Why Would the More Literal translations NOT be best ones?

[John of Japan]

I heard Dr. Fred Afman, professor at Tennessee Temple University, say during the beginning of an Old Testament survey course that he didn't care which version we read (we were required to read through the OT during the course), he was concerned with which translation we lived.

Boy does this bring back memories. I graduated from Temple in 1976. Never took Dr. Afman, but always enjoyed him in chapel and elsewhere.

Similarly to his quote, I once heard it said, "My problem is not the verses I don't know, but obeying the Bible I do know."

 

[Robert Snow]

Boy does this bring back memories. I graduated from Temple in 1976. Never took Dr. Afman, but always enjoyed him in chapel and elsewhere.

Similarly to his quote, I once heard it said, "My problem is not the verses I don't know, but obeying the Bible I do know."

I took him for three courses. NT and OT survey, and biblical introduction. The first two were freshman, sophomore courses, the latter was a junior,senior level course. I took all three during the same semester, and let me tell you, it was like two different teachers. He was much easier on the first two, in the biblical introduction course he was challenging to say the least. I noticed that he passed away not too long ago, he was one of my favorite teachers at TTU.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I noticed that he passed away not too long ago, he was one of my favorite teachers at TTU.

I also enjoed Dr. Afman's classes. He was very soft-spoken for such a BIG man!

 

[Rippon]

The obvious efforts at harmonization, which you ignore, demonstrate that many of Rippon's examples are spot on.

Have you lost your mind Van? What in the world are you doing --agreeing with me?!

 

[Rippon]

reading Robinson's New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority (http://www.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html) and The Identity of the New Testament Text, by Wilbur Pickering (http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering3b.htm), then I'll debate you on it. I know you love books and read a lot. You should have no trouble with these two.

Anything by Pickering would not be on my priority reading list --even Robinson has taken him down a peg or four.

Since moving to China my funds have been halved and I can't even access a number of Christian websites. So,I'll have to depend on scraps of info from the Byzantine side. I have noticed that Robinson makes comments on some sites like Fundamentally Reformed. He's interesting to read --he appears a bit pugnacious at times. I have read Black's interview with him.

I would like to see a debate with him against Wallace,Fee,Holmes or someone else of that caliber.

 

[Rippon]

It depends on your presuppositions. I believe in verbal plenary inspiration of the autographs, so I believe every word and grammatical form of the original text should be translated, and nothing should be added in the translated text that does not have a clear basis in the original. Having said that, there is a limit to literal. Idioms should only be translated literally if they make sense or are paralleled in the target language.

But you have said in the past that you know that it's not realistic to expect that a translation can have a one-to-one correspondence. Things have to be added or left untranslated a lot of the time --especially the former. That is if you would like to have smooth translation.

Again, I believe that the translation should read smoothly.

See the above. Tell me of a smooth reading English translation using formal equivalence. Because what you said in your first paragraph certainly doesn't describe optimal equivalence which you prefer.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I heard Dr. Fred Afman, professor at Tennessee Temple University, say during the beginning of an Old Testament survey course that he didn't care which version we read (we were required to read through the OT during the course), he was concerned with which translation we lived.

Wow! Memory jolt! I remember that as well! He was such a blessing in so many way!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Think common assumption here is that the more literal/formal equivalent a bible version is, better that it must be...

is that so?

There are words and concepts in every language that cannot be simply translated into another language using one word. For instance the Mandarin word Guanxi cannot be translated into English using one word. The closest words in English are 'Connections' or 'Relationships'. However neither of the English words come even remotely close to transferring the meaning of the word. In addition to a huge amount of Chinese culture is wrapped up in the word Guanxi and that cannot be translated.

Guanxi refers to the benefits gained from social connections and usually extends from extended family, school friends, workmates and members of common clubs or organizations. It is custom for Chinese people to cultivate an intricate web of guanxi relationships, which may expand in a huge number of directions, and includes lifelong relationships. Staying in contact with members of your network is not necessary to bind reciprocal obligations. Reciprocal favors are the key factor to maintaining one’s guanxi web, failure to reciprocate is considered an unforgivable offense. The more you ask of someone the more you owe them. Guanxi can perpetuate a never ending cycle of favors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi

Another word in Chinese that is impossible to translate into English with one word is ganqing. Ganqing deals with the moral obligation of maintaining a relationship. The oriental concept of face is involved here and face as understood in the Chinese culture cannot be accurately translated into one English word.

a measure which reflects the depth of feeling within an interpersonal relationship, renqing, the moral obligation to maintain the relationship, and the idea of "face" known as miàn (面), meaning social status, propriety, prestige, or more realistically a combination of all three.

