What Is Meant By A Literal Translation?

[TCGreek]

I think I'm slightly more "thought for thought" than the NKJV, but it comes close. (I've been comparing.) The ESV is an interesting comparison with its "essentially literal" method, and is pretty close to my thinking, though occasionally it has a strange rendering. (See the book Translating Truth.)

1. I like the ESV in some places, but generally I think it resembles its predecessor too much and could have done a better job.

The idiom about eternal life, eis tous aionas ton aionon, comes out pretty well in Japanese, though I haven't translated it 100% literally. The eis is hard to get into Japanese, though, since it doesn't have prepositions. (We uses "particles" instead.)

2. Keep that in mind if I ever come to Japan.

I've never been under the impression that the NIV tried to do what I do. When it first came out it was called "dynamic equivalence." I read it through twice and decided it was a lot looser than I liked. If the translators consciously used dynamic equivalence then their goal was for the readers to have complete understanding from a 20th century viewpoint of the original text. Thus, they did not follow my principles about preserving the ambiguities and culture of the Biblical documents. I suggest you take a representative chapter in the NIV and compare it to the Greek.

3. Don't you think you are slighting the NIV too much? I like the NIV in some places more than other versions.

4. Because I take an expository approach to preaching, the NIV I have found doesn't work too well with me. I make points from sentence structures and word order and conjunction, which I think the NIV has taken away from me (The TNIV has restored some of the conjunctions, etc).

Hey, I'd be happy to give a seminar in person if you'll just pay my plane fare from Japan--only about $1400 round trip! I'll be waiting for your check. :smilewinkgrin:

5. A good bargain! But I'll be the only one sitting in. :thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

What follows is a part of the Preface of my NIV June 1978 , and Revised August 1983 ) .

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers . They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek texts . At the same time , they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation . Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language , faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modiifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of the words .

3. Don't you think you are slighting the NIV too much? I like the NIV in some places more than other versions.

Where the NIV got it right is that the translation was given to a review board of English experts in order to produce a translation that was done in beautiful English. When it came out and I read it, I predicted that it would be very successful for that reason, and so it is. This is the very reason the KJV (and NKJV) have been so successful, by the way, and why the KJV has influenced the English language so much.

This is where my translation principles resemble the NIV. Uncle Miya and I are trying to produce a translation that is very readable while being faithful to the original. I still feel, though, that the NIV goes too far in that direction compared to my translation. I guess you'd have to read both English and Japanese to judge that, though. Anyone?

Also, since I am a Byzantine/Majority/TR advocate, the NIV's eclectic approach is not for me.

4. Because I take an expository approach to preaching, the NIV I have found doesn't work too well with me. I make points from sentence structures and word order and conjunction, which I think the NIV has taken away from me (The TNIV has restored some of the conjunctions, etc).

Exactly!

 

[Rippon]

On The Subject Of Conjunctions

This piece is from D.a.Carson's book : The King James Version Debate .(pp.96-97) .

(1) Greek tends to use a connective at the head of every sentence unless it wants a specific break . To translate all such connectives literally is poor English , which does not adopt the same stylist feature . This explains the very high proportion of sentences in the KJV that begin with a conjunction . (2) The semantic range of Greek connectives is far wider than many introductory grammar books admit . For example , one might think of gar as meaning "for" ; but there are times when smooth , accurate translation might be better served by "but."

 

[John of Japan]

This piece is from D.a.Carson's book : The King James Version Debate .(pp.96-97) .

(1) Greek tends to use a connective at the head of every sentence unless it wants a specific break . To translate all such connectives literally is poor English , which does not adopt the same stylist feature . This explains the very high proportion of sentences in the KJV that begin with a conjunction . (2) The semantic range of Greek connectives is far wider than many introductory grammar books admit . For example , one might think of gar as meaning "for" ; but there are times when smooth , accurate translation might be better served by "but."

I agree with this. What most folk forget when considering the conjunctions in the Greek NT is that the originals had no punctuation. Personally, I believe that many of the de and kai conjunctions in particular were simply to mark new sentences.

 

[TCGreek]

I agree with this. What most folk forget when considering the conjunctions in the Greek NT is that the originals had no punctuation. Personally, I believe that many of the de and kai conjunctions in particular were simply to mark new sentences.

1. While I agree with you guys to some extent in the quoting of Carson, BTW his book is what weaned me off the KJV, that's another thread, I have benefited greatly from David Alan Black, et al, discourse analysis approach to the reading of the text.

