Another Thread On Translation

[Rippon]

Jerome, just what is your point with your out-of-context quotes of mine?

Do you have any questions?

 

[Yeshua1]

Not always. William Mounce gives one example of where the formal method causes confusion. But the dynamic method allows for clear conveying of Paul's original intent. Col 4:16

"Paul writes, “After this letter has been read to you (καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ᾿ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή), see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans (ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ) and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea (καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε)” (Col 4:16; NIV).

This verse gives us a nice example of ellipsis; ἐπιστολή is not repeated but assumed in the final clause. τὴν modifies the unexpressed ἐπιστολήν.

It gives us another example as well of how we often write in short-hand and expect the reader to understand the missing parts. If you just read the final phrase, who wrote the second letter? The NIV’s “the letter from Laodicea” sounds like the church in Laodicea wrote a letter to the Colossian church. However, most people (if not all) understand that this second letter was written by Paul to the Laodicean church, and he wanted to make sure that his letter was also sent to Colossae.

If Paul had taken the time to write all the words to be precise and not confusing, he may have written τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐπιστολήν μου or perhaps τὴν ἐπιστολήν μου τῷ Λαοδικείᾳ.

The NLT is the only major translation that clarifies the issue: “After you have read this letter, pass it on to the church at Laodicea so they can read it, too. And you should read the letter I wrote to them.”

Even the formal equivalent NASB clarifies with a footnote and italicized words: “read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.” The footnote on “my” reads, “Lit he.” As you know by now, I do not like the use of “lit(erally).” It is simple to see ὁ functioning as a personal pronoun, which does not require a footnote.

I would prefer something like, “in turn, also read my (τὴν) letter coming from (ἐκ) Laodicea (Λαοδικείας),” or more dynamically, “in turn, also read the letter I wrote to the Laodiceans.”

It also illustrates the danger of simply translating words, something the NIV and NET normally do not do. “See that you also read the letter from Laodicea” (ESV, see also CSB, NRSV, NET). Going word-for-word miscommunicates since the Laodicean church did not (most likely) write the letter.

As I have often said, language is the stringing of one ambiguity after another. It is only in context, with a little common sense, that meaning is communicated."

My guess this a rare example, but is does show the dynamic method at times always for clearer renderings while the formal can leave many guessing.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Yes, that rendering was preferred as done by the more dynamic translations for this passage, but would still say that overall, and for the majority of passages, the more formal translation give to us what was closer to the intent of the scriptures.

 

[Van]

I see Colossians 4:16 has been offered as indicating less than formal equivalence is required.

NASB 16 When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

And this was lacking when compared to this loose translation:

NIV 16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

1) NIV mistranslates "when (whenever)" as "after." Totally unnecessary, since "when this letter has been read to you" means exactly the same thing!

2) NIV mistranslates read among you as "read to you." Again sacrificing accuracy for no gain

3) The NASB fills the ellipsis with "my letter" rather than "the letter," again avoiding the confusion that someone else might have written it.

Once again, no verse needs to be translated loosely.

 

[McCree79]

3) The NASB fills the ellipsis with "my letter" rather than "the letter," again avoiding the confusion that someone else might have written it.

Once again, no verse needs to be translated loosely.

The NASB is "looser" from the Greek than the ESV, NIV and CSB. You contradict yourself. The NASB used dynamic principles so the verse made sense. More so than the NIV. The lit is not a "my letter" but "the letter". The NIV left the ambiguity that is found in the Greek. The NASB interprets for us who "the" is. The NASB ....more so the NLT....show is functional principles are at time very helpful.

*The NASB had to read the "textual clues" and context to determine the true meaning. The NASB did not go word for word here....maintinaing the most straight forward reading. It is dynamic.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

The NASB is "looser" from the Greek than the ESV, NIV and CSB. You contradict yourself. The NASB used dynamic principles so the verse made sense. More so than the NIV. The lit is not a "my letter" but a "he letter". The NIV left the ambiguity that is found in the Greek. The NASB interprets for us who "the" is. The NASB ....more so the NLT....show is functional principles are at time very helpful.

*The NASB had to read the "textual clues" and context to determine the true meaning. The NASB did not go word for word here....maintinaing the most straight forward reading. It is dynamic.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Correction to my post. "The letter". Left the "T"off

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

The NASB is "looser" from the Greek than the ESV, NIV and CSB. You contradict yourself. The NASB used dynamic principles so the verse made sense. More so than the NIV. The lit is not a "my letter" but "the letter". The NIV left the ambiguity that is found in the Greek. The NASB interprets for us who "the" is. The NASB ....more so the NLT....show is functional principles are at time very helpful.
*The NASB had to read the "textual clues" and context to determine the true meaning. The NASB did not go word for word here....maintaining the most straight forward reading. It is dynamic.

First you made the case "the" could be translated as "my"without a footnote, then claim the translation is not literal.
Then while contradicting yourself, you charge me with your offense.
Even if you are correct in your claim (now not before) that "my" is not a grammatical, historical; translation choice, still the NIV made twice as many loose choices.

 

[robycop3]

Yet another stawman argument, where the opponent of formal equivalence seeks to redefine word for word translation philosophy as not including rearranging word order to express the idea in English.

And once more, no verse was cited that could not be accurately translated using the word for word translation philosophy method as seen in the NASB, LEB, and NKJV.

They are swinging an empty sack.

Ever read "Young's Literal Translation" closely? How easily-understood is it?

 

[McCree79]

First you made the case "the" could be translated as "my"without a footnote, then claim the translation is not literal.
Then while contradicting yourself, you charge me with your offense.
Even if you are correct in your claim (now not before) that "my" is not a grammatical, historical; translation choice, still the NIV made twice as many loose choices.

When did I contradict my self? Didn't happen. You said the "looser" rendering did not need to happen. Yet you say the NASB handled it better....which is the looser reading of "καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε"

What is the literal transaltion of the article? It is "the". The NASB does not render it so....and mostly like is correct in assuming such from the contextual clues. NASB used a more dynamic method than the NIV here. Providing a more "accurate", yet dynamic reading. If we stayed as literal as possible is would read something like , "and the from Laodicea, and so that you read a loud". The literal is ambiguous.

Our transaltion carried the subject down
(ἐπιστολή). NIV keep the Greek (lit "the"). NASB changed article to "my". Or the article could possible be "that" as literal type reading . So we would have that letter, or the letter.....my letter is more dynamic than the other two possibilities
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Ever read "Young's Literal Translation" closely? How easily-understood is it?

Yes, it is hard to understand. But, OTOH, I do not have too much difficulty with the NASB, LEB, or NKJV. As I said, these obviously have some poor translation choices, but the loose translations have more.

 

[Van]

When did I contradict my self? Didn't happen. You said the "looser" rendering did not need to happen. Yet you say the NASB handled it better....which is the looser reading of "καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε"

What is the literal translation of the article? It is "the". The NASB does not render it so....and mostly like is correct in assuming such from the contextual clues. NASB used a more dynamic method than the NIV here. Providing a more "accurate", yet dynamic reading. If we stayed as literal as possible is would read something like , "and the from Laodicea, and so that you read a loud". The literal is ambiguous.

Our translation carried the subject down
(ἐπιστολή). NIV keep the Greek (lit "the"). NASB changed article to "my". Or the article could possible be "that" as literal type reading . So we would have that letter, or the letter.....my letter is more dynamic than the other two possibilities

Why did you simply repeat what you said before and did not addess the fact the NIV is "looser" than the NASB even in the verse you chose.

Here is what you wrote:

This verse gives us a nice example of ellipsis; ἐπιστολή is not repeated but assumed in the final clause. τὴν modifies the unexpressed ἐπιστολήν.

It gives us another example as well of how we often write in short-hand and expect the reader to understand the missing parts. If you just read the final phrase, who wrote the second letter? The NIV’s “the letter from Laodicea” sounds like the church in Laodicea wrote a letter to the Colossian church. However, most people (if not all) understand that this second letter was written by Paul to the Laodicean church, and he wanted to make sure that his letter was also sent to Colossae.

If Paul had taken the time to write all the words to be precise and not confusing, he may have written τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐπιστολήν μου or perhaps τὴν ἐπιστολήν μου τῷ Λαοδικείᾳ.

The NLT is the only major translation that clarifies the issue: “After you have read this letter, pass it on to the church at Laodicea so they can read it, too. And you should read the letter I wrote to them.”

Even the formal equivalent NASB clarifies with a footnote and italicized words: “read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.” The footnote on “my” reads, “Lit the.” As you know by now, I do not like the use of “lit(erally).” It is simple to see ὁ functioning as a personal pronoun, which does not require a footnote.

Thus you indicated above that "my" was a "literal" translation choice that did not need a footnote to indicate it was a dynamic choice outside the historical grammatical meaning of the word.

 

[McCree79]

Why did you simply repeat what you said before and did not addess the fact the NIV is "looser" than the NASB even in the verse you chose.

Here is what you wrote:

Thus you indicated above that "my" was a "literal" translation choice that did not need a footnote to indicate it was a dynamic choice outside the historical grammatical meaning of the word.

