Books on Bible Translation

[John of Japan]

We just had David L, Scovill, a great missionary Bible translator in chapel. He reached the Dani people group of Papua Indonesia, translating the Bible into their language. Ultimately, the great majority of the 200,000 or so Dani people were saved. My wife and I get to take him out to supper!

He has written two books which we bought but have not yet read: Out of the Dark Jungle, which is the biography of a Dani preacher, and The Amazing Danis, the story of how he and his wife reached them for Christ. I don't know how much he says about his Bible translating experience, but I'm sure it will be a blessing.

I love to read the biographies of Bible translators, and have 10 or so of them. Another great one about a Papua effort is Jesus Led Me All the Way, by Margaret Singer, an amazing woman who reached another people group in Papua Indonesia. A helicopter dropped her right into the middle of the village in her first contact, and they were headhunters! But they did not kill her, because unknown to the missionaries was the fact that they only went headhunting for men!

 

[John of Japan]

Let me get back to Eugene Nida. I believe that no one is truly educated on modern day Bible translation without reading Eugene Nida's works. So I have ten of his books, and have fully read eight. (I have a ton of reading to catch up on in this field.)

I've already posted about his first major work on DE, Toward a Science of Translating (1964). He followed that one up with a book co-authored by Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (1982). This is an improvement on the previous book, better thought out and written, IMO. But the theory did not change a lot. In Ch. 1, "A New Concept of Translating," it still touts reader response as being crucial: "The new focus, however, has shifted from the form of the message to the response of the receptor. Therefore, what one must determine is the response of the receptor to the translated message. This response must then be compared with the way in which the original receptors presumable reacted to the message when it was given in its original setting" (p. 1).

There are some other notable things about this book. First of all, it has a monstrous bibliography! Secondly, it has a wonderful glossary. In any study of a theory, it is crucial for one to know the meanings the proponents give to terminology. I would certainly agree with most of their definitions, and can learn from the others.

P. S. What makes DE unusable without further elucidation is the idea that we can actually know the response of the original readers--almost 2000 years ago--and duplicate that response!

 

[John of Japan]

A very informative book on the history of translation is The Bible in Translation, by Bruce Metzger. The subtitle is, "Ancient and English Versions." As I recall, Metzger is said to be somewhat liberal, at least in the area of inerrancy. However, this book does not deal with theology, but is simply an excellent book of history.

 

[McCree79]

P. S. What makes DE unusable without further elucidation is the idea that we can actually know the response of the original readers--almost 2000 years ago--and duplicate that response!

That statement is gold.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Garrett20]

Well, since my thread on Greek grammars was a repeat, let's try one on books about Bible translation. Now I don't really want to do the KJVO debate on this thread, so please don't post stuff like James White's The King James Only Controversy. On the other hand, secular works on translation theory are welcome, and I'll post some of those myself.

First of all, a good book presenting the "essentially literal" methodology is Translating Truth, by four authors: Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, C. John Collins, Vern S. Poythress, and Bruce Winter. These are all good scholars, and together they present a very good position on the literal side of Bible translation. Of the four, Poythress has impressed me most with his Biblical approach to language, In the Beginning Was the Word. That book gives a theological explanation of language based on the trinity--good stuff.

Translating Truth has five chapters, one by each of these men. They present a theological case for essentially literal translation, answer the critics, discuss meaning, and give historical background. Whether one agrees with their position or not, this is an essential book.

Well, since my thread on Greek grammars was a repeat, let's try one on books about Bible translation. Now I don't really want to do the KJVO debate on this thread, so please don't post stuff like James White's The King James Only Controversy. On the other hand, secular works on translation theory are welcome, and I'll post some of those myself.

First of all, a good book presenting the "essentially literal" methodology is Translating Truth, by four authors: Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, C. John Collins, Vern S. Poythress, and Bruce Winter. These are all good scholars, and together they present a very good position on the literal side of Bible translation. Of the four, Poythress has impressed me most with his Biblical approach to language, In the Beginning Was the Word. That book gives a theological explanation of language based on the trinity--good stuff.

Translating Truth has five chapters, one by each of these men. They present a theological case for essentially literal translation, answer the critics, discuss meaning, and give historical background. Whether one agrees with their position or not, this is an essential book.

