- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Recent threads http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=4792 and
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=4992 have advocated for the Church to move on from the KJV. Particularly the first thread turned into arguments about prayer language, poetry, and reverence. So, I am starting this thread in an attempt to engender some discussion of the various non-KJV versions of the bible that people like and why. Simply to discuss pros and cons of the modern translations, and in no way to argue their relative merit compared to the KJV, but rather to compare them to each other.
I know many here use modern translations. The other threads talked about the NIV, ESV, and NRSV, but mainly in comparison to the KJV. I think discussion of these versions should stand apart from that.
In other words, the Church isn’t moving away from the KJV. For those that have already decided that they want to have and use a different translation of the bible, what are your thoughts on which versions you like?First, let’s talk about accuracy in translation. Each modern bible translation strives for accuracy. However they put different weights on what it is they are trying to be accurate about. Some translations try to be as close as they can to the original wording, even if that results in clumsiness in English. Others try to be as close as they can to the original thought, conveying in English what the original was trying to convey in Koine Greek or Hebrew, even if that results in a non-literal translation. Neither is perfect, neither is right, neither is wrong. It really comes down to a matter of preference. Importantly, it is an analog scale, not a digital one. While there are translations all the way to either extreme, many strive for balance between the extremes.
In translation, these are referred to as dynamic and formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence focuses on sense-for-sense or meaning-based translation. Formal equivalence focuses on word-for-word or literal translation.
For example, comparing two extremes:
Formal Equivalence (Revised Standard Version) John 8:12: Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Dynamic Equivalence (Living Bible) John 8:12: Later, in one of his talks, Jesus said to the people, “I am the Light of the world. So if you follow me, you won’t be stumbling through the darkness, for living light will flood your path.”
Clearly these are quite different. Each is faithful to the original in its own way. Which is better? It’s a matter of preference.
Some sites that explain this, and show some bible versions and where they fit in the scale:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence http://zondervan.com/sites/default/files/m/bibles/translation_chart_poster.pdf Now, let’s talk about gender neutrality. Many modern versions try to use terms like ‘people’ instead of ‘men’ or use terms like ‘brothers and sisters’ to replace ‘brothers’. Before you get too bent out of shape on this one way or the other, realize that it is often impossible to tell whether men specifically are meant, or people. For example, in romance languages, the term ‘man’ refers to a single male… the term ‘woman’ refers to a single female, the term ‘women’ refers to multiple females and the term ‘men’ can either refer to multiple males or multiple people of mixed gender. Consider this common construct in Spanish “Yo tengo dos hijos… un hijo y una hija.” Here, ‘yo tengo dos hijos’ either means I have two sons or I have two children, so it is qualified by saying, ‘one son and one daughter’. Traditional and heavily literal translations have used the male gender probably more than originally intended. The other argument for gender neutrality is that our culture today is more gender neutral, so translations that maintain gender roles convey extra meaning not intended by the author. For example, for an ancient to say ‘men and brothers’ made perfect sense, because the forum for conveying such thoughts was between men. Today, we look at that and ask if the language is only meant for men, something that was not at all true. Example: suppose the law in Saudi Arabia says that when a man is driving and wants to turn left, he must signal. Since women don’t drive in Saudi Arabia, there is nothing wrong with the law as written. But a thousand years from now, when both men and women drive there, some will inevitably ask, but what about when women drive? Yet, the use of the term ‘man’ was not meant to delineate between men and women, but simply followed the custom of the day.
My bible of choice is the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version). The reason I first came to this one was that it was heavily influenced by Bruce Metzger, who was (IMO) the foremost scholar on NT Greek in the 20thCentury. Metzger passed away in 2007, at the age of 93.
The NRSV was a new revision of the RSV. It’s not perfect, but I find it the most pleasing version.
It falls into the formal equivalence camp, which I tend to prefer, but not to the extreme of some others.
The NRSV isn’t widely used because it decided to go with gender neutrality. That’s a bit odd for a bible that is leaning to formal equivalence, making it less appealing to people at both ends of the spectrum. However, I like the gender neutrality. It does go a bit too far in places, but I’m aware of that and don’t let it confuse me. For example, one of my favorite verses in the NT, Romans 14:13… Paul says not to put a hindrance or stumbling block in the way of a ‘brother’, meaning another convert to Christianity. The NRSV says don’t put a stumbling block in the way of ‘another’. While I applaud the gender neutrality, I would prefer it say ‘a brother or sister’, as ‘another’ kind of changes the meaning. Context still makes it clear that Paul is talking about people in the family of Christ, but the verse itself is damaged.
The NRSV is written at about an 11th grade level. I prefer this to the NIV, which is written more to 7th grade level, and as such, seems too simplified.
In another thread, Ann asked: Ann wrote:why did you not choose the English Standard Version?
Ann, I did consider the ESV. Basically, it came down to the ESV, NIV and NRSV for me.The ESV, like the NRSV is a revision of the RSV. However, the NRSV and the ESV went in opposite directions. The ESV is more literal than the RSV… the NRSV is more dynamic than the RSV. Both are on the more literal end of the scale though, it’s just that the ESV is more on the extreme end, while the NRSV infused just enough dynamic equivalence to make it more understandable. Neither is as dynamic as the NIV. I felt that the NRSV struck a better balance between formal and dynamic equivalence.
Also, the NRSV used gender inclusiveness, and the ESV did not (as much). For example, Mark 4:25…
ESV – For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
NRSV – For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
Here’s a link to the comparison:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%204%3A25&version=ESV;NRSV Ultimately, I guess the NRSV just resonated more with me. Nothing wrong with the ESV, though.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.