DN
KJV-only fanaticism is a bit silly, imo.
JE
Newer editions of the NIV keep correcting earlier renditions - and each time it does, it becomes more and more like the KJV. Funny, but true!
If we have to have a modern version of the Bible, I wish its translators would at least use the same translation-philosophy as the KJV instead of the "dynamic equivalent" philosophy used by many modern versions - because although it may be 'dynamically equivalent' to refer to "...the child's [Jesus'] father and mother..." (Luke 2:33NIV), it's not the same doctrinally as saying, "...Joseph and his mother..." (KJV); etc.
Is there any modern version which only seeks to modernize the syntax rather than assumes the right to omit or change the meaning of words for the sake of 'flow' or 'dynamic equivalent'?
BC
John: the Greek phrase behind the two versions you cite is, in the ancient manuscripts, quite contested. I'll give you a sampling of the variety from the ancient sources in formal equivalence English: "the father of him and the mother" (NIV... seems to follow this one or perhaps the next); "the father of him and the mother of him"; "the father of him" (omit mother); "Joseph the father of him and the mother"; "Joseph and the mother of him" (NKJV follows this one) "Joseph and the mother"; "Joseph." I won't trouble you with which ancient manuscripts and which church fathers record the variants above.
The renderings of Luke 2:33 that you cited are not based on whether it has been rendered through formal equivalence or functional (i.e., "dynamic") equivalence, but upon which Greek reading was considered most authoritative.
JE
But many modern versions switch between manuscripts. That shows their loyalty is with something other than the manuscript. At least the KJV translator's made a decision and as far as I know, stuck to it.
BC
John, Apparently you think that purveyers of dynamic equivalence translations (now called, btw, "functional equivalence") are so careless theologically as to want to change the meaning of the texts. If you were to peruse their writings carefully, you would find a decided zeal for presenting the precise meaning of the original in the equivalent stylistic forms used by native speakers of the target language.
Yes, their loyalty is not to one single copy, made many centuries after the original. Their loyalty is to get at what the now lost original said, as best as that can be determined by the current state of manuscript study. We only know the original from the copies.
JE
But they keep changing their opinion about which manuscript was, after all, more reliable. And the more they learn, the more they realize the KJV got it right, so it seems.
PH
The Scofield bible does that. He rep[laced obsolete words, like "prevent" and "conversation" (but I love those words)
BC
When you copy out passages of the Bible, is your copying perfect? If you and ten reliable friends wrote out ten copies of, say the letter to the Romans KJV, would all ten copies be the same? And, if you later wanted to get back to the exact text of the KJV, would you follow only one of the ten copies? Or would you collate all ten, to find the best agreement, and the best readings?
JE
Yes, unless I felt I could make an academic decision that one of the copies was actually the correct one. Plus, many modern translators omit or change words that appear even in their own source manuscripts. For example, their source manus...cripts might say "Christ" but they change it to "he"; or it might say "Christ Jesus" but they render it merely "Jesus" - just for the sake of flow. Doing so does have an effect on function: saying 'Christ Jesus' carries more implications than merely 'Jesus'.
BC
1) First issue first. How would you make the "academic decision" that one of the copies was exact? Even a photocopy can be unclear.
(2) There's no defense for carelessness. Can you give me a specific text in translation that commits the e...rror you charge? Hearsay won't do.
JE
Okay, issue (1) first. When NIV keeps publishing revisions based on new decisions about the preferability of one manuscript over another, and when each of their revisions is making the NIV look increasingly like the KJV - it unsettles my c...onfidence in their decision-making processes which led to their original assertions about "the oldest and most reliable manuscripts". At least the KJV translators had enough confidence in their own decision-making process to stick with it. And it seems the longer the NIV committee lives, the more they are realizing the KJV translators had seemingly made an informed choice.
BC
1) I think you overstate the frequency of revisions of the NIV.
2) I am not at all sure that the revisions move the text closer to the KJV. If anything, their current work is moving closer to the TNIV, which Zondervan is taking off the mar...ket.
3) We shouldn't think that text-critical work will come to an end beyond which nothing more can be done.
4) We shouldn't think that translation committees shall ever be permanently satisfied with their results. Did you ever work in a committee to produce a document?
5) Also, there were various revisions to the KJV which are little known to American readers. The biggest one was in the 1880s. Facsimile editions of the 1611 KJV are very different from current editions.
JE
Issue (2). The NKJV, if I'm not mistaken, claims to use the same manuscript used by the KJV for the New Testament. If the NKJV translators were indeed loyal to their own manuscript of choice, there should therefore be no ommitted, changed or added words for the purpose of flow. It should differ from the KJV only in syntax. But that's often not the case.
BC
The NKJV translators wisely did not choose to hold themselves to the standard of replication that you suggest. Theirs is an improvement upon the KJV, while still using the Textus Receptus as the base text for NT.
JE
But in many instances the NKJV renders a verse in a way that doesn't reflect ANY known manuscript!
The NKJV has also made revisions which demonstrate that their original rendering wasn't always based on pure translation. E.g., earlier editions said that Jesus emptied Himself, whereas newer editions return to the KJV's rendering: that He made Himself of no reputation. That's more than just modernizing the syntax! Obviously therefore the translators can't really claim "exact equivalence".
