Reply
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

It would be fair to say that as it is a religious rather than historical text, the interpretations derived from it in a religious context are all perfectly valid.

 

Is this what you meant to say, Joseph?  It seems to me that some interpretations have been labeled heresies?

 

Pepper

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Distinguished Correspondent
Joseph_F
Posts: 271
Registered: ‎03-05-2009

Re: Bible Translations


Peppermill wrote:

It would be fair to say that as it is a religious rather than historical text, the interpretations derived from it in a religious context are all perfectly valid.

 

Is this what you meant to say, Joseph?  It seems to me that some interpretations have been labeled heresies?

 

Pepper


Well, every interpretation is a heresy to someone. Speaking from an outside prospective, all religious interpretations have to be considered valid. From an insider's prospective...well it depends on who the insider is and what organization they're inside.

Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007

Re: Bible Translations


Joseph_F wrote:

Peppermill wrote:

It would be fair to say that as it is a religious rather than historical text, the interpretations derived from it in a religious context are all perfectly valid.

 

Is this what you meant to say, Joseph?  It seems to me that some interpretations have been labeled heresies?

 

Pepper


Well, every interpretation is a heresy to someone. Speaking from an outside prospective, all religious interpretations have to be considered valid. From an insider's prospective...well it depends on who the insider is and what organization they're inside.


Okay, I think I comprehend your meaning.

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

I have been reading the King James Version since I was six years old, and it is so much a part of me that any other version is a bit of a jolt. The people in my church use a variety of modern versions, so I get jolted quite often. Because of all those years of saturation in King James's English, reading, watching, or listening to Shakepeare comes quite easily to me. I have read quite a bit of the literature about Bible versions and translations through the years, and some of the scholarship I accept, some I don't.

 

I lead a Bible study with women in my neighborhood, many of whom use other versions, and I find that it is often helpful to hear a passage read from several versions or translations, though it is confusing at times.

 

I studied Greek for two years in college, but no Hebrew. I spent about two and a half years reading through the French Bible recently and found it was quite easy to do, since I already knew what it said. Now I have Luther's Bible and a Russian Bible that I want to do the same with, but probably more slowly.

"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

The KJV was the only translation I knew as a girl too Laurel and even now when I read other translations online, I still think it is the most poetic and the one which represents the best of the English language, as you say, the language of Shakespeare.  Incredible  to think that it was put together by a Committee of 50 men!   The history of the translation and printing of the English language bible is fascinating. 

 

 


Laurel wrote:

I have been reading the King James Version since I was six years old, and it is so much a part of me that any other version is a bit of a jolt. The people in my church use a variety of modern versions, so I get jolted quite often. Because of all those years of saturation in King James's English, reading, watching, or listening to Shakepeare comes quite easily to me. I have read quite a bit of the literature about Bible versions and translations through the years, and some of the scholarship I accept, some I don't.

 

I lead a Bible study with women in my neighborhood, many of whom use other versions, and I find that it is often helpful to hear a passage read from several versions or translations, though it is confusing at times.

 

I studied Greek for two years in college, but no Hebrew. I spent about two and a half years reading through the French Bible recently and found it was quite easy to do, since I already knew what it said. Now I have Luther's Bible and a Russian Bible that I want to do the same with, but probably more slowly.


 

Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

That's a beautiful site, Choisya. Thanks.

Choisya wrote:

The KJV was the only translation I knew as a girl too Laurel and even now when I read other translations online, I still think it is the most poetic and the one which represents the best of the English language, as you say, the language of Shakespeare.  Incredible  to think that it was put together by a Committee of 50 men!   The history of the translation and printing of the English language bible is fascinating. 

 

 



"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
B&N Bookseller
Brad_W
Posts: 179
Registered: ‎10-25-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

[ Edited ]

I get asked this question quite a bit.  The first thing I always ask someone is if they are participating in a study group.  If not, what Church do they belong to.  The versions can be drastically different.  I own several different versions and enjoy comparing them at times.  For example, the KJV/NKJV has 6 less books than an NAB.  Then you have versions which have the Apocrypha included.  So it can get very confusing. 

 

The history of the Bible is amazing.  The original compilation was put together by St. Jerome who spent 35 years in the desert alone translating the scrolls and books from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic into a raw form of latin.  It became know as the Vulgate. 

