Categorizing Translations

‎"I don't want what some translator thinks the Word means, because I am a bit of an idiot and I don't understand it; I want the Word of my God, delivered to me and held in my hands.." -Rev. Malcom Watts, Trinitarian Bible Society

Whether you agree with Mr. Watts' stand on the texts or not, this statement of his is good. That's what I want too. I don't want what some translator thinks the Word of God means, and has to translate it so because I might be some sort of idiot unable to work hard and deal with the text.

Even if the wording is odd, I want the words of my God, delivered to me and held in my hands.

So when it comes to categorizing translations attention should not be just given to the method or philosophy of translation. It should also be given to the texts from which the translation is made.

And translators need to be honest about that. Did they translate from the Scrivener/Traditional Text? Did they from the Nestle/Aland? Did they use both? And then what was their purpose in the translation? To render a word-for-word translation or words-for-intent/thought translation?

Let the reader know which, and let them choose.

 

That's rather naive. All translators are interpretive. If they don't translate the meaning then we're left with something less than translation.

I don't know why you consider this to be problematic. Just read the Preface of a given translation and it will state the information you're asking about. It's not a secret.

 

You weren't even thinking is correct. Then why the laughter on your part in your very next post?. You originally had your "free"category right after KJV/NKJ. I had simply asked why something was called free in that spot. Now you say "free" would be after the conservative DE category. A simple "I'm sorry for the confusion." on your part would have sufficed.

I still don't understand why the Amplified version would be free in your estimation. And you haven't even addressed the very appropriate question:"Is The Message free in your view?"

 

Don't have the Message, haven't read it, don't care. It ain't Japanese, dude. Oh, and no, I didn't say that I thought the Amplified was free. If you're going to be my "teacher" (which is how you act) get the student right.

 

Okay, then you can't speak intelligently about it then.

From your post numbered 13:"I will say though that I've found many of the alternative renderings in the Amplified to be free renderings."

This is another occasion for you to say that you were confused. Take it down a notch.

 

Well, since I don't talk about it--your point is??

Let me see: "The Amplified is a free translation" and, "I've found many of the alternative renderings in the Amplified to be free renderings." Nope, not the same. I'm laughing again--this time at your lack of understanding of plain English. :tongue3:

 

I was just finalizing your claim.

I asked what English translation would qualify under your definition of the "Free" designation. You said that you don't pay much attention to English translations (although this forum discusses English translations). You offered the Amplified version as a sample of one which employs many free renderings. Then, you take that away in the next breath by saying it's not a free translation. You work under some unique parameters.

Your view of what constitutes Free differs substantially from the majority of English Bible scholars -- like it or not.

 

In The Amplified Bible, I think of the matter printed in parenthesis and brackets as cut-and-paste portions from some of the best conservative scholarship published prior to The Amplified Bible release dates of 1958 through 1965.

. . .

Here are a few facts from the Preface of the 1987 edition of The Amplified Bible published by Zondervan.

In 1958 Lockman Foundation and Zondervan Publishing House issued the first edition of the The Amplified New Testament after 20,000 hours of research and prayerful study. The Amplified Old Testament, Part Two--Job to Malachi was issued in 1962. The Amplified Bible, Part One--was issued in 1964. The single volume Amplified Bible came out in 1965. A second edition was published in 1987.

The bulk of the translation work for The Amplified Bible was laid out by Frances Siewert (Litt. B., B.D., M.A., Litt. D) (1881-1967), a woman with an intense dedication to the study of the Bible. The text itself appears to be a compilation of the American Standard Version, along with 20 other Bible versions, numerous Greek testaments, word studies, lexical aids, commentaries, devotional works, historical and archaeological works, references, resources, and suggestions from several persons. A 4-page bibliography is found in the back of the 1987 edition, which is an impressive collection of conservative Biblical scholarship published prior to the release dates. Mrs. Siewert's contribution was possible due to the financial support and guidance of The Editorial Board of the Lockman Foundation.
​

A web page on the history of The Amplified Bible can be found at The Lockman Foundation. An interesting blog page is The Amplified Woman. If you go to the blog, be sure to take in the illustrative comments that come after the blog article.

