Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA

Expand Messages
  • James R. Adair
    ... Thanks for the plug, Bob. My two articles on the subject are not extremely recent: A Methodology for Using the Versions in the Textual Criticism of the
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 15, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

      > Our own Jimmy Adair has done some really good work on this subject.
      > I hope he is still working on it -- and can share his latest if
      > there is any "latest."

      Thanks for the plug, Bob. My two articles on the subject are not
      extremely recent:

      "A Methodology for Using the Versions in the Textual Criticism of the Old
      Testament," Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20 (1994): 111-142.

      "'Literal' and 'Free' Translations: A Proposal for a More Descriptive
      Terminology," Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 23 (1997): 143-171.

      I hope that my revised dissertation cum M.A. thesis will see the light of
      day this year, so that I'll have something a little more recent (although
      actually written before either article!) to offer.

      Although we all use terms like "literal" and "free" (or "paraphrastic")
      and have an intuitive idea of what they mean, it often happens that a
      translation is literal in some ways and free in others, so to describe it
      as one or the other can be both imprecise and misleading.

      For example, the Vulgate is often extremely conscious of following the
      word order of its Vorlage (literal), but it exhibits great variety in
      rendering conjunctions and connecting adverbs (free). The Targums are
      often quite consistent in rendering one Hebrew word with a single Aramaic
      word (literal), but they use all sorts of circumlocution to avoid certain
      anthropomorphic references to God (free).

      Similarly, modern translations may be literal in some ways and free in
      others. The NASB generally uses a single vocabulary item to render the
      same Hebrew or Greek word (at least in a given context), but should the
      Hebrew text of Psalms imply something other than strict monotheistic
      beliefs on the part of the authors, the translators of NASB resort to
      "scribal corrections"(!); for the literal rendering, see the Revised
      English Bible!

      Ps 82:1b

      [God] judges in the midst of the rulers (NASB).

      [God will] pronounce judgement among the gods (REB).

      Ps 8:5a

      Thou hast made him [humankind] a little lower than God [footnote: or "the
      angels"] (NASB).

      Yet you have made him little less than a god (REB).

      NASB is in good company here, following a scribal tradition that lies
      behind the MT of Deut 32:8: "Elyon ... set the boundaries of the peoples
      accoring to the number of the sons of Israel"--4QDeut-j [thanks to Dave
      Washburn for the reference] reads "... sons of Elohim" (also LXX-848 Arm).
      As I noted in an earlier post, the change was apparently effected to
      strengthen the monotheism of the verse.

      Jimmy

      ******************************************************
      James R. Adair, Jr.
      Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion
      ******************************************************
    • Ian H Thain
      On Mon 15 Feb, Bob Waltz wrote; ... In his Preface to the Reader to Obedience of a Christian Man (1528) William Tyndale wrote; They will say it [The
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 16, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon 15 Feb, Bob Waltz wrote;

        >it seems to me that the Latin versions are usually the most literal

        In his 'Preface to the Reader' to "Obedience of a Christian Man" (1528)
        William Tyndale wrote;

        "They will say it [The Bible] cannot be translated into our tongue, it is
        so rude.
        "It is not so rude as they are false liars. For the Greek tongue agreeth
        more
        "with the English than with the Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew
        tongue
        "agreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The
        manner
        "of speaking is both one, so that in a thousand places thou needest not but
        to
        "translate it in to the English word for word, when thou must seek a
        compass
        "in the Latin and yet shall have much work to translate it well-favouredly,
        so
        "that it have the same grace and sweetness, sense and pure understanding
        "with it in the Latin as it hath in the Hebrew. A thousand parts better may
        it
        "be translated into the English than into the Latin."

        Not a man short of loud-mouthed opinions himself, was Tyndale. :-)


        Ian H Thain
        Software Engineer
        Banbury
        Oxfordshire, UK.
      • Don Wilkins
        It is my privilege to do translation and research for the NASB, and I normally handle suggestions for changes to the text, so I d like to thank Jimmy for his
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 16, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          It is my privilege to do translation and research for the NASB, and I
          normally handle suggestions for changes to the text, so I'd like to thank
          Jimmy for his comments and offer a response. I should note at the outset
          that he addressed passages in the original NASB, and the Lockman Foundation
          published an updated edition in '95 which should be considered in
          discussions of the NASB.

          At 01:10 AM 2/16/99 -0500, James R. Adair wrote:
          [snip]
          >Similarly, modern translations may be literal in some ways and free in
          >others. The NASB generally uses a single vocabulary item to render the
          >same Hebrew or Greek word (at least in a given context), but should the
          >Hebrew text of Psalms imply something other than strict monotheistic
          >beliefs on the part of the authors, the translators of NASB resort to
          >"scribal corrections"(!); for the literal rendering, see the Revised
          >English Bible!

