible translation?

  Matt 1.6b (Greek): “David but generated the Solomon out of the* of the Ourios”

  *(tēs, article = genitive, singular, feminine)

  
  

  KIT: “David but generated the Solomon out of the [wife] of Uriah”

  Disciples Literal NT: “And David fathered Solomon by the one of Uriah”

  NASB” “David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah”

  NWTr: “David became father to Solʹo·mon by the wife of U·riʹah”

  ESV: “And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah”

  NIV: “David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife”

  Darby: “And David begat Solomon, of her [that had been the wife] of Urias” (Brackets his.)

  
  Acts 4:23 (Greek): “Having-been-loosed-off but they-came toward the own* and they-reported-back as-much-as toward them the chief-priests and the elders said.”

  
  

  NWTr: “After being released, they went to their own people and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them”

  ESV: “When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them”
  NLT: “As soon as they were freed, Peter and John returned to the other believers and told them what the leading priests and elders had said”

  NIV: “On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them”

  
  

  Ex 17.13 (Hebrew): “And-he-overcame Joshua *** Amalek and*** people-of-him by-mouth-of sword.” (*** represents the direct object, normally left untranslated)

  
  

  NASB: “So Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword”

  NWTr: “Thus Joshua defeated Am′a·lek and his people with the sword”

  NIV: “So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword”

  ESV: “And Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword”

  YLT: “and Joshua weakeneth Amalek and his people by the mouth of the sword”

  
  

  Psalm 73.21 (Hebrew): “For he-was-embittered*, heart-of-me and-kidneys-of-me I-was-pierced” (*he-was-embittered, verb in third person singular masculine gender)

  
  

  NWT: “For my heart was soured And in my kidneys I was sharply pained”

  NWTr: “But my heart was sour, And deep inside I felt sharp pain”

  ASV: “For my soul was grieved, And I was pricked in my heart”

  ISV: “When I chose to be bitter I was emotionally pained”

  NIV: “When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered”

  CEV: “Once I was bitter and brokenhearted”

  VOICE: “You see, my heart overflowed with bitterness and cynicism; I felt as if someone stabbed me in the back”

  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  At least with the NWT revision speakers might stop going on endlessly about kidneys and bowels as if using those words indicated tremendous spiritual insight.
• 

  Vidqun

  Thanks for the examples, Wonderment. These demonstrate the problem quite well. I personally go for FE translations with lots of footnotes so that I can form a personalized opinion of the text. DE translations often incorporate the understanding of the translator, who might not always be impartial. The following is a short discussion of FE and DE translation, for those who are interested in the subject.

  Formal-Equivalence Translation: Question: What did the original text say? Against DE Translation, we have the accurate, word-for-word translation called Formal Equivalence translation, abbreviated as FET, FE for short. A literal or FE translation would closely follow the original language and could be viewed as scientifically accurate and correct. This type of translation would be adapted to the language of the original text. FE Translations (e.g.,, Aquila) could be used to establish the original text as well as pronunciation. [i]

  FE translation attempts to retain the language forms of the original in the translation, regardless of whether or not they are the most natural way to express the original meaning. Sometimes when original forms are retained, the original meaning is not preserved. When people speak of some versions of the Bible being literal, they are referring to ones which have been translated with FE approach.

  FE translation is essentially the same as word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translation is the lay term, while formal equivalence translation the technical term. Although FE translations have weaknesses in terms of readability, overall preservation of original meaning, and impact, they are useful for helping one understand HOW meaning was expressed in the original text. They can help us see the beauty of original idioms, rhetorical patterns, such as Hebrew poetic parallelism, and how individual authors used certain vocabulary terms uniquely. It is not so easy to appreciate these factors from reading idiomatic translations, because these factors are related to form and idiomatic translations are willing to lose original form to maximize preservation and understandability of original meaning.

  R. Timothy McLay, translator of NETS Daniel, suggests that the Theodotion (or proto-Theodotian) version of Daniel is mainly a FE translation. In the modern era, the literal interlinear translation is classified as a pure FE translation. To a lesser extent The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), 1990 edition, would qualify as a FE translation. The translators of such a translation would work on the premise: ‘As literal as possible, as free as necessary’. They would used paraphrase or explanatory notes only in exceptional cases, for example to elaborate on the feminine third person singular pronoun.[ii]

  Admittedly this type of translation could cause ambiguity. Footnotes can be used to clear this up. This is the case with the NRSV. Here the translators used footnotes to list different meanings or translation possibilities.