. . .

This brings up the question--Do you categorize translator profiles, such as committee, individual, gender, race, education, and denominational affiliation?


...Bob :0)
Kentucky

 

Really..naive. Rip, your smarter than that. Ok, since all translation are interpretive as you say, then no one has the Word of God in their language? Unless we learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, we can't know the Word of God, only the interpretive words of men?

 

The prefece to the NKJV can be read online here http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=186191&sp=57319

They say the follow the full text of the Traditional Text for the NT, as the AV does, and note the textual variants.

 

And how would you handle the idea that at times they departed from the "traditional text"?

Rob

 

Tom...

Please don't give up on this topic. I have been thinking about categorizing translations, but I am getting hung up on what criteria to use. There is the formal to dynamic continuum approach, which I find very helpful, although I keep sliding the translations around a bit on the continuum bookshelf in my study.

There is also the criteria of intended use of the translation, such as serious study-devotion-evangelism.

And there is also the criteria I hinted at in my last post--some kind of profile of the translators themselves.

So, we can do this thing. I think we need to define the scope and criteria to be used to develop the categories. As the OP, you probably should draft up the scope and criteria to be used, as well as give us a few definitions.

In the past, I have done some work with opinion surveys. I know, Bible translation is not the same as measuring public opinion. :smilewinkgrin: But here are a few things I learned.

(1) Keep the options (i.e., categories) simple, avoid technical vocabulary.

(2) Use an even number of options (such as 2, 4, or 6) rather than an odd number of options (3, 5, or 7).

(3) Using 4 options seems to work best.​

. . .

I am not offering this as any kind of model, but yesterday I ran across an interesting website: Bible Version Comparison Tool. This tool scores English translations in five criteria (1=low to 10=high). Each translation slides up or down a continuum, depending upon which criteria is selected.

Most Literal
Dynamic or Functional
Personal Study
Easy Reading
Public Reading​

. . .

We can do this thing. Let's all agree to stay on topic. :1_grouphug:

...Bob :0)
Kentucky

 

Thanks Bob,I like the site. It's informative.

 

NIV Not A Dynamic-Equivalent Translation

In the book The Challenge Of Bible Translation Kenneth L.Barker has a good chapter called: "Bible translation Philosophies With Special Reference To The New International Version."

Strictly speaking then, the NIV is not a dynamic-equivalence translation. If it were, it would read "snakes will no longer be dangerous"(GNB) instead of "dust will be the serpent's food"(Isaiah 65:25). Or it would read in 1 Samuel 20:30 "You ba_ _ ard!"(GNB) instead of "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman!" Similar illustrations could be multiplied to demonstrate that the NIV is an idiomatically balanced translation. (p.59)

 

A distinction must be made between dynamic equivalence as a translation principle and dynamic equivalence as a translation philosophy. The latter exists only when a version sets out to produce a dynamic-equivalence rendering from start to finish,as the GNB did.

[Barker quotes from Dr.Marten Woudstra]

* A literal rendering of the opening part of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 40:2 would read,"Speak to the heart of Jerusalem." Yet all English versions (including the KJV) see the need for a dynamic-eqialence translation here (e.g.,the NIV has "Speak tenderely to Jerusalem").

* In Jeremiah 2:2 the KJV and the NASB read "in the ears of Jerusalem," but the NKJ and the NIV have "in the hearing of Jerusalem." Here the NKJ is just as "dynamic" as the NIV. That it did not have to be is clear from the NASB. Yet the translators wanted to communicate the meaning in a natural way to modern readers,which is precisely what the NIV also wanted to do.

* In Haggai 2:16 the NASB has "grain heap," but the KJV,NKJ, and NIV all use "heap" alone (which is all the Hebrew has). Here the formal-equivalent version, the NASB, is freer than the NIV.

* The KJV and the NKJ read "no power at all" in John 19:11, whereas the NIV has only "no power" (in accord with the Greek). Which version is following the formal-equivalence approach here, and which ones are following the dynamic approach?