 

Being Catholic, I prefer to read the Catholic Editions (NAB St. Joseph).  I do find it difficult to discuss scriture with other Christians of other denominations at times because there is the "Word of God" interpretation which can be a barrier.  By this I mean that many interpret that phrase to be literal interpretations.  I find there is so much more when one looks deeper into the stories. 

 

I have read parts of the Koran, and would like to read the entire Book.  It is interesting, but the format is very different so I find I have to really clear my mind when approaching any reading of the Koran.

 

Message Edited by bwest2 on 03-28-2009 10:37 AM
With purpose and on purpose
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

So, having said all that, what translations do you prefer? What's more important? Fidelity to the original text? Literary beauty? Ease of reading? Or are all translations failures by definition because they cannot completely recreate the original "Word of God"?

 

I personally don't have a single answer to most of your questions, Joseph.  But, I will probably bore everyone by walking through some of the favorites in my own collection with a comment or two as to why they are there.  

 

I spent the past year reading through the Bible using the guide The Year of the Bible by James Davidson.  I had never been successful before, although I own two or three Bible in a Year formats of various types.  This program was based on a daily passage from the Old and New Testaments, with a Psalms passage replacing the New Testament every few days.

 

NRSV Bible with Apocrypha  The version of this with a concordance is my "working" Bible.  It is the copy that I freely annotate.  At home, I frequently am listening to an NIV Bible on CDs at the same time.  (The last I checked, only the New Testament is available in the NRSV.  Besides, having these two highly respected translations side-by-side is very insightful.)

 

 

 

 

 

The New Jerusalem Bible with Apocrypha, Standard Edition 

 

This is one of the newest additions to my collection.  I hope to get to know it better in the months ahead.  It, too, has a solid reputation for the scholarship on which it is based. (My Protestant, rather than Catholic, background shows here.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 TANAKH Obviously, this version of the Holy Scriptures by The Jewish Publication Society does not include the New Testament!  But, it is another fine English translation of Scripture with solid scholarship behind it.  

 

The insights of reading it alongside a "Christian" translation can be very meaningful in my experience, although I would be hard pressed to give you a specific example off the top of my head.  One of my pastors, however, was particularly gifted in knowing when we should look at this text.

 

 

HarperCollins Study Bible

 

 This is my "standard" study Bible (albeit in an earlier edition :smileysad: ).  Its annotations, linkages to other Bible passages, introductions, maps, and other study material I have always found very useful.

 

I had purchased The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition, New Revised Standard Ver... first, so it is my second choice as a study Bible.  Certainly, it is very sound and for a passage that I really want to explore, it is fun to compare and contrast it with HarperCollins.

 

Contemporary Parallel New Testament 

 

This is another recent add to my collection.  It has eight translations (KJV, NASB, NCV, CEV, NIV,NLT, NKJV, The Message), so with my "standard" NSRV I have ready access to nine viewpoints for a New Testament passage.  (We pretty quickly determine if we think it is worth asking our pastor to check the original Greek or Hebrew text!)

 

 

 

 

I do have copies of the New International Version, somewhat more evangelical in tone than the NRSV, but also with solid scholarship behind it.

 

My edition of The New English Bible is old, but, in the hands of a good teacher,  certain books, especially of the Old Testament have been brought to our attention for their fine writing. (I don't find a link for the current edition just now; it is a product of UK scholarship across a number entities, Donald Ebor was chairman of the Joint Committee at the time of the publication of the edition I possess.)

 

Obviously, any English/American speaking reader of the Bible is likely to possess and use the King James version.  I am no exception, although I am too accustomed to the more recent translations to use it frequently.

 

Enough for now.  (I did speak elsewhere on the attractions -- and distractions -- of Eugene Peterson's The Message, Numbered Edition.)  Perhaps at another time I'll make some comments on a few other more specialized or less used editions.   For now, I look forward to hearing more from others.

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations


So, having said all that, what translations do you prefer? What's more important? Fidelity to the original text? Literary beauty? Ease of reading? Or are all translations failures by definition because they cannot completely recreate the original "Word of God"?

 

Because I approach all such books as works of fiction, I generally look for literary beauty.    