  Dynamic-Equivalence Translation: Question: What did the author mean? Language experts aptly apply the word ‘dynamic’ to the receptor language – that the receptor language is flexible and dynamic and in no way have to duplicate the original language. This mode of translation applies what is translated to the translator’s vernacular. Archaic words, phrases, and idioms are modernized by replacing them with similar words, phrases, and idioms or by explaining them.

  DE translation is free, idiomatic translation, by nature figurative and speculative. Word order and sentence structure of the original text are changed and adapted to the receptor language. Either additional words and phrases are repeated without indicating it by means of cursive script (to warn the reader) or they are completely ignored. Mostly such a translation would be an invaluable help at interpreting the original text, but would be unable to assist in determining the original text (cf. Aramaic Targums and LXX).

  The LXX and Aramaic Targums are classical examples of DE translations. Both are viewed as barometers of the religious climate of their time. They are typical DE translations because of their explanatory nature. R. Timothy McLay, translator of NETS Daniel, suggests that the OG version of Daniel is mainly a DE (or Functional Equivalence translation) translation. G. Bertram puts the problem in perspective by saying: “The Septuagint belongs to the history of Old Testament interpretation rather than to the history of the Old Testament text. It can be used as a textual witness only after its own understanding of the Old Testament text has been made clear.” [Cursive script added.][iii]

  The New Testament in Modern English of J.B. Phillips, The Living Bible of Dr. Kenneth N. Taylor, the New Living Translation, and Today's English Version are modern examples of DE translation.

  
  

  ---

  [i] John R. Kohlenberger III, Words About the Word, Regency Reference Library, 1992 edition, pp. 62, 63.

  [ii] The New Greek English Interlinear New Testament, The New Revised Standard Version, New Testament Introduction, p. xiii, 1990 edition.

  [iii] E. Würthwein, The Text Of The Old Testament An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, p. 66. See also S. Ortlepp, Introduction to the Interlinear Bible, pp. 37, 54, 55.
• 

  Bobcat

  Thanks Wonderment and Vidqun for your posts.

  I'm with you Vidqun. I prefer the FE with footnotes for study purposes. They are, in a way, like a lower level programming language. More work is needed, but the end results can be much better. (Assuming, of course, that one is willing to put in the extra effort.)

  At the same time, I can see the usefulness of one translated more loosely. My wife and I used to read just the Bible together. We would take turns. She would read and follow from the NWT (the old one) and I would do the same, but with the NIV.

  Always, she would have to ask me how the NIV was worded on various verses. In other words, the NIV would tend to always explain a difficult passage in the NWT. But I never noticed the other way around. The NWT was usually too literal (some would say "wooden.") Still, I liked the fact that long-forgotten idioms were carried over in the NWT. It sometimes required going to commentaries to get the sense, but over the long haul the extra study was worth it (to me, anyways).

  Bobcat
• 

  cyberjesus

  There are no originals.... So it doesnt matter... All translations are inaccurate
• 

  Wonderment

  cyberjesus: "There are no originals.... So it doesnt matter... All translations are inaccurate"

  We are aware there are no "originals," per se. The term is freely used for "copies" available. Those copies have been the source of untold inspiration for millions for centuries.

  Vidqun: "These [examples] demonstrate the problem quite well. I personally go for [Formal-Equivalence Translation] translations with lots of footnotes so that I can form a personalized opinion of the text. [Formal-Equivalence Translation] translations often incorporate the understanding of the translator, who might not always be impartial."

  I like and use both overall, just as am sure that you do too. Like you, I have a preference for the literal ones for study, but for enjoyable reading it's hard to beat the easy-reading versions. Some of these, albeit eccentric, incorporate fresh readings which challenge established ideas of old. The Message Bible is a fine example of this.

  Bobcat: "She [my wife] would have to ask me how the NIV was worded on various verses. In other words, the NIV would tend to always explain a difficult passage in the NWT. But I never noticed the other way around. The NWT was usually too literal (some would say ‘wooden.’"