2. In discourse analysis I have really seen the true beauty of connectives like de and kai.

3. For example, I see kai euthus and kai + as a heavy semantic influence in Mark's narrative. At times, some of them can be untranslated as long as there's that flow.

4. Then when one come's to the epistles, IMO, the connectives become more important.

5. I find that of all Paul's writings, 2 Corinthians to be the most difficult to read at times. Again, the emotive element influenced the syntax.

 

[John of Japan]

1. While I agree with you guys to some extent in the quoting of Carson, BTW his book is what weaned me off the KJV, that's another thread, I have benefited greatly from David Alan Black, et al, discourse analysis approach to the reading of the text.
2. In discourse analysis I have really seen the true beauty of connectives like de and kai.

I'm still working on discourse analysis, though I did get to talk some about it with a Greek prof at Maranatha BBC grad school in WI two years ago. I'm old school. The last Greek class I took was at Temple Bapt. Sem. in 1986. Here in Japan I teach from Machen, because almost none of the newer stuff has been translated. Machen is the latest thing over here!

3. For example, I see kai euthus and kai + as a heavy semantic influence in Mark's narrative. At times, some of them can be untranslated as long as there's that flow.

4. Then when one come's to the epistles, IMO, the connectives become more important.

I'll agree with that. Connectives are not as important in the narratives as in the epistles, where you have to keep the flow of thought going.

5. I find that of all Paul's writings, 2 Corinthians to be the most difficult to read at times. Again, the emotive element influenced the syntax.

Hah! Anything by Paul is hard to read or translate. I'm working on Ephesians now. Imagine putting ch. 2 into understandable Japanese! Whew. And some of his sentences are so long--clause after clause with an occasional parenthetic clause stuck in. :BangHead:

 

[Salamander]

Since I am not capable of a meaningful correspondence, I would best make use of my time avoiding any correalation with these of such magnitude of vernacular strength, BUT! Since I am too simple to argue from the scholarly stance on these highly convoluted subjects, my only answer to the OP is that a literal translation is as in being opposed to an alliteral translation.

 

[Salamander]

This is where my translation principles resemble the NIV. Uncle Miya and I are trying to produce a translation that is very readable while being faithful to the original.

I know already you really don't like me responding to your statements, but I have to ask, to what "original" are you comparing to make your assumption as remaining faithful to that original?

 

[John of Japan]

I know already you really don't like me responding to your statements, but I have to ask, to what "original" are you comparing to make your assumption as remaining faithful to that original?

The TR. Happy now?

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I find no fault in that. I lean that direction myself.:godisgood:

 

[thomas15]

TC, In your opinion, with respect to English translations (assuming limited or no Greek knowledge) what is the role in the Bible student's skills in English grammar in deciding the meaning of a passage of scripture or in evaluating a translation?

What I'm getting at is we discuss the merits and pitfalls of various translations but if we don't know or understand proper English, how far can we actually go in terms of knowledge of the true intent regardless of which translation we use?

Another point, in a review of the ESV, Rodney Decker (his review has been mentioned on this board by another poster) talks about the trend now-a-days regarding the placement and use of punctuation in modern English translations. If you compare the ESV to say the NKJV, you will find areas (NT) where the text is simular, but different punctuation makes for different reading. Do you know anything about this?

 

[BobinKy]

Thomas15 asked some interesting questions--I wished some would answer them.

Otherwise, this is good thread about translators and their style.

...Bob

 

[franklinmonroe]

Enjoying the BB archives, Bob?

Actually, there is a LOT of good stuff in there.

 

[mandym]

1. For years I have been wrestling with this idea: "The literal translations of the text is." But it seems not to make much sense. Here's why:

a. Grammarians have come up with all these categories of function, which are built on the forms:

i. For example, Dan B. Wallace has 15 different functions of the Genitive, which he calls the Adjectival use of the Genitive. Then he has another 8 different functions of the Genitive under the Adverbial Genitive.

ii. And according to Dana-Mantey, the preposition en just doesn't mean "in," it can also mean "besides," "with," "because of," "into," "by," etc.

2. So when we come to a passage like James 2:4:

a. "Have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives?" (NASB).

b. "Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?" (KJV).

3. "Of evil thoughts" or "with evil motives" are the translation of two genitives: "of thoughts of evil."

4. "Of thoughts of evil" we would say is the literal translation, but was that "literal translation" concept in the minds of the writer?

5. Would it then be best to translate it the two genitives "with evil motives/thoughts" and label the first genitive a Hebrew Genitive/Genitive of Quality rather than speak of "literal translation."

6. What really do we mean by "literal translation?"

J. I. Packer might be of some help

http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html