What Is "Literal"?

[Logos1560]

In his book Bible: The Story of the King James Version, Gordon Campbell wrote: "The translation, however, aspires to literal accuracy rather than majesty, and on occasion leaves the job of translation half-done. Here is a verse in which the Hebrew is translated word for word, but the translation is stylishly incomprehensible" (p. 81).

After quoting Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV, Campbell commented: "The notion that the Assyrians got up in the morning before noticing that they were dead is exceedingly unhelpful" (p. 81).

 

[Yeshua1]

In his book Bible: The Story of the King James Version, Gordon Campbell wrote: "The translation, however, aspires to literal accuracy rather than majesty, and on occasion leaves the job of translation half-done. Here is a verse in which the Hebrew is translated word for word, but the translation is stylishly incomprehensible" (p. 81).

After quoting Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV, Campbell commented: "The notion that the Assyrians got up in the morning before noticing that they were dead is exceedingly unhelpful" (p. 81).

The Kjv best point is how it sounds/read, its way it states the King's English, not in its accuracy overall!

 

[Rippon2]

An 'essentially literal' translation--either lexically or syntactically --is a myth. It is ultimately irrelevant whether an adverb is replaced by a prepositional phrase or a participle replaced by a verb. The question that matters is, "is the meaning reproduced?'

Page 17, 'Literal Meaning' Fallacy by Mark L. Strauss

How true! Yet some here espouse this myth nevertheless.

 

[Rippon2]

One of my favorite books is The Challenge Of Bible Translation. It was published in 2003 and had articles from twenty authors. One of the chapters was written by Mark L. Strauss: Current Issues in the Gender-Language Debate.


Dr. Strauss speaks to the issue in the header in a few places.

"There is, in fact, no such thing as a 'literal translation' (i.e. single, uniform, corresponding exactly with the Hebrew), since every Hebrew word or phrase ....could be translated in a variety of ways. Every translation constantly involves interpretive decisions, all of which change the words (from Hebrew or Greek to English) and all of which change subtle nuances of meaning." (p.123)

"While one may appropriately speak of a primary sense of a word, this is very different from a literal meaning. A primary sense refers to the most common meaning and may serve a pragmatic function in translation: Try this first to see if it works. To call a primary sense the literal meaning, however, assumes the logical fallacy that one sense of a lexeme governs or controls all others. For example, to say that 'flesh' is the literal meaning of the Greek term sarx is to assume that this sense somehow imposes its meaning on other senses of sarx ('life,' 'human being,' 'sinful nature,' etc.) This is a fallacy. It is context alone that determines which sense of a lexeme is intended within its sematic range." (pages 133,134)

A sobering reminder.

 

[Rippon2]

Interesting. The NIV, NLT and NRSV all have brothers in that passage.

Acts 15:7 is the passage in question, and even N.T.Wright's "The Kingdom New Testament has the word 'brothers' here.

 

[Jerome]

Rippon, this from that Manhood/Womanhood outfit suggests the NIV there is to be regarded as gender-inclusive regardless:

cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2-3.pdf
p.13

 

[Marooncat79]

Literal is an unfortunate word to use in regards ti the trustworthiness of Scripture

The Bible uses all types of linguistics to get across the Bible Message ie Metaphors etc

Do we really believe that Jesus is a door and a vine? Yes it is true in one sense in that it conveys that Jesus is the way of salvation but He is not literally a door or a vine. These are the 2 easiest ways to convey what I mean herr

 

[Yeshua1]

A sobering reminder.

Formal is still the preferred translation method!

 

[Yeshua1]

How true! Yet some here espouse this myth nevertheless.

Can use the term formal instead, still the truth remains the same!

 

[Yeshua1]

Literal is an unfortunate word to use in regards ti the trustworthiness of Scripture

The Bible uses all types of linguistics to get across the Bible Message ie Metaphors etc

Do we really believe that Jesus is a door and a vine? Yes it is true in one sense in that it conveys that Jesus is the way of salvation but He is not literally a door or a vine. These are the 2 easiest ways to convey what I mean herr

Literal to me just means formal method of translation, as preferred to more dynamic!

 

[Just_Ahead]

I really do not know if the following fits this thread,
but here is something I pulled from LEXICO,
an Oxford Dictionary/Thesaurus website.

*****

Synonyms and Antonyms of "literal" in English

1: ‘those who believe in the literal truth of the biblical Genesis’

SYNONYMS
strict, factual, plain, simple, bare, exact, straightforward, stark
unvarnished, unexaggerated, unembellished, undistorted, unadulterated
objective, narrow, correct, true, truthful, faithful, accurate, genuine, authentic, veritable, veracious, gospel

ANTONYMS
metaphorical, figurative, loose, approximate

2: ‘a literal translation’

SYNONYMS
word-for-word, verbatim, line-for-line, letter-for-letter
exact, precise, faithful, close, strict, to the letter, undeviating, true, accurate
rare literatim

ANTONYMS
loose, liberal, vague

*****

 

[Marooncat79]

Literal to me just means formal method of translation, as preferred to more dynamic!

Agree but remember that there are people who would use that term as a trap to try and make us look stupid

 

[Rippon2]

Formal is still the preferred translation method!

It has its positives and negatives as does functional equivalence. That's why mediating is the best of both worlds.

 

[Yeshua1]

It has its positives and negatives as does functional equivalence. That's why mediating is the best of both worlds.

So you support the Nkjv for "optimal equivalence?"

 

[Yeshua1]

Agree but remember that there are people who would use that term as a trap to try and make us look stupid

agreed, but we must do our best to make sure that literal is not used in a "wooden" way, but as just meaning the plan intending meaning of the scriptures!

 

[Rippon2]

So you support the Nkjv for "optimal equivalence?"

The word 'so' as you are using it means consequently. But the subject you are bringing up has nothing to do with anything
I was speaking about.

 

[Yeshua1]

The word 'so' as you are using it means consequently. But the subject you are bringing up has nothing to do with anything
I was speaking about.

You stated both formal and dynamic gives problems, so why that leave available just that optimal option?