Mr. Brooks asked great questions and I appreciated his interviewing skills greatly.
Showing posts with label Bible translations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible translations. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Interview on Which Bible Translation Should I Use?
Mr. Brooks asked great questions and I appreciated his interviewing skills greatly.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The Gospel Coalition
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Analogy for Bible Translations: Golf
I'm not an avid follower of golf, but it appears to me that there is a parallel between Bible translation philosophy and golf. Let me illustrate ...
A few years ago, long before the scandal, the two main rivals in golf were considered to be Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. Tiger and Phil would battle it out and a golf tournament, and Tiger would typically win. There were "Tiger" fans and "Phil" fans. I was listening to a golf commentator on my car radio one day explaining that many golf fans were tired of Phil "laying up" and not "going for it." See, when faced with a difficult shot, Tiger would way the options and possibilities and, many times, go for it. He might try to clear the lake to make the green at a difficult angle, rather than just try to get close to the green and then chip on. Phil's pattern was to avoid chances and lay up. Since Tiger was usually successful when he went for the green, he would win.
Bible translations have a tendency to either "go for it" or "lay up." Essentially literal translations tend to stay ambiguous and not "go for the green" like others. So the Young's Literal Translation hardly ever "goes for it". The New American Standard Bible and the King James Version also have a strong tendency to "lay up." The benefit is that they are less likely to explicitly mislead their readers ... they won't end up in the "translational sand traps" as often. Translations that are essentially functional equivalent in philosophy typically "go for it." They attempt to import much more interpretation into the text than more formal translations. The New Living Translation seems to relish the opportunity to go for the green on most shots.
Translations that are in the middle, the NET Bible and NIV for example, try to weigh how likely their interpretations are before making them explicit in a translation. Listening to Moo at the LU Symposium, for example, he said that every commentary he owned on Colossians agreed with the NIV's rendering. The NIV committee was so confident in their interpretation that they saw no reason to "lay up" when all major scholars agree. The problem comes when the NIV, NLT, etc., tries for the green but lands in the sand trap. Teachers can get weary of disagreeing with the translation they teach from. So having a translation that leaves the interpretive options more open can be easier to teach from because you don't have to "correct" them.
I like watching a golfer who goes for the green. When he hits it right, it's a thing of beauty. I love reading translations that "go for the green," even if it means that at times they land in the "translational sand trap." However, when I teach, I prefer using a translation that I don't have to disagree with so often. I prefer teaching from something that might tend to "lay up" as it actually makes my job easier rather than more difficult. I might have to explain more things, but that's easier than trying to explain to a group of students why the translation I'm using is "wrong".
So, what kind of translation do you like to teach from? Tiger or Phil?
Example of someone "going for it".
A few years ago, long before the scandal, the two main rivals in golf were considered to be Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. Tiger and Phil would battle it out and a golf tournament, and Tiger would typically win. There were "Tiger" fans and "Phil" fans. I was listening to a golf commentator on my car radio one day explaining that many golf fans were tired of Phil "laying up" and not "going for it." See, when faced with a difficult shot, Tiger would way the options and possibilities and, many times, go for it. He might try to clear the lake to make the green at a difficult angle, rather than just try to get close to the green and then chip on. Phil's pattern was to avoid chances and lay up. Since Tiger was usually successful when he went for the green, he would win.
Bible translations have a tendency to either "go for it" or "lay up." Essentially literal translations tend to stay ambiguous and not "go for the green" like others. So the Young's Literal Translation hardly ever "goes for it". The New American Standard Bible and the King James Version also have a strong tendency to "lay up." The benefit is that they are less likely to explicitly mislead their readers ... they won't end up in the "translational sand traps" as often. Translations that are essentially functional equivalent in philosophy typically "go for it." They attempt to import much more interpretation into the text than more formal translations. The New Living Translation seems to relish the opportunity to go for the green on most shots.
Translations that are in the middle, the NET Bible and NIV for example, try to weigh how likely their interpretations are before making them explicit in a translation. Listening to Moo at the LU Symposium, for example, he said that every commentary he owned on Colossians agreed with the NIV's rendering. The NIV committee was so confident in their interpretation that they saw no reason to "lay up" when all major scholars agree. The problem comes when the NIV, NLT, etc., tries for the green but lands in the sand trap. Teachers can get weary of disagreeing with the translation they teach from. So having a translation that leaves the interpretive options more open can be easier to teach from because you don't have to "correct" them.
