Exactly! 😊I love this video, and I couldn't agree more with Mark Ward. All translation, including translation of Holy Writ, is about compromise. 1. Consider four qualities in translation: accuracy, readability (by which I mean clarity and naturalness), audience appropriateness, and literary elegance. 2. How should the translator(s) prioritize each of these qualities? 3. Related, what's the best balance between each of these qualities in a translation? 4. As I see it, there's no single best answer. Rather there are multiple correct answers, and each answer may rightly place their emphasis on one quality over another quality while at the same time realizing their emphasis on one quality may lower or raise their emphasis on another quality. And this is so even granting these qualities aren't entirely separable or discrete from one another (as Mark Ward points out is the case with accuracy and readability), but in fact each of these qualities is tied to one another to a certain degree. 5. That said, my opinion is that, generally speaking, if the choice must be made, then accuracy and readability should trump literary elegance in Bible translation. They're simply more important qualities than literary elegance when it comes to the Bible. And I say this as someone who loves words and literary beauty and style and the like, and who often agrees with the works of fine literary stylists like C.S. Lewis, E.B. White, Alan Jacobs, and Anthony Esolen, who loves the creativeness or inventiveness and word play of writers like Charles Dickens and J.K. Rowling, etc. 6. However, I don't think (for example) the college educated person necessarily needs to choose between accuracy and readability and literary elegance if we choose a translation like the ESV. To be fair, the ESV is not as readable for those with a lower reading level. In that case, the CSB or NIV or the NLT would be good choices, but then there would be some loss in terms of literary elegance, though gain in terms of readability, which again I believe to be the higher priority if push comes to shove between readability and literary elegance. 7. All this reminds me of one of my favorite quotations from Don Carson: "One thinks, by analogy, of the brilliant recent translation of Beowulf by Seamus Heaney. Within the constraints of terms and idioms that simply must be preserved, Heaney manages to bring to life an astonishingly 'contemporary' translation that nevertheless pulsates with the life of ancient Scandinavian mythological heroes. (Carson, "The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation - and Other Limits, Too", The Challenge of Bible Translation.)
Thank you, Mark. We are indeed fortunate to have such a vast array of biblical resources from which to glean meaning and insights from the biblical text.
Robert Alter was one of my professors at Berkeley. He's a secular Jew. Quite liberal. Whereas I'm a Reformed Christian (Calvinist). No doubt Alter values literary beauty over other important or more important considerations in Bible translation. Yet that's precisely the problem as Mark Ward points out. Alter is a world class literary critic as well as a fine writer in his own right; in my view it's true Alter has a near pitch perfect ear for literary beauty and his translation of the OT is several cuts above most modern English translations if literary art is the sole virtue. The only exceptions I know of are those in the Tyndale-KJV tradition like the ESV as well as the NEB/REB. However the main problem is that beauty can be memorable and inspire but beauty can lull or deceive as well. That's why Mark Ward rightly notes there should be more central or at least equal factors to consider in Bible translation. Such as accuracy.
You’re right. Translation does require compromise.I went, looking for a copy of Dantes divine comedy- an Italian poem. Sometimes translators, try to capture the rhyming structure, but doing so they often make the English a torture to read. Some translators use simple English, but these works I am told lose with beauty and power that made Dante’s work so famous. I ended up using several translations and helps to get the best of both styles.
Having had the priviledge of studying the Hebew Bible with Walter Harelson, I can both appeciate Alter's attempts but also suggest that he is certainly not the only scholar who really has loved Hebrew literary values.
Alter comes across very strong in his arguments against other translations, which can be a bit off-putting, but I also appreciate his somewhat brutal honesty concerning his views. He sometimes paints with too broad a stroke, which I noted when I reviewed this book. On page 113 he discusses Genesis 42:9, where Joseph accuses his brothers of coming to see the "nakedness" of the land. It's a metaphor for weakness in their defense, and several modern translations present it this way, doing away with the metaphor. Alter prefers to leave the metaphor intact, and laments how modern translations explain it away. But his statement is quite generalized as several moderns translations actually do leave it intact, such as the NKJV, ESV and NRSV. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this one, it was a very fair and excellent review! This is indeed a very enjoyable book, as is his translation. But as with anything else, it's good to balance it with the views of others, and many other translators have excellent reasons for the choices they make in translating the Bible.
