The Word Of God In English ...

I agree. And it is good for public reading also. Alas,Leland Ryken disagrees.

268: "Recent translations are quick to claim that they are ideally suited for public reading,but most of the claims are demonstrably false."

Of course he has not demonstrated his thesis either. He ended chapter 16 with that quote. Let's be specific. He's generally targeting the supposed weaknesses of the NIV and NLT 96. But it's just an idle claim. He thinks the ESV,above all english translations has a literary quality that most versions just can't aspire to. But a preacher would get tongue-tied trying to read a number of passages with its convoluted constructions.

 

53 :"Claiming to be eclectic,the NIV is in fact on the dynamic equivalence side of the continuum."

There is no reference to being eclectic in the preface of the NIV. Nor can I remember any mention of that word in its literature.

In addition, plenty of knowledgeable New Testament scholars have not called the NIV a dynamic equivalent translation -- but a mediating one.

 

48 : Speaking of Tyndale's version:"...a somewhat distorted view of his translation as being essentially colloquial."

Hmm, WT's style was more natural than is the KJV. It was put into the vernacular of the day. It's more direct and less wordy and less elegant.

58 :"If one reads Tyndale in an edition with modernized spelling,the prevailing impression is one of dignity and relative formality...while reading Tyndale's translation in an edition with the original spelling makes Tyndale's style seem rather difficult and scrappy...Yet there is a side of Tyndale that likes to indulge in the colloquial and daring."

I have mixed feelings about LR's view here. Certainly Tyndale's translational style is not at the street level. But it is not as formalized as Ryken thinks.

I agree with him about reading WT in the original spelling though.

 

270 :"People who prefer a colloquial Bible in the contemporary idiom might complain that the King James Bible is more exalted than the original...modern colloquial translations,because of their a priori preference for colloquialism,have given us a Bible that is less exalted than the original."

The second Wycliffe Bible,Luther's Bible and Tyndale's translation all were colloquial for the most part. To have a translation in contemporary speech is necessary. I do not think that the NIV,HCSB,ISV,NET Bible and NLTse are suffering from using less exalted language than the originals.

Now when discussion moves to the TEV,CEV,NCV and The Message than I would certainly agree with Ryken.

 

142 :'The function of translation is to present the original text as faithfully as possible in the receptor language. Its goal is to be transparent to the original text."

And isn't that what the NIV,for instance,does? LR apparently believes that only the ESV and possibly the NASB and NKJ accomplish this.

 

I take that back. Inthe book The Story Of The New International Version It says on page 13:"As for the NIV,its method is an eclectic one with the emphasis for the most part on a flexible use of concordance and equivalence,but with a minimum of literalism,paraphrase,or outright dynamic equivalence."

So Ryken is right here. The NIV does indeed claim to be eclectic in that respect. But he didn't elaborate.

 

291,292 :Readers should not be left to guess what the original says and what has been added or changed by translators...Essentially literal translations are not wildly divergent,but dynamic equivalent translations are."

Again, LR is aiming primarily at the NIV/TNIV with his remarks. The NIV/TNIV is not wildly divergent as he says. But LR's claims are indeed wild. Despite the clumsy wording found in the ESV it is not so different in actual translational practice (despite what the ESV hype-machine disseminates). All translators have to adjust the wording from the original into the target audience. It's not a matter of adding or subtracting. If the ESV was put in a head-to-head evaluation the two would not be far apart. These remarks by Mr. Ryken are so off-base.

 

Ryken claims that on "rare occasions [would]a completely literal translation make no sense." (p.219)

A "completely literal" translation would be unintelligible and not much of a translation,but more of an interlinear.

 

I was ready to say :"Welcome to the BB." But then I found out you joined a few months before I did.

Your second sentence is worthy of a lot of discussion. Ryken touches on the subject -- I disagree with him.--SHOCKER.

 

From page 147:It is true that dynamic equivalent translators are very interested in authorial intention. Their translations claim to give us the meaning that the biblical authors intended to convey...What biblical authors primarily intended to say is what they did say,that is, their words. To jump over their words to an inferred meaning during the process of translation is to exchange certainity for inferfence.As readers of the English Bible,we need an actual text,not an inferred or hypothetical text. In a Bible translation we need reality,not something that approximates "virtual reality."​

This time I will make no comment. Feel free to comment. I'll make my remarks at a later time.​

 

Hi Ed B. Not a hijack. I'm glad the Word of God is speaking to you through the ESV or any other translation.

 

I think JonC may be interested in this thread.

 

Going down Memory Lane here.

This is what the recently deceased Rod Decker said of Mr. Ryken's book :

"Leland Ryken's "The Word of God in English --perhaps the single most counterproductive publication to come from Crossway after the publication of the ESV." (What does a Translator Have to Offer the Reader? p.11)