          That is a relatively fair, tongue-in-cheek appraisal, but it oversimplifies
          the process of translation for the public. In the first place, Jimmy opens a
          can of worms in mentioning the "strict monotheistic
          beliefs," because there are theolgico/historical issues from both the Jewish
          and Christian viewpoints which cannot be ignored for translation purposes.
          Unfortunately this list is not the place for such discussion (although I
          would be happy to participate if some latitude were desired and permitted).
          It will have to suffice to say for the moment that orthodox Jewish tradition
          (as seen both in Torah and Talmud, etc.) strongly favors a strict monotheism
          as does the Christian tradition. A dilemma for the translator occurs
          whenever s/he is forced to take a theological position (as perceived by the
          average reader) no matter what the choice of rendering, and that is not a
          simple matter, as I note below.

          >Ps 82:1b
          >
          >[God] judges in the midst of the rulers (NASB).
          >
          >[God will] pronounce judgement among the gods (REB).

          Note first that the '95 updated NASB has notes on the literal Hebrew both
          for "His" and "rulers". The REB version will inevitably be interpreted by
          many readers as lending support to a polytheistic Weltanshauung. On the
          other hand, the context indicates that it is the rulers of Israel whom the
          Psalmist has in mind, as seen especially in v. 6. Neither I nor the other
          translators are ever happy about using something in the text other than the
          literal translation, but past experience has taught us that we have to take
          the needs of the average reader into account, and sometimes it is best to
          put the literal rendering in the margin.

          >Ps 8:5a
          >
          >Thou hast made him [humankind] a little lower than God [footnote: or "the
          >angels"] (NASB).
          >
          >Yet you have made him little less than a god (REB).

          >NASB is in good company here, following a scribal tradition that lies
          >behind the MT of Deut 32:8: "Elyon ... set the boundaries of the peoples
          >accoring to the number of the sons of Israel"--4QDeut-j [thanks to Dave
          >Washburn for the reference] reads "... sons of Elohim" (also LXX-848 Arm).
          >As I noted in an earlier post, the change was apparently effected to
          >strengthen the monotheism of the verse.

          I missed Jimmy's earlier post, and perhaps I am missing even more than that
          in his line of reasoning. Keeping in mind the needs of the reader, the REB
          of Ps 8:5 should either render ELOHIM as "gods" if a small 'g' is preferred,
          or "God" if the singular is preferred, referring to the God of Israel. We
          (NASB translators) on the other hand see the options either as "God" or
          angels, and we include a note which both gives the "angels" alternative
          and--more importantly perhaps--gives ELOHIM in transliteration as the Hebrew
          original. The point is that we are giving the most acceptable translation
          for the average reader, but providing sufficient information for the
          advanced reader to consider other possibilities. As to Deut 32:8, since I
          missed the earlier discussion, I will limit myself to saying that we put a
          high value on the lectio difficilior, which is sometimes in the eye of the
          beholder and can be a strong argument against an LXX or Qumran ms. I see
          "sons of Israel" as more difficult, but that is a debatable point and I
          appreciate Jimmy's argument to the contrary.

          Don Wilkins
        • Prof. Ron Minton
          ... Don or anyone, I have heard that the NASB NT was based on NA22 (please correct this if incorrect). Also, the previous double column edition included some
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 16, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Don Wilkins wrote:
            > It is my privilege to do translation and research for the NASB, and I
            > normally handle suggestions for changes to the text,...


            Don or anyone, I have heard that the NASB NT was based on NA22 (please
            correct this if incorrect).

            Also, the previous double column edition included some 20 verses that were
            not in the earlier editions, and the 95 edition also retains those verses.
            Please tell if this is accurate and give a basic explanation of the
            textual basis for the NASB NT. Thanks ahead of time.


            Ron Minton
            5379 North Farm Road 179
            Springfield, MO 65803
            (417)833-9581
          • Kevin W. Woodruff
            Ron: According to the Lockman Foundation Website at http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasb.htm#Preserving the Integrity, Beauty, and Power of the New
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 16, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Ron:

              According to the Lockman Foundation Website at
              http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasb.htm#Preserving the Integrity,
              Beauty, and Power of the New American Standard Bible:

              In addition, the NASB® translators benefited from Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia
              Hebraica, the 23rd edition of
              Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece, the best lexicons, concordances,
              and commentaries available on the
              Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures.


              At 03:56 PM 2/16/99 -0600, you wrote:
              >On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Don Wilkins wrote:
              >> It is my privilege to do translation and research for the NASB, and I
              >> normally handle suggestions for changes to the text,...
              >
              >
              >Don or anyone, I have heard that the NASB NT was based on NA22 (please
              >correct this if incorrect).
              >
              >Also, the previous double column edition included some 20 verses that were
              >not in the earlier editions, and the 95 edition also retains those verses.
              >Please tell if this is accurate and give a basic explanation of the
              >textual basis for the NASB NT. Thanks ahead of time.
              >
              >
              >Ron Minton
              >5379 North Farm Road 179
              >Springfield, MO 65803
              >(417)833-9581
              >
              >

              Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
              Library Director/Reference Librarian
              Professor of New Testament Greek
              Cierpke Memorial Library
              Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
              1815 Union Ave.
              Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
              United States of America
              423/493-4252 (office)
              423/698-9447 (home)
              423/493-4497 (FAX)
              Cierpke@... (preferred)
              kwoodruf@... (alternate)
              http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
            • Don Wilkins
              At 03:56 PM 2/16/99 -0600, Prof. Ron Minton wrote: ... The original NASB NT was based on NA23, but the 95 edition is based on NA26/27. ... That doesn t sound
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 16, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                At 03:56 PM 2/16/99 -0600, Prof. Ron Minton wrote:
                ...
                >Don or anyone, I have heard that the NASB NT was based on NA22 (please
                >correct this if incorrect).

