Translation Philosophy

[Scrawly]

Can I get some feedback on this y'all:

[Scrawly]

Here's the paper if you wish to read instead:

http://www.thenivbible.com/wp-conten...ont-Get-It.pdf

[phat8594]

Here's the paper if you wish to read instead:

http://www.thenivbible.com/wp-conten...ont-Get-It.pdf

What type of feedback are you looking for specifically? The NIV is a great translation, and it has the scholarly chops behind it. Pretty much everyone I have talked to about who 'hates it' or thinks it is 'bad' usually has very little if any knowledge of how translations work.

One of my favorite lines by Douglas Moo is: "Translation is not as many people think: a matter of word substitution"

[One Bad Pig]

I think the NIV is boring (and way over-commercialized).

[KingsGambit]

In Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns flatly accuses the NIV of inaccuracy; I wish I could pull up the example but my Kindle appears to have just bitten the dust.

[Obsidian]

50 "more" years of the NIV? The NIV is already gone. It ended in 2011 I believe.

[Cow Poke]

50 "more" years of the NIV? The NIV is already gone. It ended in 2011 I believe.

Yeah, seems so. I am really starting to like the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

[Jedidiah]

I have read and studied with a number of versions. Aside from the many paraphrases (which may be okay for just reading) I have never found any to show any significant flaws or significant differences. They all teach the same gospel.

[phat8594]

In Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns flatly accuses the NIV of inaccuracy; I wish I could pull up the example but my Kindle appears to have just bitten the dust.

Yeah, that would be interesting -- as the NIV committee is made up of many of the best scholars out there from across many doctrinal lines. In any case, I suggest giving the paper a read or the reading of it a listen.

Some of the points that I thought were interesting were:

To claim that a word in the biblical languages has a “literal” meaning, capable of being summarized in a single English equivalent, is simply not true. Words occupy a spectrum of meaning, and the range of meaning of particular Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words is never quite the same as the range of meaning of any particular English word. And so, for example, we sometimes translate peirazô “test” and at other times “tempt.” Neither of these English words has a range of meaning that corresponds with the Greek word; and it is manifestly foolish to claim that either English word captures the “literal” sense of the Greek word

Translation is not, as many people think, a matter of word substitution: English word x in place of Hebrew word y. Translators must first determine the meaning that the clustering of words in the biblical languages convey and then select a collocation of English words that accurately communicates that meaning to modern listeners and readers. All translations work this way— as they must to be considered translations at all.

he principle that meaning resides in larger clusters of words means that we should no longer talk in terms of “word-for-word” as a translation value. To suggest in our discussion of translations among a general audience that “word-for-word” is a virtue is to mislead people about the nature of language and translation

Or, to bring it home: do we effectively teach them the realities of language? Do we continue to require our second-year language students to translate “word for word,” perpetuating a simplistic and ultimately quite false view of language? It is no wonder that the discourse about translation so often rests on such linguistically naďve premises. They are just the premises that our teaching and our writing too often perpetuate

[hedrick]

The same approach is pretty common these days. NIV, HCSB, CEB. Arguably NRSV and ESV are a bit more formal equivalent, but they're still influenced by the philosophy. For most purposes I agree that an accurate translation isn't word for word. NRSV, ESV, NASB, etc, are probably necessary for some types of exegesis, though when I'm doing that I'm normally also looking at a commentary on the Greek or Hebrew. Still, having experimented with CEB for a while, I'm back to NRSV for most purposes, using CEB with 7th and 8th graders in Sunday School.

The NIV is a bit of an exception though. In addition to its translational philosophy (with which I generally agree), as far as I can tell, it's more aggressively evangelical (i.e. it shows its theological presumptions more often) than other translations. See http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html. That makes it as unusable for me as RSV used to be for evangelicals.

The mainline equivalent of the NIV is probably the CEB. Unfortunately it has too many weird translations. I was particularly bothered by Romans. I recently found a review written by the translator of Romans. He felt that the editorial committee had intervened enough that it messed up the accuracy. With the CEB, the editorial committee wasn't imposing theology or political views; rather, they were trying to make it intelligible to the average person. Unfortunately in the process they managed to blur the meaning at times. This is odd, since the far freer Today's English version has always seemed very accurate to me, even in difficult passages. Some NRSV translators had similar complaints about their editorial board, though I find NRSV generally accurate. (The weirdness introduced at times by their commitment to gender neutrality is stylistic. It doesn't seem to affect the meaning.) I'd really like the final editing to be done by expert translators. They can get guidance from style experts, but accuracy trumps style.

I agree with the NIV committee's choice of "their" as gender-neutral singular. I think it's being used fairly widely that way, and is often the least awkward alternative. Apparently there's also historical precedent. The use of "he" and "his" as neutral has historical basis, but it appears that "their" was also used until grammarians tried to neaten up the language in the 19th Cent.

[Scrawly]

What type of feedback are you looking for specifically? The NIV is a great translation, and it has the scholarly chops behind it. Pretty much everyone I have talked to about who 'hates it' or thinks it is 'bad' usually has very little if any knowledge of how translations work.

One of my favorite lines by Douglas Moo is: "Translation is not as many people think: a matter of word substitution"

I'm just looking for general feedback - whatever point(s) you want to highlight to agree or disagree with and why.

[Scrawly]

In Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns flatly accuses the NIV of inaccuracy; I wish I could pull up the example but my Kindle appears to have just bitten the dust.

That example would be great if you can find it. As far as I know Enns uses the NRSV, which is a popular translation among other liberal scholars and mainline churches. I think the NSAB was the conservative response to the NRSV?

[37818]

That example would be great if you can find it. As far as I know Enns uses the NRSV, which is a popular translation among other liberal scholars and mainline churches. I think the NSAB was the conservative response to the NRSV?

NASB was an evangelical effort to preseve the legacy of the ASV. The RSV was the copyright holders translation which was the official replacement of the ASV.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah, seems so. I am really starting to like the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Yeah, the HCSB isn't bad. The NRSV is mostly quite good, but has occasional "What the heck were they thinking?" moments from what I recall (IIRC, things like references to the "Son of man" get completely obscured), and I don't care for the gender-inclusive language. I like the NKJV, probably because I grew up with the KJV but prefer more modern language. I like the way the NKJV and NRSV footnote significant variants/alternate translations. I also like the NET, but tend to prefer their footnoted more literal translations than the main text.

[Scrawly]

Yeah, the HCSB isn't bad. The NRSV is mostly quite good, but has occasional "What the heck were they thinking?" moments from what I recall (IIRC, things like references to the "Son of man" get completely obscured), and I don't care for the gender-inclusive language. I like the NKJV, probably because I grew up with the KJV but prefer more modern language. I like the way the NKJV and NRSV footnote significant variants/alternate translations. I also like the NET, but tend to prefer their footnoted more literal translations than the main text.

How do you feel about NRSV's rendering of Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."