John, I have a textual question, not a translational question. (I know this is a bit off topic but I do not log-in much). I enjoy your posts about textual and translational information, so I wondered your opinion on this. What are your thoughts on Pickering’s theory on the f35 line of transmission? I’ve got some of his books but find myself questioning this position. I support the Byzantine Textform Priority position and I feel like I’ve read that you do as well on BB. Also, did you attend Temple Baptist in Chattanooga? I wrestled for the university. Regards.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I have a textual question, not a translational question. (I know this is a bit off topic but I do not log-in much). I enjoy your posts about textual and translational information, so I wondered your opinion on this. What are your thoughts on Pickering’s theory on the f35 line of transmission? I’ve got some of his books but find myself questioning this position. I support the Byzantine Textform Priority position and I feel like I’ve read that you do as well on BB. Also, did you attend Temple Baptist in Chattanooga? I wrestled for the university. Regards.

I've read a little bit on Pickering's theory about f35, and had a friend who is a textual critic explain it some to me. If I get his theory correctly, It doesn't seem reasonable to me that only one mss can carry the whole correct Byzantine text.

I graduated in 1976 from Tennessee Temple College in Chattanooga, later called Tennessee Temple U. Is that where you went? When I was there they did not have a wrestling team, or I might have joined it, since I wrestled in high school.

 

[Garrett20]

I've read a little bit on Pickering's theory about f35, and had a friend who is a textual critic explain it some to me. If I get his theory correctly, It doesn't seem reasonable to me that only one mss can carry the whole correct Byzantine text.

I graduated in 1976 from Tennessee Temple College in Chattanooga, later called Tennessee Temple U. Is that where you went? When I was there they did not have a wrestling team, or I might have joined it, since I wrestled in high school.

Yes sir. I wrestled there in 2008-2009 time frame and was team captain (about 40 pounds ago). I enjoyed the school but at the time they started struggling financially and I had an offer to finish up elsewhere. However, I finished my BA in Ministry online. I wrestled here in Chattanooga at Lookout Valley High also. For about 7 years, I have really enjoyed studying textual criticism. Pickering’s theory was ‘out there’ for me. I enjoy Robinson’s work and I find myself leaning more on the Majority/Byzantine side of textual theory. I get on BB often but I don’t post too much. Enjoy reading about your work.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes sir. I wrestled there in 2008-2009 time frame and was team captain (about 40 pounds ago). I enjoyed the school but at the time they started struggling financially and I had an offer to finish up elsewhere. However, I finished my BA in Ministry online. I wrestled here in Chattanooga at Lookout Valley High also. For about 7 years, I have really enjoyed studying textual criticism. Pickering’s theory was ‘out there’ for me. I enjoy Robinson’s work and I find myself leaning more on the Majority/Byzantine side of textual theory. I get on BB often but I don’t post too much. Enjoy reading about your work.

Thank you for the kind words. Maybe I'll do a thread in the near future highlighting books on textual criticism.

I wrestled at Horlick HS in Racine, WI, where my father pastored for five years while I went through high school. Really enjoyed the wrestling and the friends I made.

 

[John of Japan]

Next, here are two basic textbooks on Bible translating:

1. Katherine Barnwell, Bible Translation, 3rd ed. Subtitle: "An introductory course in translation principles." Barnwell is in the DE/"meaning based" camp, but this textbook is quite usable and informative for any aspiring translator, or just someone who wants to learn more. It has chapters on culture (both the translator's and the target culture), meaning, testing the translation, forming a team, learning the target grammar, etc. This is all practical stuff with exercises for the student to do. The author is a well-trained translation consultant, with a PhD in linguistics.

2. Charles V. Turner, Biblical Bible Translating. Turner is a genuine Bible translator in the KJVO camp. (I have little patience for some recent authors in that crowd who write books about this subject though they have no experience, not even as a consultant.) He was well trained at the graduate level, with an MA from SIL back in the day. Oddly enough, the SIL influence is there in the book, seen right through the KJVO slant. For example, there is a chapter on componential analysis. Like the previous one, though from a very different viewpoint, this book has good exercises for the students. One thing this book has, though, that the SIL people don't worry about, is chapters on theology.

 

[Yeshua1]

Next, here are two basic textbooks on Bible translating:

1. Katherine Barnwell, Bible Translation, 3rd ed. Subtitle: "An introductory course in translation principles." Barnwell is in the DE/"meaning based" camp, but this textbook is quite usable and informative for any aspiring translator, or just someone who wants to learn more. It has chapters on culture (both the translator's and the target culture), meaning, testing the translation, forming a team, learning the target grammar, etc. This is all practical stuff with exercises for the student to do. The author is a well-trained translation consultant, with a PhD in linguistics.

2. Charles V. Turner, Biblical Bible Translating. Turner is a genuine Bible translator in the KJVO camp. (I have little patience for some recent authors in that crowd who write books about this subject though they have no experience, not even as a consultant.) He was well trained at the graduate level, with an MA from SIL back in the day. Oddly enough, the SIL influence is there in the book, seen right through the KJVO slant. For example, there is a chapter on componential analysis. Like the previous one, though from a very different viewpoint, this book has good exercises for the students. One thing this book has, though, that the SIL people don't worry about, is chapters on theology.