Exactly right. It’s good for me to get some confirmation from others. I was a little nervous about critiquing such a great scholar. And that he surely is!
I'd love to hear your full review of his Hebrew Bible. I'm hesitant to use it as a resource since not only non-Christian...but also not religiously Jewish.
I haven't read enough to say. My initial impressions are positive. But I think of it like a concept car: lots of stimulating ideas, tons of insightful notes. If I had it in Logos instead of huge paper volumes, I might use it more often!
@@markwardonwords Thank you. I enjoy good literary resources and I think (hope) I'm mature enough in my faith to handle Alter's lack of faith. And yet, I'm not certain it's worth consuming faux-biblical information that could squeeze it's way into my thinking. That feels different than reading classic English literature...riskier, if I may. I wouldn't be comfortable referencing Alter's translation in a sermon. Granted, a man must think for himself haha. Thank you.
Ok I want to know your take on something....I recently ran across the writings of Polycarp to the Philippians. In chapter 7 of this writing he references 1 John 4:2... “For whoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;” and whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan.” The Alexandrian text type omits “come in the flesh.” The Byzantine includes it. Polycarp was a disciple of John. Would this not prove the Byzantine as earlier reading? Your thoughts?
I'm afraid it just doesn't work that way. =| I find that a lot of speculation about the history of variants New Testament assumes this principle: "Omission = denial." That's wrong on two counts, I'm afraid. It's not "omission"-that word implies that we know what the original was, and that the phrase in question was included there. And it's not "denial"-every single "Alexandrian" manuscript (a designation I don't actually fully accept) of any length most certainly affirms in no uncertain terms that Jesus came in the flesh. Just because some ancient manuscripts omit "has come in the flesh" does not mean that any of the scribes copying them were trying to deny the incarnation. I'm not quite I understand that appeal to Polycarp; but I'm guessing it does assume "omission = denial."
What a great message! A wealth of understanding within this review! I'm thankful for your wrestlings with these issues, and your faithfulness in sharing them!
Much appreciated! Alter is truly a brilliant man; I don't want to suggest otherwise in any way. But we don't love the same things, so we won't see "the facts" the same way.
I cannot say from direct experience. I can say that he is not a Christian and therefore will certainly come from a different perspective. To me, that perspective is valuable. To anyone who is well-steeped in good evangelical translations, Alter can be profitable. But if you're fearful, give it time. There's no rush to read Alter! Read his book on The Art of Biblical Poetry first, anyway!
the mere fact that all translations are imperfect is the main reason we should use multiple translations, I disagree with the way he (Alter) translates some passages
My main concern is that Robert Alter doesn’t believe the bible is God-inspired. He also believes that there are contradictions in the bible, which tells me, me he doesn’t see it as the in-errant word of God. How can anyone truly, respectfully treat the biblical texts with godly reverence without knowing it is genuinely God’s word? I do have “Jewish” bible translations, but they are, at least, translated by Jewish authors that believe these are sacred, holy writings - number one prerogative, as far as I’m concerned! Yes Hebrew is a very artistic, picturesque language, but the accurate message is what is most important. While multiple translations is the best way to go, the more ‘literal’ translations are my preference, even over eloquent writing. While some people don’t enjoy the accurate “woodenness” of literal translations, for me, I never saw that as negatively (or perhaps even as “sinful?") as some people do. My kids were raised on reading and studying a “wooden” translation and they didn’t have any more problems than they would have had using a paraphrased translation, such as, yes, even the NIV. (Such translations makes drawing wrong conclusions easier too!) Alter’s translation is one of the few I don’t have. At that price, it may be a while, unless it drops considerably. I must also confess, the greater majority of my studying is in the New Testament anyway. I might be curious for some of the notes in Alter’s translation, otherwise,... nah....
Excellent review. Alter's translation and notes are phenomenal, and the introduction to his translation is worth the money for the box set. What this tells me is that a review on Alter can be just as life-giving as Alter's translation when it's done right.