 

 

Distinguished Correspondent
Joseph_F
Posts: 271
Registered: ‎03-05-2009
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

[ Edited ]

bwest2 Thanks for your addition to the discussion. St. Jerome did indeed put together the first Latin translation of the Bible, although not, of course, the first compilation.

 

Compiling the Bible, deciding what went in and what would get left out, was obviously a very important process, and it was one that has been repeated many times. Even before the Christians came into the picture, the Jews were arguing over whether, for instance, the extremely sexual poetry of the Song of Songs should have a place in a holy text.

 

And even before the Jews came into the picture, the Israelite kings were adding to and removing from the text as they saw necessary in order to solidify their power. Most Biblical scholars, for instance, will tell you that Deuteronomy came as a much later addition to the other first five books (or "the Torah", if you're Jewish). It was probably added by priests during the Israelite monarchies because it (and other passages throughout the Hebrew Bible that use language from a similar time period) emphasize priestly power in a way that the rest of the Hebrew Bible does not. 

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 03-28-2009 06:25 PM
Message Edited by Joseph_F on 03-28-2009 07:34 PM
Distinguished Correspondent
Joseph_F
Posts: 271
Registered: ‎03-05-2009
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

[ Edited ]

Peppermill wrote:

 I personally don't have a single answer to most of your questions, Joseph. But, I will probably bore everyone by walking through some of the favorites in my own collection with a comment or two as to why they are there.


 

Thanks for another great contribution to the discussion, Peppermill. Your experience with a variety of Biblical translations is much greater than mine. In general, I have only ever used this one: The JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH, Student Edition 

 

(Brief little Hebrew lesson here for those interested: why is the Hebrew Bible also called the Tanakh? It's actually an acronym. In Hebrew it is essentially the letters T N & K, which stand for Torah, Neviim [prophets] and Ketuvim [writings]. The ending "-im" in Hebrew denotes a male plural. And there you go!)

 

One study Bible I find fascinating is this one: 

 

The Plaut Torah 

 

You can see from the name that this is only the five books that constitute the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) but it has excellent historical commentary, giving a lot of cultural context to some of the described rituals and political events. It also gives quotes from pre-Biblical religious epics (Caananite, Babylonian) and modern interpretation to provide many different prospectives on the text. For those with a desire for modern, historical-based study of the Bible, this is a good one.

 

 

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 03-28-2009 07:29 PM
Distinguished Correspondent
Joseph_F
Posts: 271
Registered: ‎03-05-2009
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

[ Edited ]

Choisya wrote:

Because I approach all such books as works of fiction, I generally look for literary beauty.     


I understand where you're coming from, but even with a work of fiction, doesn't authorial intent matter? If a Biblical translation is beautiful within itself but does not accurately convey the language or ideas of the Bible passage, is it still a good translation?

 

Look at it another way: Say someone translated Shakespeare into another language and changed the wording and meaning of several passages, yet the product was in fact quite a beautiful play in that language. Is that still a good translation of Shakespeare? Does it matter that the original wording or even meaning of the play has been lost?

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 03-28-2009 07:33 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

I take your point but the problem is that we do not know the 'authorial intent' of the original translations except that they were to further the beliefs of the particular group to which the author belonged or sought to influence.  They are essentially works of propaganda.  St Jerome, for instance, supposedly had a vision and decided to devote himself to God and was later ordained in the catholic church.  Had the Gnostics translated the first bible, our understanding of it today may have been completely diffferent.  The Torah contains chapters that are absent from the Christian Bible.  And so on.  So how on earth do I know if any translation 'accurately conveys the language or ideas'?  Whose word do I rely upon?

 

 

Translations of this antiquity seem to me like a game of Chinese whispers, where much has been garbled as various translations are read, interpreted and written down by semi-literate scribes to illustrious scholars.  From that p.o.v. I see nothing as 'true' or 'accurate' so prefer to rely on the beauty of a certain text as I see it.  Being an older Brit I was 'weaned' on the language of Shakespeare and so the KJV appeals to me as no modern translation does, despite supposed authorial intent and/or accuracy.  I rely on notes and glossaries to point out any supposed discrepancies.   