I like watching a golfer who goes for the green. When he hits it right, it's a thing of beauty. I love reading translations that "go for the green," even if it means that at times they land in the "translational sand trap." However, when I teach, I prefer using a translation that I don't have to disagree with so often. I prefer teaching from something that might tend to "lay up" as it actually makes my job easier rather than more difficult. I might have to explain more things, but that's easier than trying to explain to a group of students why the translation I'm using is "wrong".
So, what kind of translation do you like to teach from? Tiger or Phil?
Example of someone "going for it".
Monday, November 07, 2011
NEW Conclusion to Bible Translation Study
UPDATE: 4/18/12
Another error has been found ... arghhh. See google doc for correct totals. Here's the skinny:
The HCSB has the most points with 30. The NIV has the second most points with 27. The ESV (21) and NET (20) were close at 3rd and 4th. The NIV84 (12) was 5th place. Finally, the NASB did miserable in part 2, with a -3 score, lowering its total to 9: last place.
Looking at the negative points should help distinguish between the HCSB, ESV & NIV and the NIV84 and NET. The ESV had the least amount of negative scores with 3. The HCSB was close behind with 4. The NIV had twice as many as the ESV with 6.
Here is the entire 34 part series in a google doc.
Another error has been found ... arghhh. See google doc for correct totals. Here's the skinny:
The HCSB has the most points with 30. The NIV has the second most points with 27. The ESV (21) and NET (20) were close at 3rd and 4th. The NIV84 (12) was 5th place. Finally, the NASB did miserable in part 2, with a -3 score, lowering its total to 9: last place.
Looking at the negative points should help distinguish between the HCSB, ESV & NIV and the NIV84 and NET. The ESV had the least amount of negative scores with 3. The HCSB was close behind with 4. The NIV had twice as many as the ESV with 6.
Here is the entire 34 part series in a google doc.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Analyzing Six Bible Translations: Part 34-Conclusion
Concluding Thoughts
Points for translations:
| | ESV | NIV84 | NIV | HCSB | NASB | NET |
| Part 1 TOTALS | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Part 2 TOTALS | 11 | 6 | 13 | 17 | -3 | 9 |
| TOTALS | 24 | 18 | 24 | 27 | 7 | 17 |
The HCSB has the most points, with 27, and the ESV and NIV (fairly ironically) are tied with 24 points. The NIV84 (18) and NET (17) were close together in 4th and 5th place. Finally, the NASB did miserable in part 2, with a -3 score, lowering its total to 7: last place.
Looking at the negative points should help distinguish between the ESV & NIV and the NIV84 and NET.
Negative points:
| | ESV | NIV84 | NIV | HCSB | NASB | NET |
| Part 1 TOTALS | 0 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Part 2 TOTALS | 3 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 11 | 7 |
| TOTALS | 3 | 12 | 8 | 4 | 11 | 12 |
The ESV had the least amount of negative scores with 3. The HCSB was close behind with 4. The NIV had twice as many as the HCSB with 8.
Placing these translations along a spectrum of “essentially word-for-word” to “essentially thought-for-thought,” we get this:
The NASB is the most literal/formal/word-for-word translation and it got the lowest score.
The NET, NIV, and NIV84 were right in the middle, allowing for more interpretation to be involved in the translation process (therefore allowing for more opportunities for negative scores). The ESV and HCSB are between the mediating and word-for-word translations.
The NIV’s negative 8 score would make it hard for me to use it in teaching, since I appear to disagree with their translations too often. Therefore, the HCSB and ESV are the top two translations I’d recommend from this list.
Friday, November 04, 2011
Analyzing Six Bible Translations: Part 33-Observations on Part 2
Observations of Part 2
ESV | NIV84 | NIV | HCSB | NASB | NET | |
Josh 15:18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
2 Sam 20:20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
Isa 6:5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
Isa 7:14 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
Ezek 21:7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
Mal 2:16 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 0 |
Telling Time | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Negative Particles | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Textual Variants | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 |
Matt 6:13 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
“the Jews” in FG | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 |
“signs” in FG | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
Gender issues | 0 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
Matt 13:32 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
John 1:5 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
John 3:3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
John 3:16a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
John 3:16b | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
John 3:16c | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 |
Romans 3:22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
Romans 16:7 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
2 Cor 11:25 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Gal 3:28 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
1 Tim 2:12 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
TOTALS | 11 | 6 | 13 | 17 | -3 | 9 |
The HCSB scored the highest again, with the NIV and ESV following. The NET and NIV84 are 4th and 5th respectively, and the NASB came in last with a -3 score.
As said previously, “point totals” aren’t everything. Looking at just the “negative” scores, we get this:
HCSB=2
ESV=3
NIV=4
NET=7
NIV84=7
NASB=11
Tomorrow will be part 34, the last post in this series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)