I admit that my personal biases lean in the direction of Alter, though I would not go as far as he does. I'm willing to sacrifice a certain amount of clarity if the text happens to be good literal Hebrew and good literary English at the same time. For instance, I will gladly take the idiom "knew" (NKJV, NRSV, ESV) in Genesis 4.1 over "was intimate with" (CSB), "made love to" (NIV), "had intercourse with" (GNT, NABRE), or, worst of all, "had sexual relations with" (NLT; cf. NASB, MEV). Perhaps I can settle for the compromise in the CEB: "The man Adam knew his wife Eve intimately." It's not a prudish concern that I have in this case. It's simply that the original figure of speech is more engaging and less clinical or pedestrian than the alternatives.
I agree with your specific example. But I’m also glad, for the sake of those who might miss it, that some translations are more clinical and pedestrian. We don’t have to have only one!
@@markwardonwords Well, I know I can't win every battle when it comes to retaining the idioms. But I'm still convinced that Wycliffe had it right when he brought 2 Samuel 5.4 into English with the words, "Dauid was a sone of thretti yeer, whanne he bigan to regne." (You can't beat that rhythm.)
;) I don't think my aim in this review is to win all battles but merely to let non-specialists know for sure that these battles exist. Sometimes both "sides" can win! We can get literary devices and clarity of meaning. But sometimes compromises must be made, and God hasn't promised to nudge certain translators toward the right solution to any given compromise. I know I'm preaching to the choir. People like you, one of my favorite (and most helpful!) commenters, can read well. You are RIGHT to argue for the retention of idioms. But somebody also has to stick up for the little guy, the guy who would resent it, perhaps, if he knew I were sticking up for him. In the push and pull between the VALID points 1) you and Alter make about idioms and literary devices and 2) I make about accessibility, Lord willing we will come to some wisdom. We at least need to have firmly in mind what it is we are weighing, and what loves in our hearts tip the scales in our minds toward one option or another.
I was reading in the KJV the other day and came across Isaiah 14:29 and the word "cockatrice". Now I had no idea what a cockatrice was. I had to look it up and I confess that I laughed when I saw that it was basically a dragon rooster beast. And I was sure that this was another instance of the King James translators indulging in flights of fancy particular to their time (like the dragons or unicorns), especially since Wikipedia said that preoccupations with this beast were a particularly English and Elizabethan pastime. The Hebrew word is apparently "tsepha", and all other more modern translations have rendered it as adder or serpent. The Douay Rheims translation uses "basilisk", which I admit is pretty darn cool, but it's also closer to the modern renderings of a snake, despite being written at the same time as the KJV. The KJV seems to be the outlier here... with its dragon rooster. Anyway, I immediately thought of this as being another problem with the KJV onlyism. How could the KJV be perfect and the best example of the Biblical word If it's the only one that uses that particular monster...and one that was particularly English in the middle centuries? Poetically it definitely works. It conjures visions of a terrifying monster (which I'm sure would engender more fear in the populace than simply an adder). It's a unique way to render a unfamiliar Hebrew term. So perhaps it was one of the poetic sacrifices they had to make. Not necessarily accurate...but also not intelligible to modern readers. And yet, I have to admit that it's more impressive to read (once you know what it is) than serpent or adder.
Good review. I find it difficult to see how one who doesn't see the Bible as the inspired word of God can capture the full meaning of the text. It just doesn't seem right. I am aware that things will be lost in translation especially when the language that is being translated from is not an active everyday language anymore, but I'm confident that what we have in these multiple English translations are effectively the word of God. If this wasn't the case, I'd be inclined to think that God doesn't want us to understand the scriptures, which wouldn't make much sense.
I have this book. I was interested in seeing this video because I wanted to see what you would say about it. Already having an opinion formed, I found your statements in agreement with my thoughts.😅 So, you basically nailed it. What you said...tis true. There are some good bits in the book that can be gleaned.
If one would value literary beauty in Scripture, I think you might as well stick with the KJV, which is beautiful and of great cultural import. Successive translations ought to place accuracy and readability as prime import, and look to literary beauty as they can.
I agree with 85% of this! It’s just the “stick with the KJV” part I might disagree with: I have stuck with the KJV as a constant companion, but not an exclusive one.
@@MAMoreno interesting, I like a to include the "and," and it seems to me that "chaos" has overtones of being out of God's control, so I've not preferred that. It may also fit better the theology of those that go for an old earth position, though I'm sure people have lots of reasons I'll never think of.