 

All decent translators purport to have been true to the original and to be accurate.  I am currently reading Dante's Inferno with the Epics bookclub and am using 3 translations. Sometimes I favour one to follow up a point, sometimes I favour another.  I am not a scholar in 13C Italian so cannot know for certain which one is the 'best', nor am I a scholar in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew or Latin (etc!) to be able to judge Biblical translations, so I go with what pleases me - usually the most poetic:smileyhappy:.   On this board so far we have Jews, Catholics and Protestants and probably sects of those - all will prefer different versions of their religious books for various reasons. Some will accept other translations, others won't.   My atheistic preference is just another p.o.v.  

 

There is not so much dispute over Shakespeare as there is over the Torah/Bible/Koran so I feel I am on safer ground when I choose, say, the Dover edition over the Folger but expect a fair representation of the original play to be made by both.  At least no-one is likely to wage a crusade or jihad over them:smileysad:

 

 

 


Joseph_F wrote:

Choisya wrote:

Because I approach all such books as works of fiction, I generally look for literary beauty.     


I understand where you're coming from, but even with a work of fiction, doesn't authorial intent matter? If a Biblical translation is beautiful within itself but does not accurately convey the language or ideas of the Bible passage, is it still a good translation?

 

Look at it another way: Say someone translated Shakespeare into another language and changed the wording and meaning of several passages, yet the product was in fact quite a beautiful play in that language. Is that still a good translation of Shakespeare? Does it matter that the original wording or even meaning of the play has been lost?

Contributor
drumrebrown
Posts: 5
Registered: ‎03-29-2009
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

It might have been mentioned but I did not see it. I was wondering if anyone had a take on the

The Interlinear Bible Hebrew-Greek-English  

 I read from one a time or two but would like to know a little more before I run out and get one. 

Distinguished Correspondent
Joseph_F
Posts: 271
Registered: ‎03-05-2009
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations


Choisya wrote:

I take your point but the problem is that we do not know the 'authorial intent' of the original translations except that they were to further the beliefs of the particular group to which the author belonged or sought to influence.  They are essentially works of propaganda.  St Jerome, for instance, supposedly had a vision and decided to devote himself to God and was later ordained in the catholic church.  Had the Gnostics translated the first bible, our understanding of it today may have been completely diffferent.  The Torah contains chapters that are absent from the Christian Bible.  And so on.  So how on earth do I know if any translation 'accurately conveys the language or ideas'?  Whose word do I rely upon?


I'm having a hard time understanding your point here, to be honest. This all would make sense if we didn't have any original text, but we have the text in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and by comparing several different versions we can be fairly certain of the accuracy of these copies. So how do we know if a translation accurately conveys an idea? We read the original text. 

 

I studied Biblical Hebrew for two years, and while I'm not an expert I am able to read the Hebrew Bible. It is a text with complex ideas, metaphors, and cultural references, which some translations get right and some don't. The best translations offer different versions of some phrases and explain what makes that phrase difficult to transalte. But in any case, it is not unknowable which translations mistranslate passages. The KJV does, for instance.



 

 All decent translators purport to have been true to the original and to be accurate.  I am currently reading Dante's Inferno with the Epics bookclub and am using 3 translations. Sometimes I favour one to follow up a point, sometimes I favour another.  I am not a scholar in 13C Italian so cannot know for certain which one is the 'best', nor am I a scholar in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew or Latin (etc!) to be able to judge Biblical translations, so I go with what pleases me - usually the most poetic:smileyhappy:.   On this board so far we have Jews, Catholics and Protestants and probably sects of those - all will prefer different versions of their religious books for various reasons. Some will accept other translations, others won't.   My atheistic preference is just another p.o.v.  

 

There is not so much dispute over Shakespeare as there is over the Torah/Bible/Koran so I feel I am on safer ground when I choose, say, the Dover edition over the Folger but expect a fair representation of the original play to be made by both.  At least no-one is likely to wage a crusade or jihad over them:smileysad:


Again, there are those who can read 13c Italian, so it is knowable whether a Dante translation misses a complexity or mistranslates a word. Unless you mean it is unknowable by you and you don't trust any authority but your own. In which case, it leads me back to my Shakespeare question:

 

If someone doesn't speak English, they have no way of knowing how accurate a translation is without consulting an outside authority. So does it matter if the translation they are reading translates entire passages incorrectly as long as it is beautiful in their language? Is it still a good translation of Shakespeare, or is it an entirely new work merely based on the play it is "translating"? Does the authorial intent of Shakespeare or the authors of the Bible matter to you?