The well known three Greek words that have to be translated as 'Love' in English results in much meaning being lost. This is especially true in the incident where Jesus asks Peter three times if he [Peter] loves him. Jesus and Peter do not use the same greek words and much meaning is lose in English as each has to be translated into the one English word love.

Also the grammar of one language is not the same in different languages. In order to makes any sense in the language the text is being translated into the grammar has to be changed. Meaning can be lost here also.

Years ago I read about a group of business educators who were sent to a 3rd world country to teach modern business practices. In that country's language there was no equivalent for the word net worth. It took several pages in that language to get across a close meaning of the word. A one word translation was impossible.

Frankly, I am in awe of people with the gift, skills and knowledge that translate and end up with anything meaningful.

 

[Van]

Rippon,

Have you lost your mind Van? What in the world are you doing --agreeing with me?!

If we agreed on what we think is true, we would agree on everything. Where we disagree, we think the other is presenting error. Happy to agree with you on those occasions when you happen to find a nugget of truth.

 

[Van]

The issue is not that Bible translation cannot be perfect, the issue is Bible translation could be way better than what is currently available. Any effort to justify the present day slop due to a lack of rigorous adherence to translation principles such as concordance in idiom translation, is simply an effort at being the devils advocate.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The issue is not that Bible translation cannot be perfect, the issue is Bible translation could be way better than what is currently available.

What do you mean by "ccurrently available"? What can replace the current method of translation. I am not arguing, but looking for additional information on what you mean.

Any effort to justify the present day slop due to a lack of rigorous adherence to translation principles such as concordance in idiom translation, is simply an effort at being the devils advocate.

Again, I am trying to understand your meaning. What is "present day slop"?

 

[JesusFan]

Anything by Pickering would not be on my priority reading list --even Robinson has taken him down a peg or four.

Since moving to China my funds have been halved and I can't even access a number of Christian websites. So,I'll have to depend on scraps of info from the Byzantine side. I have noticed that Robinson makes comments on some sites like Fundamentally Reformed. He's interesting to read --he appears a bit pugnacious at times. I have read Black's interview with him.

I would like to see a debate with him against Wallace,Fee,Holmes or someone else of that caliber.

The ones that had to learn from were for me Kurt/barbara Aland, as used their 26th edition of CT and their Greek tools...

 

[JesusFan]

But you have said in the past that you know that it's not realistic to expect that a translation can have a one-to-one correspondence. Things have to be added or left untranslated a lot of the time --especially the former. That is if you would like to have smooth translation.



See the above. Tell me of a smooth reading English translation using formal equivalence. Because what you said in your first paragraph certainly doesn't describe optimal equivalence which you prefer.

Just try to use Youngs literal translation and the 1901 ASV as only versions, will be looking for good ole days of the KJV for reading with understanding days!

 

[Van]

Reply to Questions,

What do you mean by "ccurrently available"? What can replace the current method of translation. I am not arguing, but looking for additional information on what you mean.

Again, I am trying to understand your meaning. What is "present day slop"?

The modern translations that I think are the best are: NASB95, NKJV, ESV, HCSB and NIV. All of them do a great job and reflect scholarly effort.

But they all fall short of the mark, in my opinion. All of them can easily be improved. Slop is the result of sloppy translation where close adherence to the accepted rules of translation is absent.

Here are my main observations. I am no expert, but I am an end user. If I look at my exhaustive concordance, I see where words in the source language are translated into many differing English words. While it is true, words have different meanings or shades of meaning, and so several English words might be needed to accurately translate one of the accepted meaning as indicated by the context, this should result in a few words, i.e. 3 or 4, rather than dozens. We looked at one word and found 7 or 8 viable meanings needing 7 or 8 English words, but that was specifically chosen to demonstrate a broad spectrum of meanings.

Second the same constructions, a group of words used to convey a figure of speech, should be translated in the same way so the figure of speech is apparent in every appearance.

Most italic words are unnecessary, and should not be added for clarification.

 

[John of Japan]

But you have said in the past that you know that it's not realistic to expect that a translation can have a one-to-one correspondence. Things have to be added or left untranslated a lot of the time --especially the former. That is if you would like to have smooth translation.

My goal is to represent every word and grammatical form of the original in the target language.

See the above. Tell me of a smooth reading English translation using formal equivalence. Because what you said in your first paragraph certainly doesn't describe optimal equivalence which you prefer.

First of all, I don't like the term "formal equivalence," a Nida term suggesting IMO that literal methods are all about form and not about meaning. But I can say that the KJV is quite literal the majority of the time, and is written in beautiful English (1611 Eng. of course).

Note the KJV and Greek:
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
16 outwV gar hgaphsen o qeoV ton kosmon wste ton uion autou ton monogenh edwken ina paV o pisteuwn eiV auton mh apolhtai all ech zwhn aiwnion
The only thing not translated is the article before qeoV.

I would remark on your comment on OE, but your only knowledge of that is looking at English translations through your own lens on non-Greek understanding.

 

[John of Japan]

Anything by Pickering would not be on my priority reading list --even Robinson has taken him down a peg or four.

Pickering would still improve your knowledge of the Byzantine priority position, which at the moment is next to nil (no offense :smilewinkgrin.

Since moving to China my funds have been halved and I can't even access a number of Christian websites. So,I'll have to depend on scraps of info from the Byzantine side. I have noticed that Robinson makes comments on some sites like Fundamentally Reformed. He's interesting to read --he appears a bit pugnacious at times. I have read Black's interview with him.

So, how did you end up in China?

Black's interview is sparce in details about Robinson's method. You learned about the man but not the method with that.

I would like to see a debate with him against Wallace,Fee,Holmes or someone else of that caliber.

You're in luck. Check out this website for info on a debate between Robinson and Holmes: http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/page/65

Again, there is a book out of a symposium at SEBTS between Epp, Holmes, Elliot and Robinson, with Silva summing up: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801022800/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[Rippon]

First of all, I don't like the term "formal equivalence," a Nida term suggesting IMO that literal methods are all about form and not about meaning.

So you would disagree with some who say that form is meaning?

But I can say that the KJV is quite literal the majority of the time, and is written in beautiful English (1611 Eng. of course).

The best you can do is cite John 3:16 from the KJV as an example of a smooth reading in a literal version? No, that doesn't quite cut it John.By smooth reading it should be grammatically correct by 21st century standards.It doesn't qualify as having beautiful English in the 21 st century.

Also,William Tyndale,from my memory, didn't translate with the word begotten Son--but only Son. That is a lot more clear for someone to understand in the 16th century as well as the 21st.

The whole of the KJV rendering of John 3:16 has caused a host of misunderstandings to result. We have gone over this ground before.

 

[Rippon]

Most italic words are unnecessary, and should not be added for clarification.

Do you want a Bible translation to be an interlinear?! For sentences to make sense one should have a version that is grammatical. Verbs,prepositions, articles etc. make reading so much much more comfortable. :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

I would remark on your comment on OE, but your only knowledge of that is looking at English translations through your own lens on non-Greek understanding.

I've done a fair amount of reading. It hasn't stopped our interactions on the subject in the past. We have discussed a number of translational methods. If you want to only discuss it with three or four Greek-proficient guys here-- have at it. But this is a discussion forum and others with little to no Greek background have shared their points of view with you. I have had to point this same thing out to you a few years ago.

 

[John of Japan]

So you would disagree with some who say that form is meaning?

Yes. Semantics is centered on the morphemes and larger lexical units. However, grammatical form can carry nuance. Therefore I believe that when possible the grammatical form should be duplicated in the targett language.

The best you can do is cite John 3:16 from the KJV as an example of a smooth reading in a literal version? No, that doesn't quite cut it John.By smooth reading it should be grammatically correct by 21st century standards.It doesn't qualify as having beautiful English in the 21 st century.

This is strictly your opinion, nothing more. If it is true that the KJV's English is no longer beautiful in the 21st, then it would no longer be studied in literature classes as beautiful literature. And Shakespeare's plays, from the same era, would no longer be performed, both on state and in the movies.