People must stop looking for “original” literary elegance in the bible. You cannot have it, for it cannot be translated. Compare translations of Chaucer to Chaucer! I very greatly enjoy the former, but it just is not as good as Chaucer’s own Middle English. For the opposite effect, read Milton. No one who cannot read English will ever grasp or understand the extraordinary beauty of Milton’s poetry - and might not as ESL. The Scriptures are meant to be understood, so if you aren’t a native speaker of ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek (and no one alive is), and aren’t at least tolerably able to read them as a second/third language, then study the Scriptures in a translation that is as straightforward as possible. The more effort spent trying to untangle "majestic" wording the more effort is spent coming to an understanding of the text.
Hi Mark yes a translation should be understandable but literal as much as possible , but not to point it observes meaning. God's Word is God Breathed. Thank you Mark 😊
Dave, thanks for dropping by! You may want to watch my INCREDI-NASB video: ruclips.net/video/reBR7di1Nr8/видео.html. I understand what you're saying, but I think the issues are a bit more complex!
Exactly! 😊I love this video, and I couldn't agree more with Mark Ward. All translation, including translation of Holy Writ, is about compromise.
1. Consider four qualities in translation: accuracy, readability (by which I mean clarity and naturalness), audience appropriateness, and literary elegance.
2. How should the translator(s) prioritize each of these qualities?
3. Related, what's the best balance between each of these qualities in a translation?
4. As I see it, there's no single best answer. Rather there are multiple correct answers, and each answer may rightly place their emphasis on one quality over another quality while at the same time realizing their emphasis on one quality may lower or raise their emphasis on another quality. And this is so even granting these qualities aren't entirely separable or discrete from one another (as Mark Ward points out is the case with accuracy and readability), but in fact each of these qualities is tied to one another to a certain degree.
5. That said, my opinion is that, generally speaking, if the choice must be made, then accuracy and readability should trump literary elegance in Bible translation. They're simply more important qualities than literary elegance when it comes to the Bible. And I say this as someone who loves words and literary beauty and style and the like, and who often agrees with the works of fine literary stylists like C.S. Lewis, E.B. White, Alan Jacobs, and Anthony Esolen, who loves the creativeness or inventiveness and word play of writers like Charles Dickens and J.K. Rowling, etc.
6. However, I don't think (for example) the college educated person necessarily needs to choose between accuracy and readability and literary elegance if we choose a translation like the ESV. To be fair, the ESV is not as readable for those with a lower reading level. In that case, the CSB or NIV or the NLT would be good choices, but then there would be some loss in terms of literary elegance, though gain in terms of readability, which again I believe to be the higher priority if push comes to shove between readability and literary elegance.
7. All this reminds me of one of my favorite quotations from Don Carson: "One thinks, by analogy, of the brilliant recent translation of Beowulf by Seamus Heaney. Within the constraints of terms and idioms that simply must be preserved, Heaney manages to bring to life an astonishingly 'contemporary' translation that nevertheless pulsates with the life of ancient Scandinavian mythological heroes. (Carson, "The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation - and Other Limits, Too", The Challenge of Bible Translation.)
Thank you, Mark. We are indeed fortunate to have such a vast array of biblical resources from which to glean meaning and insights from the biblical text.
Right!
Many interesting observations here. Thank you for sharing your insights. I hope you do more book reviews in the future.
I hope so too!
Robert Alter was one of my professors at Berkeley. He's a secular Jew. Quite liberal. Whereas I'm a Reformed Christian (Calvinist). No doubt Alter values literary beauty over other important or more important considerations in Bible translation. Yet that's precisely the problem as Mark Ward points out. Alter is a world class literary critic as well as a fine writer in his own right; in my view it's true Alter has a near pitch perfect ear for literary beauty and his translation of the OT is several cuts above most modern English translations if literary art is the sole virtue. The only exceptions I know of are those in the Tyndale-KJV tradition like the ESV as well as the NEB/REB. However the main problem is that beauty can be memorable and inspire but beauty can lull or deceive as well. That's why Mark Ward rightly notes there should be more central or at least equal factors to consider in Bible translation. Such as accuracy.
He's a truly great man. I would have loved to take a class with him.
You’re right. Translation does require compromise.I went, looking for a copy of Dantes divine comedy- an Italian poem. Sometimes translators, try to capture the rhyming structure, but doing so they often make the English a torture to read. Some translators use simple English, but these works I am told lose with beauty and power that made Dante’s work so famous. I ended up using several translations and helps to get the best of both styles.
