Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Date: 1 July 1997

G'day all.

(John Chambers) writes:

>FAQ: The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible

The title alone seems kind of... uhm... arrogant, I think. "THE literal translation?" Unlike the Wycliffe/Tyndale/KJV/NKJV family of translations, the title alone suggests that this version is claiming some kind of inspiration... But I digress. On with the commentary.

The first point that I should make is that I have a definite bias here. I think that since we can't all read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, any English translation of the Bible is going to be imperfect. Any attempt to make a "literal" version of the Bible is impossible without replacing each nontrivial word of the originals with an encyclopaedia entry.

Incidentally, the best attempt to almost do this (the Amplified Bible) is noted on the site given below with comments such as:

For instance, the first Beatitude begins, "Blessed - happy, to be envied, and spiritually prosperous [that is, with life-joy and satisfaction in God's favor and salvation regardless of their outward circumstances]...."

Can all of this seriously be considered to be a translation of ONE Greek word?

Sorry, but the answer is "yes", since there is no direct English equivalent of many Greek words, *makarios* being one of them. This, unfortunately, is a drawback of _all_ "literal" translations. Much better to keep translations "formal" (ie "as literal as possible, as free as necessary" -- taken from the NRSV preface).

Given that, it makes sense to (1) don't rely on one translation, but rather use several so that translational biases can be reduced, and (2) pick the Bible for the occasion --- use a "dynamic" translation for devotional reading and pastoral use, an intermediate one for pew and group study use, and a highly formal one (or even better, several, and original language versions if you've got them and know enough of the languages to use them responsibly) for personal study. In addition, if you speak some language other than English, why not get a translation in that language too --- it might give you some hints which English simply cannot convey. (Noticing this one day, incidentally, is how I first became interested in serious Bible study.)

>Now you can know what God said, not just what men say he said.

That is a HUGE claim, which no other translation that I know of (apart from perhaps the NWT) makes. Also, it is misleading. A literal translation goes some way to giving you some idea what the autographs _say_, but go no way to helping you understand what they _mean_. A literal translation should not attempt to translate idioms which mean little to a modern reader, for example, or to work out what various culture-specific terms refer to.

>Take your Literal Translation to church, then when you hear the >preacher say, "In the original, it is" etc., you can >look down at you Bible and see it right there.

Actually, my "preacher" is more likely to say "The word here translated X is actually the Greek word Y which refers to..." So this translation would be pretty unhelpful for people in my situation.

>Put not your trust in princes, noblemen, or >so-called intelligentsia,

Instead, put it in the producers of this translation, right?

>but trust only and fully in the powerful, >life-giving words as they were given to the apostles and prophets >to write, as they were "borne along by the Holy Spirit".

>It is based upon the same original texts as the King James Version. >The New Testament was translated from the Received Text (Textus >Receptus), and the Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic >Text. For a good overview on the different original texts see >the Darkness to Light page (http://www.usaor.net/dtl/index.htm). > Look under the subject index, then the Bible Version Controversy >topic.

I had a look at this, and I think others should too. It's refreshing to see some material which presents the majority text (MT) viewpoint but isn't KJV-onlyist. For example, it does not attempt to place the KJV above other MT-family translations such as the NKJV. It also does not suggest a conspiracy on behalf of modern critical text supporters although it does make the usual claim of corruption by early heretics, and does suggest that the RSV/NRSV family has a translational bias towards liberalism (which it does, but the bias is not consistently applied --- their examples disregard situations where the "bias" goes the other way). It also does not attempt to support the differences in the textus receptus (TR) with respect to the MT.

The usual logical fallacies are present in the discussion of the MT, for example Psalm 12:6--7. (Clue: While the Bible is the word of God, does the phrase "word of God" necessarily refer to the Bible?) Also the pages do not describe the processes of textual criticism employed by Erasmus in producing the TR which bear a striking similarity to the processes involved in crearing modern critical text.

The author's bias is also quite clear. For example:

"The MT includes this word but the CT does not. But what is the reason for the CT omitting it?"

"The CT omits the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer."

The author believes the majority text is the standard by which other manuscripts/editions should be judged, and this is shown consistently throughout the work.

I should also point out that I don't believe the author has quite understood "formal equivalence". All translations must interpret or they are no better than orthographic transcriptions. "Blessed" (shown above) is an excellent example --- the English word does not capture the precise meaning of *makarioi*, so the translator must pick a word to interpret it.

I personally would steer clear of the LITV (and the "Modern KJV" produced by the same person) simply because it is apparently the product of only one person (I admit I don't know this for sure, because such information was neither on the site nor in the FAQ). If the translation has no review process, there is an increased risk of unchecked bias which would make the translation much less useful than it might otherwise appear.

BTW... there are approximately 500 different English translations of the Bible, but 2/3 of the world's languages currently have no translation. Which do you think is the greater need?

Well this was an extremely interesting exercise. Thanks, John, for posting the info, and God bless.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage

.....

From: (Michael Hore)

Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Date: 2 Jul 1997 13:12:18 +1000

(Andrew Bromage) writes:

-->

[snip]

The first point that I should make is that I have a definite bias here. I think that since we can't all read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, any English translation of the Bible is going to be imperfect. Any attempt to make a "literal" version of the Bible is impossible without replacing each nontrivial word of the originals with an encyclopaedia entry.

[snip]

<--

I know "I agree" postings aren't good netiquette, but Andrew's posting was so good I just can't keep quiet.

As a former (and maybe future) Bible translator, let me just say Andrew's comments were spot on. I would add that "literal translation" is almost a contradiction in terms. If a "translation" is literal, it's not going to communicate the meaning effectively, so is pretty questionable as a translation.

Anyone who can say (this is from the FAQ)

-->

No one can transmit a message without using words. Why not use the very words written by the original Author in the English as close as it can get to them?

<-- just shows he doesn't know much about translation principles.

Finally, I've just got to quote Andrew again:

<-- BTW... there are approximately 500 different English translations of the Bible, but 2/3 of the world's languages currently have no translation. Which do you think is the greater need?

<--

That's why I'm underwhelmed every time I hear about yet another new English translation. A neglected area of Christian service?

Cheers, Mike.

----------------------------------------------------------

Mike Hore