                The original NASB NT was based on NA23, but the '95 edition is based on NA26/27.

                >Also, the previous double column edition included some 20 verses that were
                >not in the earlier editions, and the 95 edition also retains those verses.
                >Please tell if this is accurate and give a basic explanation of the
                >textual basis for the NASB NT. Thanks ahead of time.

                That doesn't sound quite correct to me, but I would need some time for
                research. It would help if you could be more specific about the "previous
                double column edition" and the 20 verses. I would guess that we have some of
                those verses in brackets to indicate that they lack reliable support. Most
                of the textual choices in the '95 edition are the same as in earlier
                editions, but there have been changes based on the current NA. We follow
                NA26/27 except in places where we disagree with the rationale for a
                decision. For example, we would generally give more weight to external
                considerations than internal, and would prefer the harder readings (as I
                noted in my previous post).

                Don Wilkins
              • Prof. Ron Minton
                ... Don and all, I will try to illustrate what I meant by the NASB including some whole verses which were not in earlier editions. These versec are in the TR,
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 16, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Don Wilkins wrote:
                  > At 03:56 PM 2/16/99 -0600, Prof. Ron Minton wrote: ...
                  > >Also, the previous double column edition included some 20 verses that were
                  > >not in the earlier editions, and the 95 edition also retains those verses.
                  > >Please tell if this is accurate and give a basic explanation of the
                  > >textual basis for the NASB NT. Thanks ahead of time.
                  >
                  > That doesn't sound quite correct to me, but I would need some time for
                  > research. It would help if you could be more specific about the "previous
                  > double column edition" and the 20 verses. I would guess that we have some of
                  > those verses in brackets to indicate that they lack reliable support. Most
                  > of the textual choices in the '95 edition are the same as in earlier
                  > editions, but there have been changes based on the current NA. We follow
                  > NA26/27 except in places where we disagree with the rationale for a
                  > decision. For example, we would generally give more weight to external
                  > considerations than internal, and would prefer the harder readings (as I
                  > noted in my previous post).
                  > Don Wilkins


                  Don and all, I will try to illustrate what I meant by the NASB including
                  some whole verses which were not in earlier editions.

                  These versec are in the TR, KJV, & NKJV (Lk 17:36 not in TR).

                  VERSES TR MAJ CR NASB NIV NRSV INCLUDED IN
                  Mt 12:47 [ ] C,D,W
                  Mt 17:21 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT C,D,W
                  Mt 18:11 OMIT [ ] OMIT OMIT D,W
                  Mt 21:44 [ ] X,B,C,W
                  Mt 23:14 OMIT [ ] OMIT OMIT W
                  Mk 7:16 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A,D,W
                  Mk 9:44 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A,D
                  Mk 9:46 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A,D
                  Mk 11:26 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A,C,D
                  Mk 15:28 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT
                  Mk 16:9-20 [[ ]] [ ] [[ ]] A,C,D,W
                  Lk 17:36 OMIT OMIT OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT D
                  Lk 22:20 P75,X,A,B,C,W
                  Lk 22:43 [[ ]] [[ ]] X,D
                  Lk 22:44 [[ ]] OMIT [[ ]] X,D
                  Lk 23:17 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT X,D,W
                  Lk 24:12 [ ] P75,X,A,B,W
                  Lk 24:40 OMIT* P75,X,A,B,W
                  Jn 5:4 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A
                  Jn 7:53-8:11 [[ ]] [ ] [[ ]] D
                  Acts 8:37 OMIT OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT
                  Acts 15:34 OMIT OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT C,D
                  Acts 28:29 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT
                  Rom 16:24 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT D


                  * = verses now included in parallel column reference editions of
                  the NASB.
                  Matt. 23:13 and 14 are reversed in W and the Majority Text.
                  1 Jn. 5:7-8 is not considered because no complete verse is
                  involved. The Majority Text lacks only three passages. For some
                  years the NASB omitted Luke 24:40 against both the Alexandrian
                  and the Majority. Luke 17:36 was in the Elzevir 1624 and the TBS
                  1976 editions of the Textus Receptus

                  I do not have the NASB "95." Does it include the above passages?

                  Do all NASB editions now include all the above verses?

                  Prof Ron Minton
                  5379 North Farm Road 179
                  Springfield, MO 65803
                  (417) 833-9581
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.