You nailed it. That’s just reality in the world God gave us!
Having had the priviledge of studying the Hebew Bible with Walter Harelson, I can both appeciate Alter's attempts but also suggest that he is certainly not the only scholar who really has loved Hebrew literary values.
Right!
Alter comes across very strong in his arguments against other translations, which can be a bit off-putting, but I also appreciate his somewhat brutal honesty concerning his views. He sometimes paints with too broad a stroke, which I noted when I reviewed this book. On page 113 he discusses Genesis 42:9, where Joseph accuses his brothers of coming to see the "nakedness" of the land. It's a metaphor for weakness in their defense, and several modern translations present it this way, doing away with the metaphor. Alter prefers to leave the metaphor intact, and laments how modern translations explain it away. But his statement is quite generalized as several moderns translations actually do leave it intact, such as the NKJV, ESV and NRSV.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this one, it was a very fair and excellent review! This is indeed a very enjoyable book, as is his translation. But as with anything else, it's good to balance it with the views of others, and many other translators have excellent reasons for the choices they make in translating the Bible.
Exactly right. It’s good for me to get some confirmation from others. I was a little nervous about critiquing such a great scholar. And that he surely is!
I'd love to hear your full review of his Hebrew Bible. I'm hesitant to use it as a resource since not only non-Christian...but also not religiously Jewish.
I haven't read enough to say. My initial impressions are positive. But I think of it like a concept car: lots of stimulating ideas, tons of insightful notes. If I had it in Logos instead of huge paper volumes, I might use it more often!
@@markwardonwords Thank you. I enjoy good literary resources and I think (hope) I'm mature enough in my faith to handle Alter's lack of faith. And yet, I'm not certain it's worth consuming faux-biblical information that could squeeze it's way into my thinking. That feels different than reading classic English literature...riskier, if I may. I wouldn't be comfortable referencing Alter's translation in a sermon. Granted, a man must think for himself haha. Thank you.
You quoted that translations are imperfect. Here’s something that I thought… languages aren’t perfect. But the message of God still lives on.
True!
Will we see his works on Logos any time soon?
I have not heard in a long time. :(
Ok I want to know your take on something....I recently ran across the writings of Polycarp to the Philippians. In chapter 7 of this writing he references 1 John 4:2...
“For whoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;” and whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan.”
The Alexandrian text type omits “come in the flesh.” The Byzantine includes it. Polycarp was a disciple of John. Would this not prove the Byzantine as earlier reading? Your thoughts?
I'm afraid it just doesn't work that way. =| I find that a lot of speculation about the history of variants New Testament assumes this principle: "Omission = denial." That's wrong on two counts, I'm afraid. It's not "omission"-that word implies that we know what the original was, and that the phrase in question was included there. And it's not "denial"-every single "Alexandrian" manuscript (a designation I don't actually fully accept) of any length most certainly affirms in no uncertain terms that Jesus came in the flesh. Just because some ancient manuscripts omit "has come in the flesh" does not mean that any of the scribes copying them were trying to deny the incarnation. I'm not quite I understand that appeal to Polycarp; but I'm guessing it does assume "omission = denial."
What a great message! A wealth of understanding within this review! I'm thankful for your wrestlings with these issues, and your faithfulness in sharing them!
Much appreciated! Alter is truly a brilliant man; I don't want to suggest otherwise in any way. But we don't love the same things, so we won't see "the facts" the same way.
Does Robert Alter's translation convey heretical ideas? If I read it, would I be led astray?
I cannot say from direct experience. I can say that he is not a Christian and therefore will certainly come from a different perspective. To me, that perspective is valuable. To anyone who is well-steeped in good evangelical translations, Alter can be profitable. But if you're fearful, give it time. There's no rush to read Alter! Read his book on The Art of Biblical Poetry first, anyway!
the mere fact that all translations are imperfect is the main reason we should use multiple translations, I disagree with the way he (Alter) translates some passages
Right on both counts!