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

I guess I am just more cynical about what is 'original' and about the accuracy of translations, given their propagandising intent.  I have no 'belief' in any of them, especially as new ideas based upon archeological finds and interpetations seem to crop up all the time.    Sorry.     

 

 


Joseph_F wrote:

Choisya wrote:

I take your point but the problem is that we do not know the 'authorial intent' of the original translations except that they were to further the beliefs of the particular group to which the author belonged or sought to influence.  They are essentially works of propaganda.  St Jerome, for instance, supposedly had a vision and decided to devote himself to God and was later ordained in the catholic church.  Had the Gnostics translated the first bible, our understanding of it today may have been completely diffferent.  The Torah contains chapters that are absent from the Christian Bible.  And so on.  So how on earth do I know if any translation 'accurately conveys the language or ideas'?  Whose word do I rely upon?


I'm having a hard time understanding your point here, to be honest. This all would make sense if we didn't have any original text, but we have the text in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and by comparing several different versions we can be fairly certain of the accuracy of these copies. So how do we know if a translation accurately conveys an idea? We read the original text. 

 

I studied Biblical Hebrew for two years, and while I'm not an expert I am able to read the Hebrew Bible. It is a text with complex ideas, metaphors, and cultural references, which some translations get right and some don't. The best translations offer different versions of some phrases and explain what makes that phrase difficult to transalte. But in any case, it is not unknowable which translations mistranslate passages. The KJV does, for instance.



 

 All decent translators purport to have been true to the original and to be accurate.  I am currently reading Dante's Inferno with the Epics bookclub and am using 3 translations. Sometimes I favour one to follow up a point, sometimes I favour another.  I am not a scholar in 13C Italian so cannot know for certain which one is the 'best', nor am I a scholar in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew or Latin (etc!) to be able to judge Biblical translations, so I go with what pleases me - usually the most poetic:smileyhappy:.   On this board so far we have Jews, Catholics and Protestants and probably sects of those - all will prefer different versions of their religious books for various reasons. Some will accept other translations, others won't.   My atheistic preference is just another p.o.v.  

 

There is not so much dispute over Shakespeare as there is over the Torah/Bible/Koran so I feel I am on safer ground when I choose, say, the Dover edition over the Folger but expect a fair representation of the original play to be made by both.  At least no-one is likely to wage a crusade or jihad over them:smileysad:


Again, there are those who can read 13c Italian, so it is knowable whether a Dante translation misses a complexity or mistranslates a word. Unless you mean it is unknowable by you and you don't trust any authority but your own. In which case, it leads me back to my Shakespeare question:

 

If someone doesn't speak English, they have no way of knowing how accurate a translation is without consulting an outside authority. So does it matter if the translation they are reading translates entire passages incorrectly as long as it is beautiful in their language? Is it still a good translation of Shakespeare, or is it an entirely new work merely based on the play it is "translating"? Does the authorial intent of Shakespeare or the authors of the Bible matter to you?


 

Distinguished Correspondent
Joseph_F
Posts: 271
Registered: ‎03-05-2009

Re: Bible Translations

[ Edited ]

Choisya wrote:

I guess I am just more cynical about what is 'original' and about the accuracy of translations, given their propagandising intent.  I have no 'belief' in any of them, especially as new ideas based upon archeological finds and interpetations seem to crop up all the time.    Sorry.     


I'd love you to expand on this a little because I'm having a lot of trouble following what your point is here. The original text is based on several different copies of the texts compared and gives us a largely accurate view of what the text as written (of course much of the Hebrew Bible was once an oral tradition) has been for a few thousand years. Belief is not involved at any step of the process, this is historical and linguistic work. A distrust of it implies a distrust in the general methods of historians and any group working to reconstruct the past (including the archologists you mentioned). 

 

As for translations, your belief that they are equally inaccurate is, from my point of view, simply incorrect. The NRSV and JPS for instance are just more accurate in translating what the original text says than the KJV, quite apart from ideology. Your claim of the propaganda nature of translations is also odd, unless you believe all writing is propaganda. The more accurate modern translations are linguistic enterprises, not the work of a church's attempt to legitimize anything. 

 

So I guess what I'm trying to understand here is whether you disbelieve any information not gathered first hand (and the disbelief of most academic methods of research and presentation that implies) or whether you have a special disbelief for historical and/or linguistic work involving religious text, even when not done by or for the religious. 

