Skip to main content

Pithy Perfection

New English translations of the Bible are very popular these days. People often ask me which one is best, or which I prefer. The answer is complicated:

  1. I'm not keen on archaic words in translation, which means I don't use KJV much, or even NIV, which follows it to a certain extent
  2. Sometimes it's good to expand the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek to make it clearer, especially when there is an assumption made because the original audience would have known something that we don't. It should be implicit information though
  3. Genre is often ignored by translations. The Bible is rich and varied. We don't want Proverbs to be like a story or sermon. They're supposed to be short and pithy to have greater impact. Hebrew often skips verbs to achieve that. We may not be able to go that far, but translations should keep proverbs as short as possible. Likewise poetry should have rhythm, alliteration and other poetic features, albeit using the richness of the English language rather than Hebrew. Psalms should be singable, or at least sound beautiful when read out loud
  4. Dynamic (meaning-based) translations don't necessarily have to be low style (colloquial). It depends on the audience, and desired use of the the translation. The REB is an example of a dynamic translation that has good literary style but also sounds good when read out loud
  5. We may not agree with the theological and/or political ('hot' topics) presuppositions of the translators. Key terms like 'atonement' are important and, if poorly chosen, without input from key stakeholders, may cause a translation to be rejected, as the TNIV was when it first came out. People weren't ready for it
All in all we need different translations for different purposes. In English we have the luxury of choosing e.g. ESV for Bible study and NLT for reading narrative, but morphing to NJB for Psalms. How lucky we are! Many people don't have access to even one good translation.

 Key
ESV: English Standard Version
KJV: King James Version
NIV: New International Version
NJB: New Jerusalem Bible
NLT: New Living Translation
REB: Revised English Bible
TNIV: Today's NIV
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Asset Based Bible Translation (ABBT)

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...
Post a Comment
Read more