Featured Translate This

I have quoted from this book before : How To Choose A Bible Version by Robert L. Thomas. I met him once and had a brief talk with him while at Grace Community Church.

In one section of the book he reviews a number of English Bible translations. Regarding Today's English Version he states : "It was the showpiece for a philosophy of translation called 'dynamic equivalence,' developed by Eugene Nida, the organization's leading translation scholar. A statement of this philosophy in Nida's 1964 work, Toward a Science of Translation, indicates it is an attempt to provide a theoretical basis for what had already been done in many English translations for over fifty years." (p.42)

Someone on the BB has always taken issue with that premise, that dynamic equivalent translations have been around a long time before Nida came on the scene. Nida codified it, however, and a number of these kind of translations were in common use though they were not identified as dynamic equivalent of course.

 

I will be citing a number of things from Thomas' book.

On page 86 he says there is a "growing constituency in support of the Alexandrian supported translations. When all is said and done, the stronger evidence in all probability supports this category of readings as being closer to the very words that were written by the original authors of the New Testament books. As our study has shown, this is the choice that has been made in most contemporary-English translations in recent years."

 

From the Thomas book :

"What is possible, however, is to recognize works of a generally conservative outlook, since most serious Bible students view theological issues from a conservative perspective. Versions in contemporary English that fit this category include the NASB, the NASBU, the ESV, the MLB, the NIV, the TNIV, the NLT, the NET, the NCV and the HCSB.....Other modern translations need to be used with care, if one wants to stay clear of liberal theological bias." (p.121)

 

From the Dr. Thomas book :

"The New Revised Standard Version has received praise for its particularity in expressing thoughts in American English. It will appeal to American readers more readily, but that does not mean it will have no appeal to those in other English-speaking countries." (p.129)

 

You know the drill :

"Phillips Modern English is a good example of the regular functional type. It's kind of communication represents that utilized in business correspondence. The level of formality is somewhat higher here than the casual category." P.131)

"Since the formal style is characteristic of articles written for learned journals, no translation would use this kind of English. Some do incline in that direction, however. The New International Version is one of these. Its tendency toward brevity gives evidence of this type of editorial attention in its production. Brevity of expression is one characteristic of formal writing.

"Formality is not necessarily a drawback, however. Church congregations usually prefer some degree of this. It lends a dignity that most Christians view as quite appropriate for the Scriptures. The longer people are Christians, the greater their respect for the Bible. This outlook generally excludes preferences for translations that lack formality." (p132)

 

Continuing with Dr. Thomas :

"The practice of using italics or brackets for the purpose of singling out words that are only partially implied is declining. Most translators judge that an implication of the original is sufficient to justify the presence of such words and to express them in the corresponding English rendering without special indicators." (p.138)

 

And my last planned installment from Dr. Robert Thomas : How To Choose A Bible Version.

Here is a snip regarding the ESV:

"The version calls itself an essentially literal translation and therefore rates high as a basis for Bible study in the category of philosophy of translation. Yet it does not rate as high in this area as its 'cousins,' the NASB and the NASBU, because it leans toward a dynamic equivalence philosophy in some passages." (p.149)

 

You have gotten the basic idea that in most cases there cannot be a one-to-one correspondence between the original and the receptor language right? So in your favorite translation which is the NASB-95 (unless the LEB is your current fav) there are about 300,000 'extra' words. I say 'extra' being facetious. The 300,000 more words in the NASBU aren't needless baggage. They are present to make the translation intelligible in English.

 

No matter what kind of translation, to translate the whole canon of Scripture from the original languages to English will require many more words. There is no way around it. It's not a matter of "can result." It will certainly result.

 

What a hoot. I just recovered from a laughing attack when I read your post. You are out on a broken limb MM.

 

You and MM are as right on this as elephant dung.

 

What MM said in post #34 is way beyond the pale, and then you instantly, without a thought agreed with him. May you both be clothed with shame and disgrace.