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 04-02-2009 05:59 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

...whether you have a special disbelief for historical and/or linguistic work involving religious text, even when not done by or for the religious. 

 

Yes.  As the first texts were written for the purpose of religious propaganda by religious people, (like, say, the Gospels) I distrust them and any work which follows them because that is based upon the same texts.  Also, many of them were written down some time after the events they are describing, so are subject to tricks of the memory or inaccurate recitation (oral tradition) - like Chinese whispers.  If these translations really were accurate there would not be so much dispute over them. 

Your claim of the propaganda nature of translations is also odd, unless you believe all writing is propaganda.

 

 

I do think that a lot of writing is propaganda, especially religion, politics and history.  Just as history is 'written by the victors', I think that religion and politics are written by 'victors', or those who wish to promote one cause or another, however dispassionate they claim to be.  

 

 

I'd love you to expand on this a little because I'm having a lot of trouble following what your point is here.

 

I prefer not to discuss this further because I am aware that my atheistic cynicism can upset those who believe in these texts as the 'gospel truth' or the 'word of God'.  I do not have any particular point to make; I was originally answering a question you posed about the sort of text we liked and I answered 'poetic', viz: poetry trumps accuracy for me because I do not believe in the accuracy.   

 

 

 

 

 

 


Joseph_F wrote:

Choisya wrote:

I guess I am just more cynical about what is 'original' and about the accuracy of translations, given their propagandising intent.  I have no 'belief' in any of them, especially as new ideas based upon archeological finds and interpetations seem to crop up all the time.    Sorry.     


I'd love you to expand on this a little because I'm having a lot of trouble following what your point is here. The original text is based on several different copies of the texts compared and gives us a largely accurate view of what the text as written (of course much of the Hebrew Bible was once an oral tradition) has been for a few thousand years. Belief is not involved at any step of the process, this is historical and linguistic work. A distrust of it implies a distrust in the general methods of historians and any group working to reconstruct the past (including the archologists you mentioned). 

 

As for translations, your belief that they are equally inaccurate is, from my point of view, simply incorrect. The NRSV and JPS for instance are just more accurate in translating what the original text says than the KJV, quite apart from ideology. Your claim of the propaganda nature of translations is also odd, unless you believe all writing is propaganda. The more accurate modern translations are linguistic enterprises, not the work of a church's attempt to legitimize anything. 

 

So I guess what I'm trying to understand here is whether you disbelieve any information not gathered first hand (and the disbelief of most academic methods of research and presentation that implies) or whether you have a special disbelief for historical and/or linguistic work involving religious text, even when not done by or for the religious. 

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 04-02-2009 05:59 PM

 

Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008

Re: Bible Translations

[ Edited ]

Choisya it seems to me that you might be confusing the question of "does this text accurately describe a historic event?" with the question of "does this (English) text accurately portray what this (Greek/Hebrew/Arabic/etc) text was meant to say?".  I take your point that the original religious texts had an agenda behind them and as such the degree to which they accurately portray history is suspect.  However the question of whether the English translations of one of those texts is linguistically accurate has little to do with whether you believe in what the original text is saying or not, because that is merely a matter of translation, not of religious belief.  So one can still say "text B is an accurate translation of text A" even if you don't personally believe in what text A is saying.

 

For instance if I say "Je m'appelle Michael" you would know that "My name is Michael" is a more accurate translation of what I said than "My name is Peter", even though you are well aware that my name is neither Michael nor Peter.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 04-03-2009 06:36 AM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Distinguished Correspondent
Joseph_F
Posts: 271
Registered: ‎03-05-2009
0 Kudos

Re: Bible Translations

Jon has essentially said what I would say. When I speak about historical accuracy, I'm not talking about the Garden of Eden actually happening. I'm talking about the accuracy of the texts being the same myth that has been used for centuries, written in languages with set vocabularies and grammars. So whether or not you believe in the accuracy of the biblical stories, certain translations are going to come up with English that is closer to the meaning of the original words than others, the same way a translation of a novel would. It's not a religious question, it's just a linguistic question.

 

But you're absolutely welcome to enjoy the KJV for it's poetic beauty, and I'll drop the point now :smileyhappy: