The Musings Of Mounce

[Rippon]

"Not...without...except" is too difficult (Matt. 13:57) May 6,2014

Only the NLT really smooths it out." A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown
and among his family."

Yet another example of word-for-word translation making something too difficult to understand.

 

[Rippon]

Common Sense in Translating (Acts 7:18) Feb. 21,2012

A simple reminder that all translation involves interpretation, and sometimes a word for word translation leaves us with something nonsensical.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Rippon explains:

NIV : Then, 'a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt.'

Nearly every translation has something like the CSB rendering :until a different king who did not know Joseph ruled over Egypt.

Having the wording "who did not know Joseph" is a lot weaker in meaning than the NIV rendering of "to whom Joseph meant nothing."

 

[McCree79]

Mounce posted a good article today. Showing that at times our more dynamic translations lose the orginal meaning.

"English Style and Loss of Meaning (1 Peter 5:6–7)

Alistair Begg preached a sermon the other day on Truth for Life about 1 Peter 5:6–7. “Humble yourselves (ταπεινώθητε), therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast (ἐπιρίψαντες) all your anxiety on him because he cares for you” (NIV).

His question was on the relationship between ταπεινώθητε and ἐπιρίψαντες. In the Greek, as well as the more formal equivalent translations, the answer is obvious. ἐπιρίψαντες is an adverbial participle explaining something about ταπεινώθητε; part of humbling yourself is to cast your anxiety on God. A proud person thinks that they can handle life and wants to stay in control; the humble person realizes that they can trust God to handle the anxious issues of life. So the ESV writes, “Humble yourselves ... casting all your anxieties on him” (see also the NASB and CSB).

Part of the thinking behind more dynamic translations is to shorten the length of the Greek verse, which all translations do to varying degrees, due to English style; it is common to find participles translated as indicatives (NIV, NRSV, NLT).

The NET makes the connection explicit: “And God will exalt you in due time, if you humble yourselves under his mighty hand, by casting all your cares on him.” The KJV also makes it more explicit with a colon; “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him.”

This becomes an example of a translation losing information for the sake of English style.

Personally, I like longer sentences. I know English is shortening its sentences, but I don't like it. When my kids were young, I would not let them watch a certain cartoon show Saturday mornings because the hero never used more than five words in a sentence. I later discovered that there are areas of the brain that are only developed through the discipline of reading longer sentences, so I felt vindicated.

Along with longer sentences I like semicolons, another wonderful tool that indicates connections between thoughts and allows you to formulate ideas that are more complex. But if we give in to short sentences, then we lessen our ability to specify the precise relationship between two thoughts. Greek did this by beginning sentences with conjunctions; we used to do this with longer sentences and punctuation. It is much harder to indicate those relationships now."



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

Some Snips from The Myth of Literal Translation 2/2/2018

"I doubt there is even one verse in the English Bible that actually clearly, reveals the Greek structure underlying it. The languages are just too different."

"...if you think a 'literal' translation should be used because it reveals the underlying Greek structure, you are going to be led astray on every verse of the Bible to one degree or another."

"...understand that all translations have to smooth out the Greek to make it understandable English, and read it with that in mind."

 

[rlvaughn]

No translation is consistently dynamic or formal. All translations weave in and out of both according to the translational need.

I recently purchased and am about halfway through One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? by Dave Brunn. In it he deals with the exactly what you mention above, and gives numerous examples. His book isn't about taking sides, but dealing with theories and practice of translation. Here is D. A. Carson's take, from the IVP website:
"This interesting and important book, written by someone who has devoted many years of his life to Bible translation, is particularly fascinating because it avoids jumping from disputed theory to hard examples. Rather, it jumps from thousands of examples to genuine wisdom on translation issues--along with at least some of the bearing of these examples on theory. This book will diffuse some of the polarizations that characterize many of the disputes. It will also encourage us to recognize we are not as far apart as some of us have supposed, and remind us of how difficult good Bible translation is and how grateful we should be for the wonderful and even complementary choices we have in English Bibles."

 

[McCree79]

"It will also encourage us to recognize we are not as far apart as some of us have supposed, and remind us of how difficult good Bible translation is and how grateful we should be for the wonderful and even complementary choices we have in English Bibles." -Quoted from above, Carson

Very true.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

I recently purchased and am about halfway through One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? by Dave Brunn. In it he deals with the exactly what you mention above, and gives numerous examples. His book isn't about taking sides, but dealing with theories and practice of translation. Here is D. A. Carson's take, from the IVP website:
"This interesting and important book, written by someone who has devoted many years of his life to Bible translation, is particularly fascinating because it avoids jumping from disputed theory to hard examples. Rather, it jumps from thousands of examples to genuine wisdom on translation issues--along with at least some of the bearing of these examples on theory. This book will diffuse some of the polarizations that characterize many of the disputes. It will also encourage us to recognize we are not as far apart as some of us have supposed, and remind us of how difficult good Bible translation is and how grateful we should be for the wonderful and even complementary choices we have in English Bibles."

