Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Review Alter's translation

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Review Alter's translation
  • Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:54:39 +0000

On 06/01/2005 02:29, Bill Rea wrote:

Peter wrote:-


...(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. ...


I don't think that is fair to Wayne Leman's attitude. He consistently makes it clear that his studies are based on certain assumptions which he makes explicit. If you want to discuss this further with him (and perhaps me), the best place is probably the b-trans list, see details at http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/list/. Wayne Leman is the main moderator of this list, but is happy to accept reasonable criticism of his work.

... 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. ...


This is a good example. A sophisticated and highly educated reader may realise that they need to work on figuring out the meaning in context of "cleanness of teeth". An ordinary person reading this, with limited understanding of the background, will not realise that there is a problem but will understand it according to their own context and presuppositions. And, within a western society, their first thought will be that God has blessed his people with a new improved variety of toothpaste! What to you and me is an obvious anachronism (although presumably even then people may have made some effort to keep their teeth clean) is in fact how many people would understand that verse.

... 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. ...


No, they are "dynamic equivalence". This kind of change is fundamental to the principle of dynamic equivalence. TEV has "famine", in fact both "cleanness of teeth" and "lack of bread" are combined into this one word, and this is the version you named your prototypical dynamic equivalence translation - for good reason, because this was also Nida's prototypical DE translation.

... 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. ...


This is a misunderstanding of the concept of dynamic equivalence as defined by Nida and others. The rendering you call "paraphrase" is from TEV which you list as "Dynamic Equivalence". So I think your categories have become confused here.

... 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.


Wayne would be the first to recognise that different audiences and audience requirements require different translation styles and methodologies.

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:-


They are quite clear when you read his definition of accuracy.

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.


Good point. The problem is that many translations don't state their "place on the version spectrum", and even claim to be the one version suitable for all. Of course it is the marketing people who make such claims, because the market simply wouldn't be large enough if restricted to the audience for which the translation is actually suitable.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page