  The NIV has been one of my favorite translations to date. It is remarkably a good compromise between the wooden versions and the paraphrases making their mark. Likewise, the NIV Study Bible is my preferred commentary version of those printed so far.
  
• 

  Beth Sarim

  This is where the Borg has painted itself into a corner with interpretation of the Bible, or lack thereof with interpretation. Primarily with the blood doctrine and the ,144,000 doctrine.

  That scripture in Acts about blood. This was in Bible times, where a transfusion was not even heard of, it means NOT to ingest blood, or eat it.

  secondly, Revelation is a ''figurative'' book. The 144,000 is symbolic.

  Also John1:1. You talk to people who are well versed on the Greek scriptures. Word was ''a'' God. They claim there is no indefinite article ''a''. You start to wonder about the NWT printing of the Bible and it's authenticity.
• 

  Wonderment

  Beth Sarim: Secondly, Revelation is a ''figurative'' book. The 144,000 is symbolic.

  Also John1:1. You talk to people who are well versed on the Greek scriptures. Word was ''a'' God. They claim there is no indefinite article ''a''. You start to wonder about the NWT printing of the Bible and it's authenticity.

  I agree with you that "Revelation is a '‘figurative'’ book. The 144,000 is symbolic."

  On this statement: You talk to people who are well versed on the Greek scriptures. Word was ''a'' God. They claim there is no indefinite article ''a''. You start to wonder about the NWT printing of the Bible and it's authenticity.

  The four examples provided at the top show that the process of translation is a compromise. Some interpretation is involved and unavoidable in the job.

  Although there is no indefinite article in the Greek, one is often used in English to approximate what the Greek language itself said a long time ago. The WT Society is aware of this. How so? Their modern Greek version (NWT) does not use the indefinite article in John 1.1 because an explicit indefinite article is lacking in the idiom. Some versions of the NWT in other languages may or may not use one either at John 1.1. Various former NWT versions (like the earlier Portuguese edition) added the indefinite article within brackets. The same applies to John 4.19 which has similar grammar to John 1.1, some NWT versions have the indefinite article, others do not. For instance, compare various French and Spanish versions. Although some here take this as evidence of ineptness, it is more of an effort to adapt the idiom to the local language, or to have them read more uniformly from one version to another.
  
• 

  TTWSYF

  To have literal bible translations or not depends on where you are getting your info.

  If you had 20 people reading and interpreting the bible on their own you would get 20 different versions of what was to come and what was important.

  How would one know who the real and true authority was in such a scenario?

  Jesus did start a church which gave us the bible. There is a history of interpretation that goes back 2000 years and IS consistent in it's teachings. Why would anyone want a NEW interpretation that has only been around a few hundred years or less? How could such new interpretations be more legitimate than the oldest?

  just wondering
• 

  Wonderment

  TTWSYF: "There is a history of interpretation that goes back 2000 years and IS consistent in it's teachings. Why would anyone want a NEW interpretation that has only been around a few hundred years or less? How could such new interpretations be more legitimate than the oldest?"

  Good questions!

  Paul advised the Thessalonians to "Make sure of all things." The problem is that no one can be 100% certain on so many things biblically related. From another angle, on NEW interpretations, someone could say that those who come up with such have the advantage to cull out long-seated errors of traditionalistic dogmas. Again, there is no guarantee that these will offer any better substance than the former. Hence, a lot of things come down to faith.

  In some ways, our problems are not so different from the culture of the First-Century C.E. We have so many conflicting issues to deal with, religious and not, just like they did. They had an established system of teachers of great reputation. Their religions could not agree on their differences. Politically speaking they were divided as we are today, and religion was no less a strong factor to deal with.

  In the middle of it all, Jesus Christ's preaching was interesting to say the least. His message of relief was sweet to those suffering at the hands of the powerful ones. At the same time, you had the academic and political forces spewing other signals. "Who can you trust" surely was in the minds of the masses. Well, they too had to rely on faith and logic. In the minds of detractors, even the display of miracles of Jesus and his followers were no guarantee that they originated from God. Critics blamed Lucifer or some other for their apparent powers.

  In all, among the prevalent uncertainty of the political and religious establishment of the times, the Christian followers had to listen to their own inner wisdom, and had to decide whether to follow the cruel arrogant ways of the world, or go instead after the model of Christ with its plain message of love, mercy and simple daily living. We can all certainly learn from this.