the horns of ames

Bible Translations

Ok, so as many of you know, I am doing a study on Bible translations in my "free time" and have been doing so for several months. I've always had a strong bias against the NIV and for the KJV, but I realized that I really didn't know why, so I set to find out. My original thought was that I could Google it and figure it out in an hour or two. What I didn't realize was the extent to which this can of worms reaches. It's open, and I can't stop, so I'm going to pursue it and see where it leads me. So far, my bias against the NIV is still strong due to it's translational theory of dynamic equivalence, but I am now also equally convinced that the KJV is not the most accurate translation to use either. I'll start to lay out the basics here, and then add more posts as I learn more.

I decided that for me personally, I needed a bible that most accurately reflected the original text. I needed an essentially literal translation. I realize this means it will probably be harder to read, but I really don't like the idea of a translator changing what the text said so that I would understand it better. If I need help, I can always make use of commentaries. This is the debate of "essentially literal" versus "dynamic equivalent." Let me define some key phrases here, because these phrases will continue to pop up through my posts (these are from the book, "The Word of God in English" by Leland Ryken:

Receptor Language - The language into which a text written in a foreign language is translated (in this case, English).

Native Language - The original language in which a text is written.

Dynamic Equivalent - A meaning in the receptor language that corresponds to (is "equivalent" to) a meaning in a native-language text (for example, the "heart" as the modern way of denoting the essence of a person, especially the emotions, which for the ancients was situated in the kidneys.)

Dynamic Equivalence - A theory of translation based on the premise that whenever something in the native-language text is foreign or unclear to a contemporary reader, the original text should be translated in terms of a dynamic equivalent.

Functional Equivalent - Something in the receptor language that differs from what the original text says but that serves the same function in the receptor language (for example, "firstfruits" translated as "special offering.")

Functional Equivalence - A theory of translation that favors replacing a statement in the original text with a functional equivalent whenever the original phraseology or reference is obscure for a modern reader in the receptor language.

Equivalent Effect - A translation that aims to produce the same effect on readers of the translation as the original text produced on its native-language readers.

Formal Equivalence - A theory of translation that favors reproducing the form or language of the original text, and not just its meaning. In its stricter form, this theory of translation espouses reproducing even the syntax and word order of the original; the formulas word for word translation and verbal equivalence often imply this stricter definition of the concept.

Essentially Literal Translation - A translation that strives to translate the exact words of the original-language text in a translation, but not in such a rigid way as to violate the normal rules of language and syntax in the receptor language.

Besides Googling this topic to death to learn more about the "reliability" of the Greek manuscripts used in translation, the two main sources I have been using thus far include a letter written by a woman named Sue Winters that is basically a KJV only argument. It's about 38 pages and I have it in PDF form, which I will link to later if I can remember to. Otherwise, I'd be happy to e-mail it to anyone. It has some good points, but overall appears to be a stubborn attempt to say that God used the evolution of the KJV as it was brought together in 1611 as His ultimate Word and nothing else will suffice.

My other source is the book I mentioned by Leland Ryken. His bias is towards the English Standard Version, which holds to the philosophies of the KJV, but is based on the Revised Standard Version, which is a revision of the KJV, but used more accurate manuscripts (Google Textus Receptus versus Septuagint for more information than you could ever want on this topic.) Ryken's book is available for download at: http://www.esv.org/assets/pdfs/woge.pdf

Ok, so that's the start. You have to decide which theory of translation you agree with before you can start looking at all of the translations that are available (and there are TONS, just check out www.biblegateway.com and click the drop down to pick a translation, you'll see what I mean.)

Next post I'll give a summary of some of the most common translations, or at least the ones that made a huge impact and that many of the other translations are revisions of. I hope someone else is enjoying this stuff, cuz I sure am!

In Him,
Aaron

posted by Aaron @ www.HornIT.net @ 12:05 AM