Why is it "simple" to see the article as a pronoun? What is the usually meaning of the article?

And I never said "my" was a "literal" choice. Neither did Mounce. Mounce does not believe in "literal". I said it was probably correct choice. I repeated myself because you have yet to understand that the NASB employeed dynamic principles to transalte this verse. A "literal" rendering would fail miserably. The NASB did not get it right because it is "literal". The NIV was "literal" when it translated "τὴν". The literal is ambiguous. It could be a letter from the church or from Paul. Contextual evidence seems to support Paul, but the NIV left that decision up to the reader. Something you have supported in the past. The NASB decides for the reader. It interprets intent for the reader. It is more dynamic than the NIV here.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Why is it "simple" to see the article as a pronoun? What is the usually meaning of the article?

And I never said "my" was a "literal" choice. Neither did Mounce. Mounce does not believe in "literal".
b
baptistboard
I said it was probably correct choice. I repeated myself because you have yet to understand that the NASB employeed dynamic principles to transalte this verse. A "literal" rendering would fail miserably. The NASB did not get it right because it is "literal". The NIV was "literal" when it translated "τὴν". The literal is ambiguous. It could be a letter from the church or from Paul. Contextual evidence seems to support Paul, but the NIV left that decision up to the reader. Something you have supported in the past. The NASB decides for the reader. It interprets intent for the reader. It is more dynamic than the NIV here.

Still you did not address the fact the NIV is "looser" than the NIV in the very verse you chose!!

Next, filling an elipsis with the indicated word is consistent with how formal equivalence is done. Thus both "my letter" and "the letter" can be found in formal equivalence versions.

And to repeat, even if you are right and "my letter" is less formal than "the letter" the NIV translation is still the looser of the two renderings of Colossians 4:16.

Now lets look at some verses I would choose:

1 Corinthians 16:13 "be courageous" should read, "act like men."

Ephesians 2:3 deserving of wrath should read, "children of wrath."

The loose translations are full of examples of adding words, omitting words and changing the meaning of words. Not good.

 

[Van]

I repeated myself because you have yet to understand that the NASB employed dynamic principles to translate this verse

The NASB footnoted "my" rather than the literal "the" and filling in ellipses with the indicated word falls withing the word meaning for word meaning translation philosophy as can be seen throughout the LEB and NASB.

Not footnoting alterations is the sine qua non of loose translations.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why is it "simple" to see the article as a pronoun? What is the usually meaning of the article?

And I never said "my" was a "literal" choice. Neither did Mounce. Mounce does not believe in "literal". I said it was probably correct choice. I repeated myself because you have yet to understand that the NASB employeed dynamic principles to transalte this verse. A "literal" rendering would fail miserably. The NASB did not get it right because it is "literal". The NIV was "literal" when it translated "τὴν". The literal is ambiguous. It could be a letter from the church or from Paul. Contextual evidence seems to support Paul, but the NIV left that decision up to the reader. Something you have supported in the past. The NASB decides for the reader. It interprets intent for the reader. It is more dynamic than the NIV here.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

The best translations are those that are formal in approach , but also are able and willing to become more "looser" when the context actually requires it in order to be better understood.

 

[McCree79]

The best translations are those that are formal in approach , but also are able and willing to become more "looser" when the context actually requires it in order to be better understood.

Yes. That is exactly what the NASB did in order to provide an optimal rendering here.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. That is exactly what the NASB did in order to provide an optimal rendering here.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

The preface to the NKJV states about the same practice they followed also!

 

[Van]

The best translations are those that are formal in approach , but also are able and willing to become more "looser" when the context actually requires it in order to be better understood.

Total fiction. Show me a verse requiring "looser" translation. None, zip, nada.
You guys are swinging an empty sack. You cannot justify translating children of wrath as deserving of wrath, period. It is an abomination.

 

[Van]

Many of us have seen the chart comparing various bibles with more word for word versions on the left and more thought for thought on the right. Those in the middle, such as the NIV and CSB, like to describe their translation method as "optimal." But in actuality, those on the left are closer to optimal, and those more to the right contain more loose and sometimes shoddy translations.

We should focus and looking at the best, and considering how they can be improved, sometimes with insights gained from the more flawed versions to the right.

 

[Rippon]

Total fiction. Show me a verse requiring "looser" translation. None, zip, nada.
You guys are swinging an empty sack. You cannot justify translating children of wrath as deserving of wrath, period. It is an abomination.

Do children of wrath deserve wrath? Answer with no equivocation.

 

[Rippon]

the NIV and CSB, like to describe their translation method as "optimal."

Only the CSB uses that terminology --the NIV does not.