For some Bible scholars, the more traditional translations are good mostly for complaining about. They can't stand such translations as the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, or the New King James Version. These Bibles use "formal equivalence" instead of the "dynamic equivalence" found in many of the more modern translations. Formal equivalence means that the translators usually translated word-for-word. Dynamic equivalence means they usually translated thought-for-thought. Both kinds of translations are useful. Here are some of the advantages of a more traditional translation.
1. It's time-tested. The dangers are known. Even the dangers of particular wordings are generally known; scholars know how a particular wording may or may not be misinterpreted.
2. It reminds us that truth is unchanging. When we read a traditional translation, we may hear echoes of the earlier translations and even echoes of the wording patterns of the Greek and the Hebrew. These can remind us that we're reading the same truth that has guided God's people for many centuries.
3. It links us to older saints and to dead ones. One of the serious errors of today's American church is discarding all respect for the elderly, all reverence for those who have gone before. In many churches, it seems that there's something for everyone, except for those who are old.
4. It reminds us that what we're reading is holy. Yes, there's an advantage to having language that sounds just like a newspaper, but wordings that are just slightly odd can remind us that we're reading something special.
5. It preserves much beauty. The King James Bible is full of wonderful wording; much of it borrowed from Tyndale. "He leadeth me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake" is somehow more beautiful than the CEV's "You are true to your name, and you lead me along the right paths." (Psalm 23:3)
6. It is a gateway to many wonderful Christian resources developed over the past 300 years.
7. It is a gateway to the great literature and music that are based on the old King James Version.
8. It may be easier to memorize.
9. It avoids simplifications that change the meaning. In the verse quoted above, the CEV changed the sentence from third-person to second-person. That version's translators did this to all of the first verses of the psalm, presumably for consistency. In doing so, they destroyed the emotional jolt that the inconsistency of the original would produce.
I'm not saying that dynamic equivalence has no place in Bible translation. It does. Yet there's also a great place for the traditional. Thank God that we don't have to throw out either one.
6 comments:
Jim,
It often strikes me that the complaints AGAINST dynamic equivalence are more and louder than those for it.
Interestingly enough I posted on this topic last Christmas. that post anticipates some of your comments.
I (who am over 60 myself) appreciate that there isn't always the respect for old things that there ought to be, either in the world or in the church. But that doesn't mean that all that is old, even time-tested, is right. After all, when Jesus confronted the Pharisees they were protecting traditions and time-tested understandings of Scripture that were centuries, even millenia old at the time.
You also suggest that we need to be reminded that the Bible is holy. I don't think God needs us to ensure that the Bible sounds holy. It practically glows with holiness even in the work-a-day language of the TEV.
I hear the position you are arguing for as having two significant components: 1) Christian identity and 2) Christian nostalgia. I believe both of these components sap the power of God's Word.
In case you don't want to read my longish post from last year, here are the key points.
If the wording of our translations is tied up with an affirmation of our Christian identity, shouldn’t we want to hear those old translations?
Not for our Bible study. And I’ll give you three good reasons why not.
1. We misunderstand what it says.
There a many, many places in Scripture where we do not hear what the author meant. Occasionally it’s just wrong, like the mistake of thinking that οἰ ιουδαῖοι means ‘the Jews’ instead of ‘the Jewish authorities’. But mostly it just gives us the wrong idea.
misleading: And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God (KJV)
accurate: “You have been given the secret of the Kingdom of God,” Jesus answered. (TEV)
Mysteries are hard to understand, but secrets are just, well, secret. Tell me and then I’ll know, too.
2. It makes us think that Scripture is about the mind and not the heart.
If we have to study diligently just to figure out what the words mean and listen to lengthly sermons given by preachers with years of seminary training to understand what that passage means, we get the idea that you have to be smart to really understand the Bible. No, to understand what God is saying to you, you only have to be human — and have a good translation. (Didn’t we deal with this issue in the Reformation?) The Bible is not hard to understand; it’s hard to accept once you realize what it really means — even for Christians.
3. It makes the Scripture be more about us and less about God.
This is a real sticking point to me. If the Bible just affirms me, I’m missing the point. God is constantly stretching us, making us grow. Yes, he comforts us, too, but coming close to the living God is most dangerous. If you never experience some of that danger when you read the Scripture, you don’t have a translation that is accurate. If the words aren’t intimate, how can I experience the intimacy God wants to have with me?
Thanks, Richard, for your comment. Too often, Christians just shout past each other, on this issue, as on others.
You make excellent points. Please note that I was not arguing that the KJV is the best translation for modern speakers of English. I rarely use the KJV, but read through it once years ago. However, the other translations in the Tyndale-KJV tradition (think NASB, ESV, NKJV) maintain most of the value of that tradition while reducing many of the difficulties.
For me, the strongest advantages of the more traditional translations are that the dangers are generally known (or at least fairly easy to discover), and that these translations avoid re-working the text in ways that are colloquial but that hide part of the original meaning.
Having said all of that, I often use the HCSB. I recently bought an audio/video copy of the NLT for a friend who's a new believer recovering from head trauma. I think most believers can benefit from using both kinds of translations.
The best translation for any particular person on any particular day is the one that best enables him or her to hear what the Lord is saying.
PS - Your original post's comments on kitch remind me of one of the worst pieces of kitch I ever saw advertised: A cream pitcher that was a sitting cow; the cream would pour out of her mouth. On her chest was a plaque saying, "Bless this house." Too bad I can't get you one of those. :-)
I preach and teach from the NASB95, but recently I've been looking into the HCSB.
The HCSB is incredibly readable and faithful to the original; I didn't believe it was possible to strike such a balance, but the HCSB proved me wrong.
Thanks for your comment.
The HCSB is a very, very good translation. I have a severe quibble with the translation of one particular verse and am less than impressed with the font of most editions, but it's an excellent translation.
Still, I find that I enjoy doing part of my Bible reading/study out of something more traditional.
My purpose in writing the post wasn't to trash the dynamic-equivalence translations; merely to say that there are some advantages to the formal-equivalence translations.
I agree with many of your points. I posted a little about this subject not long ago. I am concerned about many of the problems that dynamic equivalence translations and paraphrases present (although I do agree, based on the opinion of scholars I have come to trust, that there are many places in translations such as the NIV in which the scholars made better translational choices for particular words). I think a healthy view is that we should be aware of such problems and try to be as true to the original languages as we possibly can. I always think of the words of Christ: "...man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." I think we should study with a formal equivalence and supplement it with a dynamic equivalence on occasion. However there are some "translations" and paraphrases I think we should avoid altogether. What is your opinion of The Message?
Thanks, Jason, for your comment and for your own post on the topic. As for The Message, I can't get much value out of it. I don't think it's a Bible. For me, reading it is such hard work, trying to figure out whether it's saying anything similar to what the Lord said, that it's not worth the effort.
I'm probably much older than you. Years ago, when the original Living Bible was very popular, I lived in fear of the day when the Jehovah's Witnesses or some other group with wrong theology would put out their own paraphrased translation. The Lord has protected us from that happening to any large degree.
The New Living Translation is a real Bible, much more accurate than the original Living Bible. Still, I wouldn't recommend it to most people as their main Bible.
How far is too far in dynamic equivalence/paraphrase? In my opinion, the CEV, the Living Bible and The Message have gone too far. There are plenty of better translations.
Post a Comment