BC
I'm not a zealous defender of the NKJV. As for the "pure translation" idea, "pure" by what standard? There are various measures of such "purity." And what seems pure to one scholar may seem polluted to another. In Korean, I'm told, "You're ...pulling my belly button" means "You're joking with me." We'd say, "You're pulling my leg." One Arab Christian I know had that said to him by an American Christian lady with whom he was sitting at a church dinner: "You're pulling my leg," she said. His much offended reply: "Madame, I haven't touched your leg." What would be the "pure" translation of that English line into Arabic?
JE
Ha ha! :) It all depends on what the translators claim about their translation. I quite enjoy reading "The Aussie Bible" for example, with all its Australian slang and colloquialisms which probably only an Aussie can understand! :) But... in the case of the Aussie Bible, the publishers are upfront about their translation-philosophy. Unlike the NIV and NKJV's revision committees, the Aussie Bible doesn't claim any superior manuscripts, superior academics, or exact equivalence nor functional equivalence. But I think what we are discussing here is a serious translation of the Bible, rather than paraphrases, and rather than a conversation across the dinner table. People are relying on the very wording of the Bible almost like precedents in law! In this instance therefore it behooves the translator to strictly translate. Leave interpretations up to the reader. If an ancient text said, "You're pulling my leg", then a faithful translator will translate it, "You're pulling my leg" - rather than render it in terms of his opinion of what the expression may have meant. Unless of course, you're upfront about being a paraphrase rather than a translation. So, do you know of any modern translation that is loyal to these ethics of translation as faithfully as the KJV?
BC
So, you insist upon the phrase "he that pisseth against the wall" for the books of Samuel? Do the "ethics" of translation require this? Shall this be read to the fifth grade boys sitting in church?
The better strategy for most readers today is to put the "pisseth" in the margin, and to translate the sense of the phrase in the main text. The text is not about urinating in public. The text is about men of military capability.
JE
Yes I do! The translator's job IF HE CLAIMS EXACT EQUIVALENCE, and SUPERIOR ACADEMICS would be to put his opinion of the sense of the phrase in the margin, and to leave the exact equivalent (which he boasts) in the text. Of course if he's not claiming exact equivalence then it doesn't matter. ('Exact equivalence' means exact equivalence to the words, not to their sense!)
BC
Responsible translators aim to be understood. That's "equivalence." Who claims "exact equivalence"? To do that would be to replicate the Hebrew and the Greek.
JE
The NKJV claims exact equivalence, as opposed to dynamic equivalence. But there is even variation between the NKJV's UK and US editions - not just to reflect variant spellings, but the US edition even omits entire words and concepts. And yet 'exact equivalence' to the original manuscript is claimed in both editions. Go figure!
Responsible translators use syntax in order to be understood - they don't interpret the text.
A responsible translator doesn't explain the text - he just translates it. Explanations, interpretations, and his opinion of 'the sense' belong in margins. Translation alone belongs in the text. Unless he is upfront about being a paraphraser rather than a translator.
This is a sincere question: do you know of any modern version that is as loyal to that as the KJV?
BC
I believe the term used by the translators of the NKJV was not "exact equivalence" but "complete equivalence." See the preface to the NKJV for their enunciation of the claim. When the NKJV first came out in print, this claim was widely criticized. And rightly so. I teach Hebrew Bible for a living. No translator achieves complete equivalence.
JE
Agreed, no translator achieves complete equivalence - but their best attempt needs to be made. To say Jesus emptied himself as opposed to saying he made himself of no reputation isn't really an attempt at near-equivalence - it's a deliberate parapharase, explanation, interpretation or opinion.
...which they've virtually admitted, by reversing their rendering in newer editions
BC
John, when you say, "Responsible translators . . . don't interpret the text," you overlook the fact that every act of reading is interpretation. Does my phrase "He's not red, he's scarlet," mean "He's not just a little sunburned, he's cooke...d," OR "He's not just a lefty but an all-out Communist" OR "He's not just from any old red state that votes Republican," or "He's not just a little adulterous, he wallows in it"?
I've got to call it a night. It's late. It's been fun, John.
JE
Yes but the actions of making-oneself-of-no-reputation and emptying-oneself aren't similar enough to be explained by that. It's a case of the 'translator' substituting his own feelings about an action for the meaning that he knows the original words really had.
If we believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the original Scriptures in the original language, then we also ought to be able to believe that God saw fit to inspire the original writers to select words which can be translated almost equivalently into foreign languages and still carry the same sense.
To use your example of "he that pisseth against the wall" - if you relegate it to the margin, and instead place 'the sense' in the text - what would your text be? Would it be the word 'male'? That would fail to convey some of the sense.
We don't know that David had a practice of using the expression synonymously with the word 'male'. I don't even know if anyone else among David's contemporaries ever used the same expression as being merely synonymous with the word 'males' - do you? What extra-Biblical manuscript-evidence do you have which proves that the expression was synonymous with the sense of the simple word 'male'?
The expression which David chose to use on this unique occassion evokes the sense of far more emotion and disdain than the mere word 'males'.
As far as I know, David used the expression in this one instance only; and no-one else ever used the term at all.
And we believe the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of the Book of Samuel to include this expression when the writer could just as easily have used the word 'males' if that was all the sense that God elected to convey to us.
See how much is lost from God's inspired Word by pretending to know what the intended 'sense' was? It's not your right as a translator to assume that role, where the constraints of language-translation make it possible.
Thanks for your valuable input, Dr Byron. I appreciate it! And thank you David for tolerating this discussion in your thread! Good night to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment