Translate This

[Rippon2]

This thread will be open-ended. No fancy schmancy rules about nuancing minutia. You may talk about translations and translation methods. You can take issue with translation methods. I would like concrete examples when accusations are laid down though. Oh no, as I'm thinking about this, I suddenly have thoughts about a KJV war. Okay, let's not talk about the KJV here --either positively or negatively. You can speak of William Tyndale and other translations that came out before and after the 1611 (but not counting any editions of the KJV down through the centuries, NKJV excepted).

Have at it.

 

[Jerome]

This looks intriguing:

Nikolaos Lavidas, The case of Tyndale’s New Testament

"This paper examines cognate noun constructions (CNCs) (e.g. smile a disarming smile) in Early Modern English, particularly in the first complete English translation of the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew by William Tyndale. Tyndale’s translation is produced during a period of significant expansion of CNCs in English. It is argued that CNCs in Tyndale are a marker of a particular English biblical register which involves archaic (early) English properties (cognate nouns in PPs) rather than a new tendency for cognate direct objects or the result of a translation effect alone. In other words, it is shown that Tyndale’s translation follows archaic/early English rules, thus deviating both from the new tendency for cognate direct objects and from the source text. This archaic characteristic of CNCs with cognate nouns in PPs instantiates a general tendency in Tyndale’s translation to use archaisms – as evidenced, for instance, in his dispreference of auxiliaries."

books.google.com/books?id=XbpmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51

 

[rlvaughn]

In Definitions 1, all of my 12 quotes did not mention you know what at all. It was mentioned by JJ first and I responded to his comments. Y-1 made a post about it and I replied. So who was a riding a hobby horse? Not me. Open your eyes.

Well, I did open my eyes and went to "Definitions 1" and looked. At least eight of your posts were replies or retorts to Yeshua1, including your first two posts (19, 20, 34, 37, 39, 41, 45, 54). However annoying your and his tit-for-tats can be, though, my comment that your above reply refers to was actually more through frustration in another thread (in which you made no remarks) where it seemed like almost everyone posting was just using it as a jumping-off place to talk about whatever they wanted to talk about rather than the actual subject. This was what made me "laugh" (click the laugh emoji), when I thought of the saying about guilty dogs barking. Decided to reply here in your "no rules" thread rather than clogging up John of Japan's.

 

[Rippon2]

Well, I did open my eyes and went to "Definitions 1" and looked. At least eight of your posts were replies or retorts to Yeshua1, including your first two posts (19, 20, 34, 37, 39, 41, 45, 54).

#19 was a short 7 word reply to Mitch. #20 was merely as passing mention of the NIV, most of the post concerned other matters. Yes, 34,37,41 and 54 were replies to Y-1. #45 was only a quote by Bill Mounce, with no words of my own. I'll give you 5.5 points out of 8.

my comment was actually frustration in another thread (in which you made no remarks) where it seemed like almost everyone posting was just using it as a jumping-off place to talk about whatever they wanted to talk about rather than the actual subject. This was what made me "laugh" (click the laugh emoji), when I thought of the saying about guilty dogs barking. Decided to reply here in your "no rules" thread rather than clogging up John of Japan's.

What thread was that, in which I made no posts?

 

[rlvaughn]

#19 was a short 7 word reply to Mitch. #20 was merely as passing mention of the NIV, most of the post concerned other matters. Yes, 34,37,41 and 54 were replies to Y-1. #45 was only a quote by Bill Mounce, with no words of my own. I'll give you 5.5 points out of 8.

Yea, I'll take a little reduction in the grade, but only to 6.5. As you say, # 19 was a reply to Rev Mitchell rather than Yeshua. (Guess I couldn't tell the difference.) # 41 was actually a reply to yourself about Yeshua1, so I'm taking a half point on that one. Content notwithstanding, # 45 was a reply to a quote by Yeshua1, so I'm keeping that point.

What thread was that, in which I made no posts?

It was the thread NKJV & TR.

 

[Rippon2]

I'll be quoting from F.F. Bruce's book History Of The Bible In English. I have the third edition from 1978. Bruce is discussing John Purvey, a close associate of John Wycliffe. Purvey is credited with the second so-called Wycliffe translation. It was written in a more comprehensible manner than the first one. Purvey wasn't translating from the originals, but from Latin. Yet not only the Vulgate. Here he gives Purvey's words on translating :

"First, it is to be known that the best translating out of Latin into English is to translate after the sentence [meaning] and not only after the words, so that the sentence be as open, or opener, in English as in Latin, and go not far from the letter; and if the letter may not be followed in the translating, let the sentence ever be whole and open, for the words ought to serve the intent and sentence, or else the words be superfluous or false....And whether I have translated as openly or openlier in English as in Latin, let wise men deem, that know well both languages, and know well the sentence of holy scripture. And whether I have done this or no, no doubt they that con well the scripture of holy writ and English together, and will travail, with God's grace thereabouts, may make the Bible as true and open, yea and openlier in English than it is in Latin."

Bruce summarizes the above:

"In other words, the translation must be intelligible without reference to the original. And if it is to be intelligible, it must be idiomatic, sufficiently idiomatic to convey the sense without difficulty to a reader whose only language is English. Yet the translator must bear in mind that it is Holy Writ that he is translating; therefore he will not depart from the letter of the original more than is necessary to convey the true and plain sense." (pages 19,20)

 

[Rippon2]

I will quote from an informative book from eight years ago. It's called Which Bible Translation Should I Use? E. Ray Clendenen article is on the HCSB. He writes on page 118 :
"Another problem with 'literal' is that sometimes people try to make a distinction between a 'translation' and an 'interpretation.' They want a version that just translates the Bible rather than interpreting it, and they think that is what a literal translation does. But this is a false dichotomy. There is no such thing as a translation that does not interpret. The first step in translation is to understand the text to be translated. The second step is to render that text in the new language in such a way the reader will understand what the text means. That is interpretation."

 

[Rippon2]

Extract taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss.

"By using normal idiomatic English, translators risk missing something in the original meaning. But if they stay literal, they risk obscurity and inaccuracy. In either case nuances can be lost (remember: something is always lost in the translation). This is especially sobering when we consider this is God's inspired Word --his message to humanity." (p.40)

 

[Yeshua1]

Extract taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss.

"By using normal idiomatic English, translators risk missing something in the original meaning. But if they stay literal, they risk obscurity and inaccuracy. In either case nuances can be lost (remember: something is always lost in the translation). This is especially sobering when we consider this is God's inspired Word --his message to humanity." (p.40)

If one must choose, far better to be consistently formal and literally in translation process then being dynamic and so called thought for thought!

 

[Yeshua1]

I will quote from an informative book from eight years ago. It's called Which Bible Translation Should I Use? E. Ray Clendenen article is on the HCSB. He writes on page 118 :
"Another problem with 'literal' is that sometimes people try to make a distinction between a 'translation' and an 'interpretation.' They want a version that just translates the Bible rather than interpreting it, and they think that is what a literal translation does. But this is a false dichotomy. There is no such thing as a translation that does not interpret. The first step in translation is to understand the text to be translated. The second step is to render that text in the new language in such a way the reader will understand what the text means. That is interpretation."

The Nas did commentary on less of a basis then your niv did, correct?

 

[Rippon2]

From the same book, page 49:

"There is no one-to-one correspondence between English and Hebrew or Greek. Bible translators must therefore be in a constant mode of interpretation, sensitive to which meaning senses of a word are being used. Remember our principle : All translation is interpretation. The translator must first determine the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek term in its context. Then he or she must find an English word, phrase, or clause that reproduces that meaning as accurately and clearly as possible."

 

[Rippon2]

The Nas did commentary on less of a basis then your niv did, correct?

Are you talking about Study Bibles? I have neither the NIV or NASB study Bibles.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you talking about Study Bibles? I have neither the NIV or NASB study Bibles.

No, was saying that the translators of the Nas did less interpreting/commentary on what they thought text meant than the Niv translators did!

 

[Rippon2]

If one must choose, far better to be consistently formal and literally in translation process then being dynamic and so called thought for thought!

No translation is consistently formal, and certainly not literal. And some of the dynamic ones such as the NLT use a good amount of 'direct translation' as well as mostly functionally equivalent.

 

[Rippon2]

No, was saying that the translators of the Nas did less interpreting/commentary on what they thought text meant than the Niv translators did!

Refer to post #11.

 

[Rippon2]

Fee and Strauss :
"Translators must make difficult decisions about which features of the text should be retained and which may be sacrificed for greater clarity." (p.65)

 

[Yeshua1]

No translation is consistently formal, and certainly not literal. And some of the dynamic ones such as the NLT use a good amount of 'direct translation' as well as mostly functionally equivalent.

The Nkjv and Nas for examples of translations that use much less "commentary" then Niv does!

 

[Rippon2]

Erasmus has some interesting words that might very well be mistaken for that of William Tyndale.

"I totally disagree with those who are unwilling that the Holy Scriptures should be translated into everyday languages and read by unlearned people. Christ wishes his mysteries to be made known as widely as possible. I would wish even all women to read the gospels, and the letters of St. Paul. I wish that they were translated into all the languages of all Christian people --that they might be read and known not just by the Scots and Irish, but even by the Turks and Saracens. I wish that the farm laborer might sing parts of them at his plow, that the weaver might hum them at his shuttle, and that the traveller might ease his weariness by reciting them." (pages 55,56)

Taken from In The Beginning by Alister McGrath

 

[Rippon2]

Back to that F.F. Bruce book : History Of The Bible In English.

On page 44 he quotes from a Professor J. Isaacs :

"Tindale's honesty, sincerity, and scrupulous integrity, his simple directness, his magical simplicity of phrase, his modest music, have given an authority to his wording his wording that has imposed itself on all later versions. With all the tinkering to which the New Testament has been subject, Tindale's version is still the basis in phrasing, rendering, vocabulary, rhythm, and often music as well." (p.44)

 

[Rippon2]

"I think that it is fair to conclude that in terms of translational philosophy the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB....Contrary to some, I do not view the NIV as a functional equivalent translation as to its basic nature...Although the NIV explicity acknowledges that it is not always word-for-word, the ESV claims to strive for word-for-word consistency; the result is not that much different in many instances....The difference is only one of degree and is relatively small. Both contain much more functional equivalence than does the NASB and much, much less than CEV."

Taken from Rod J. Decker's The English Standard Version: A Review Article pages 52,53