I fully agree. It is the second best book on the subject-at-hand.

There was a thread a few years ago (not started by me) which dealt with his book.

I bought it and valued it, but gave it away before coming back to China in 2013.

His levelheadedness is so needed the discussion of Bible translation.

 

[rlvaughn]

I fully agree. It is the second best book on the subject-at-hand.

Which book do you consider the best, and why?

Thanks.

 

[Rippon]

Which book do you consider the best, and why?

Thanks.

How to Choose a Translation for all its Worth : A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss.

It's an excellent overview of the subject.

It puts forth needed authoritative information in clear language.

Simply the best book on the subject.

 

[Rippon]

Clarity or Ambiguity (Jn. 1:13) April 3,2017

"My point is that if you want to be clear, you have to be more interpretive. If you want to be less interpretive, you will be less clear and more ambiguous. You simply can't have it both ways."

Mounce is right.

 

[Rippon]

Is the ESV Literal and the NIV Gender Neutral? (6/22/2017)

"All translations are interpretive; anyone who says otherwise is selling something...."

Mounce is telling it like it is.

 

[Rippon]

When Bibles do, and don't follow the Greek. A couple of examples. (May 7, 2018)

Some snips follow:

"...the claim that 'literal' Bible translations reflect the structure of the Greek just isn't true. As I have often said, almost every verse in the Greek Testament has had to be altered to get it into English."

"My point is that all translation requires interpretation, and none truly show the underlying structure. If you don't know Greek well enough to read Greek, then you don't know when the translations are having to be (properly) interpreted."

 

[Rippon]

A snip from his Jan. 29th 2018 blog:

"Words have glosses, primary ways in which they are used, but they don't have a 'literal' meaning. If words don't have a 'literal' meaning, then there can be no such thing as a 'literal' translation, as the phrase is commonly used."

 

[SovereignGrace]

I am now doing his(Dr. Mounce) ‘Greek for the Rest of Us’ series. I am really enjoying it.

Thanks for this thread, Brother Rippon.

 

[Rippon]

I am now doing his(Dr. Mounce) ‘Greek for the Rest of Us’ series. I am really enjoying it.

Thanks for this thread, Brother Rippon.

You are very welcome.

 

[Rippon]

Clarity or Ambiguity (Jn. 1:13) April 3,2017

"Do you want clarity and meaning, or do you want to stay closer to the Greek and be less meaningful and more ambiguous?"

"The NIV moves a little further away from the ambiguity of the Greek and more toward meaning."

"My point is that if you want to be clear, you have to be more interpretive. If you want to be less interpretive, you will be less clear and more ambiguous. You simply can't have it both ways."

A gem from post 20. Y1, pay attention.

 

[Yeshua1]

When Bibles do, and don't follow the Greek. A couple of examples. (May 7, 2018)

Some snips follow:

"...the claim that 'literal' Bible translations reflect the structure of the Greek just isn't true. As I have often said, almost every verse in the Greek Testament has had to be altered to get it into English."

"My point is that all translation requires interpretation, and none truly show the underlying structure. If you don't know Greek well enough to read Greek, then you don't know when the translations are having to be (properly) interpreted."

Except that there are indeed exact words that carry over form Koine greek into the English!

 

[Yeshua1]

A snip from his Jan. 29th 2018 blog:

"Words have glosses, primary ways in which they are used, but they don't have a 'literal' meaning. If words don't have a 'literal' meaning, then there can be no such thing as a 'literal' translation, as the phrase is commonly used."

if no words have a literal meaning, why did the Holy Sirit inspire exact words to be used, and also the theology of the scriptures does indeed require specific and exact words?

 

[Rippon]

You didn't respond when I said Jesus did not quote from the O.T. word-for-word. Neither did Paul. Your position is senseless. You're trying to hang onto thin air.

Show me some word-for-word passages in any English translations. And I said translations --interlinears don't count as translations.

The above is from my post #36. Y1 avoided it. Perhaps he can give it a swing now.

 

[Rippon]

When Is Then, Then? (Matthew 27:38) October 8,2018

A snip:

"It is simplistic to think that translating every Greek word with an English word is somehow more accurate."