Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>]

Peter wrote:-

>Agreed that the name is not a good one. But in what way does the NLT
>differ so widely from the TEV, Dynamic Equivalence, that it may deserve
>a fourth category? I genuinely want to know what difference you perceive
>- except that NLT has a different theological outlook. Are you claiming
>that the NLT is more free? Do you have data to back that up? (You might
>find some interesting data at
>http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/studies.htm, although you
>might not agree with some of the criteria used there.) Or is the
>difference simply that it was prepared in part as a revision of what you
>call a paraphrase?

I read some of the stuff at the about link. My objection that
somehow they think they are the final authority on what is
correct and what is wrong. In all my years of looking at English
versions I have never (with one exception) been left wondering why the
translators chose a particular wording. I have only found one place
where I would categorically declare the version to be ``wrong''.

If you take Amos 4:6 as an example from the above set of studies,
there is a wide variety of renderings. Leman thinks using
``cleanness of teeth'' is wrong. I think that's what you would
expect to find if you purchased a word-for-word type Bible. You
buy such versions so you, the reader, have to do the work of figuring
out what it means. What about the rest? e.g.

I gave you empty stomachs in every city
I brought hunger ...
I was the one who brought famine ...
I, the LORD, took away the food ...
I left you with nothing to eat ...

These are all paraphrases to me. Perhaps a better choice for an
example is Jer 6:10 also from the above study.

their ear is uncircumcised
their ears are closed
they are stubborn and refuse to listen to your message

The way I would classify these as word-for-word, dynamic equivalence,
and paraphrase. The binary right/wrong division of Wayne Leman doesn't
come into it because it misrepresents where on the spectrum these
versions sit, the intention of the translators when they prepared
them, and the requirements of the reader. On the last point, the reader
requirements vary depending on whether they are reading publically,
for private devotional purposes, or acedemically for theologcal
or other study.

One final example, Gen 27:41, the following are word-for-word, dynamic
equivalence, and paraphrase to me:-

Esau said in his heart
Esau said to himself
He thought to himself

Here Leman accepts the second and third as right and rejects the first as
wrong. If you told me the third is dynamic equivalence I wouldn't object.

Back to the NLT and similar.

>in what way does the NLT
>differ so widely from the TEV, Dynamic Equivalence,

I don't own a copy, I only know it from passages people have either
read aloud or asked me about. There is a tendency for some preachers
to ``version shop'' to find the ``juiciest'' rendering. Perhaps I only
hear its excesses because that's what appeals to, or disturbs, them.

Leman's biases are quite clear when you have accuracy figures like:-

NASB(1995) 37.5%
JPS(1985)  58.3%
TEV        91.7%

I think a better way of assessing accuracy is to count how many times
a version departs from its stated place on the version spectrum.
If the NASB rendered Ps 75:5 as ``Don't lift your fists in defiance
at the heavens'' then I would say it did its readers a disservice at this
point, while for the paraphrases it would be just fine.

Bill Rea, IT Services, Canterbury  University \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz              </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332      /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                  (/'