How much does textual criticism play into translation then?

 

[Deacon]

I have quite a few reservations when an author on translation is strongly supportive of a single version, particularly when it is the KJV.
I just can’t get past the bias in Turner’s book.

Quote from Biblical Bible Translating by C.V. Turner (p. 287, 3rd ed)

“The King James Version is 99.7% correctly translated. This means that the translators who translated the King James Version preserved the original inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture 99.7% correctly. Therefore, we may reasonably declare the King James Version to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God. This should be acceptable to any reasonable person.”​

I personally find many problems with that quote.
But then the author may not find me to be a reasonable person.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

How much does textual criticism play into translation then?

My personal view is that the translator should choose his source text, and then translate it, not doing textual criticism on his or her own: UBS, Nestle's (same as UBS nowadays), TR, Byz., Maj., whatever. The translator is only very rarely a trained textual critic. These are two very different skills with very different training.

In the two books just mentioned, Turner is not going to do any textual criticism at all, but will simply go with the "received texts." For her part, Barnwell doesn't even have a chapter on the source text. I'm assuming that, as is the general practice among SIL/Wycliffe translators, she'll work from an English version.

 

[John of Japan]

I have quite a few reservations when an author on translation is strongly supportive of a single version, particularly when it is the KJV.
I just can’t get past the bias in Turner’s book.

Quote from Biblical Bible Translating by C.V. Turner (p. 287, 3rd ed)

“The King James Version is 99.7% correctly translated. This means that the translators who translated the King James Version preserved the original inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture 99.7% correctly. Therefore, we may reasonably declare the King James Version to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God. This should be acceptable to any reasonable person.”​

I personally find many problems with that quote.
But then the author may not find me to be a reasonable person.

Rob

I agree that there are problems with that quote, but tell you what, it is mild compared with some statements you and I both have seen. I'm currently reading a book on translating which says that not only is the KJV perfect, translations into other languages can be perfect also!!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree that there are problems with that quote, but tell you what, it is mild compared with some statements you and I both have seen. I'm currently reading a book on translating which says that not only is the KJV perfect, translations into other languages can be perfect also!!

Too bad that is not true though!

 

[Yeshua1]

My personal view is that the translator should choose his source text, and then translate it, not doing textual criticism on his or her own: UBS, Nestle's (same as UBS nowadays), TR, Byz., Maj., whatever. The translator is only very rarely a trained textual critic. These are two very different skills with very different training.

In the two books just mentioned, Turner is not going to do any textual criticism at all, but will simply go with the "received texts." For her part, Barnwell doesn't even have a chapter on the source text. I'm assuming that, as is the general practice among SIL/Wycliffe translators, she'll work from an English version.

Son you would agree that much more important than text chosen to use is the method of translation employed, such as formal or dynamic or Optimal etc?

 

[John of Japan]

Son you would agree that much more important than text chosen to use is the method of translation employed, such as formal or dynamic or Optimal etc?

I don't downplay the importance of the text, but I'll just say if someone has not come to a view on textual criticism before translating, he's in the wrong business. This is where translation schools or programs that teach and do double translations (and there are such) are lacking--their graduates have insufficient knowledge.

So I would put choice of text and method of translation as both quite important. Both depend on the skopoi (translation goals, as in Skopos Theory).

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't downplay the importance of the text, but I'll just say if someone has not come to a view on textual criticism before translating, he's in the wrong business. This is where translation schools or programs that teach and do double translations (and there are such) are lacking--their graduates have insufficient knowledge.

So I would put choice of text and method of translation as both quite important. Both depend on the skopoi (translation goals, as in Skopos Theory).

Translations should not be based off English version, but original languages texts, correct?

 

[John of Japan]

Translations should not be based off English version, but original languages texts, correct?

Indeed. Double translations are prone to error multiplied.

 

[Yeshua1]

Indeed, strangest of all are those holding can correct mistakes in Greek/Hebrew texts with the certain "perfect" English translation!

 

[John of Japan]

Dictionary of Translation Studies, by Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie (Routledge, 1997) is an excellent resource for Bible translators. Though it is a secular book, it does deal in various places with Bible translation, in particular with Nida's work, and Beekman & Callow's book.

It is not a typical dictionary, with complete essays for most entries. This is perfectly natural, since many of the entries are about various theories. Entries to look for that are helpful to a Bible translator: equivalence, translationese, word-for-word, etc.