Better Bibles Blog has moved. Read our last post, below, and then
click here if you are not redirected to our new location within 60 seconds.
Please Bookmark our new location and update blogrolls.
Ideas for improving English Bible translations. Post translation problems and improvement suggestions under Versions after reading Welcome. Comments on blog posts are welcomed if they follow our guidelines. Visit our Bookshelf.
<
Since my fellow BBBers have been silent for several days I thought I would jump in not with a post but a question:
For you as a reader of this blog, what do you consider to be a hot topic in Bible translation?
Tell us in the comments and maybe we can start up a good debate.
posted by David Ker at 3:51 PM
English Quality of Bibles Survey
14 Comments:
What are advantages of using non-standard English in Bible versions?
Can I play too? :)
How come Paul gets to be a "minister" and us regular peons are always "servants" or "deacons"?
How come no major translations are willing to call Titus & Epaphroditus "Apostles"? (2Cor.8:23 & Php.2:25)
How come Paul "preached" all night in Troas, when the Greek word means "held dialogue"?
In short: is there a clergy-bias in our NT translation? And more importantly, when will it end?
Keep 'em coming!
Word for word style vs. meaning style
Example: NASB95 vs. NLTse
I think gender language in translation continues to be a relevant issue for many. And, of course, the formal vs. dynamic equivalence debate will rage on indefinitely.
Lately I have been thinking about translators' philosophy about the unity of the Bible. That is, do translators approach the OT text as part of the Christian Bible, or a discreet, pre-Christian witness? How does NT usage of the OT affect our translation of the OT? Do translators capitalize "H"oly "S"pirit in the OT, or not? Do they translate Genesis 15:5 (and others) as "offspring/seed" (singular, referring to Christ) or as "descendants," (plural, referring to the Israelites), especially in light of Galatians 3:16?
I haven't heard many people talking about this, but I think it's important!
I have recently decided to make the NRSV-CE my primary Bible for ministry work with young adults as well as my own graduate studies at the local major seminary. But my question is why is this translation so poorly promoted? Having read this blog often for the past year, I have learned much more as to why certain translations are more popular than others. Too academic? Heck, even the poorly designed NRSV website is down.
Ooops...looks like it is back up. But it still looks like it hasn't been updated. C'mon Harper Collins!
Is a consumer driven market creating a "need" for translations with specific theological or denominational preferences (e.g. NET, ESV, HCSB)?
Wow. Lots of great stuff.
See Bob's post here for NT in the OT and also TC writes here about idiomatic/literal conundrums.
And Bill takes up some of the questions in his comment in more depth on his blog.
To Wayne, I would reply, "That's a leading question!" But also, non-standard English can give rather ordinary ideas a novel twist and also sound more poetic.
Thanks for the link, David, but to spare the three people who might aimlessly searching my site, I've never actually blogged on those specific topics.
I'll withdraw and revise that final question, because I'm honestly looking for some help here. Whether or not those things are examples of what I call "clergy bias", how do bible translation teams actually justify such decisions? Is it tradition? Or do they have some specific reasoning to support the decision?
I can assume away all on my own. I'm honestly trying to check those assumptions, here.
Does anyone know?
Bill, you're being too modest. I did see some of these same ideas at your blog and much else that is worth looking at. Keep it up!
Thanks very much, David. The core ideas, yes. And I will keep it up. But I can only tilt at so many windmills at once, you know...
I'll also keep waiting patiently for some BBB perspectives on the translation issues.
I haven't forgotten you. Just enjoying the recent discussions that have flared up. (And I'm busy with work in the real world)
Just a small note here as a Bible Teacher who is still learning.
If idioms were interpreted in the text in a form that noted this was an idiom, and then had a footnote with the literal Greek or Hebrew including an explanation, I think my job as Bible instructor would be much easier. For one I wouldn't have to go round and round with literalists who didn't know what they were talking about. And the average Bible reader would not be misled yet again.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home