My main concern is that Robert Alter doesn’t believe the bible is God-inspired. He also believes that there are contradictions in the bible, which tells me, me he doesn’t see it as the in-errant word of God. How can anyone truly, respectfully treat the biblical texts with godly reverence without knowing it is genuinely God’s word? I do have “Jewish” bible translations, but they are, at least, translated by Jewish authors that believe these are sacred, holy writings - number one prerogative, as far as I’m concerned! Yes Hebrew is a very artistic, picturesque language, but the accurate message is what is most important. While multiple translations is the best way to go, the more ‘literal’ translations are my preference, even over eloquent writing. While some people don’t enjoy the accurate “woodenness” of literal translations, for me, I never saw that as negatively (or perhaps even as “sinful?") as some people do. My kids were raised on reading and studying a “wooden” translation and they didn’t have any more problems than they would have had using a paraphrased translation, such as, yes, even the NIV. (Such translations makes drawing wrong conclusions easier too!) Alter’s translation is one of the few I don’t have. At that price, it may be a while, unless it drops considerably. I must also confess, the greater majority of my studying is in the New Testament anyway. I might be curious for some of the notes in Alter’s translation, otherwise,... nah....
The notes really are valuable! He is an amazing literary and biblical Hebrew scholar.
Excellent review. Alter's translation and notes are phenomenal, and the introduction to his translation is worth the money for the box set. What this tells me is that a review on Alter can be just as life-giving as Alter's translation when it's done right.
Thank you!
I admit that my personal biases lean in the direction of Alter, though I would not go as far as he does. I'm willing to sacrifice a certain amount of clarity if the text happens to be good literal Hebrew and good literary English at the same time.
For instance, I will gladly take the idiom "knew" (NKJV, NRSV, ESV) in Genesis 4.1 over "was intimate with" (CSB), "made love to" (NIV), "had intercourse with" (GNT, NABRE), or, worst of all, "had sexual relations with" (NLT; cf. NASB, MEV). Perhaps I can settle for the compromise in the CEB: "The man Adam knew his wife Eve intimately." It's not a prudish concern that I have in this case. It's simply that the original figure of speech is more engaging and less clinical or pedestrian than the alternatives.
I agree with your specific example. But I’m also glad, for the sake of those who might miss it, that some translations are more clinical and pedestrian. We don’t have to have only one!
@@markwardonwords Well, I know I can't win every battle when it comes to retaining the idioms. But I'm still convinced that Wycliffe had it right when he brought 2 Samuel 5.4 into English with the words, "Dauid was a sone of thretti yeer, whanne he bigan to regne." (You can't beat that rhythm.)
;)
I don't think my aim in this review is to win all battles but merely to let non-specialists know for sure that these battles exist. Sometimes both "sides" can win! We can get literary devices and clarity of meaning. But sometimes compromises must be made, and God hasn't promised to nudge certain translators toward the right solution to any given compromise. I know I'm preaching to the choir.
People like you, one of my favorite (and most helpful!) commenters, can read well. You are RIGHT to argue for the retention of idioms. But somebody also has to stick up for the little guy, the guy who would resent it, perhaps, if he knew I were sticking up for him. In the push and pull between the VALID points 1) you and Alter make about idioms and literary devices and 2) I make about accessibility, Lord willing we will come to some wisdom. We at least need to have firmly in mind what it is we are weighing, and what loves in our hearts tip the scales in our minds toward one option or another.
I was reading in the KJV the other day and came across Isaiah 14:29 and the word "cockatrice". Now I had no idea what a cockatrice was. I had to look it up and I confess that I laughed when I saw that it was basically a dragon rooster beast. And I was sure that this was another instance of the King James translators indulging in flights of fancy particular to their time (like the dragons or unicorns), especially since Wikipedia said that preoccupations with this beast were a particularly English and Elizabethan pastime. The Hebrew word is apparently "tsepha", and all other more modern translations have rendered it as adder or serpent. The Douay Rheims translation uses "basilisk", which I admit is pretty darn cool, but it's also closer to the modern renderings of a snake, despite being written at the same time as the KJV. The KJV seems to be the outlier here... with its dragon rooster.
Anyway, I immediately thought of this as being another problem with the KJV onlyism. How could the KJV be perfect and the best example of the Biblical word If it's the only one that uses that particular monster...and one that was particularly English in the middle centuries? Poetically it definitely works. It conjures visions of a terrifying monster (which I'm sure would engender more fear in the populace than simply an adder). It's a unique way to render a unfamiliar Hebrew term. So perhaps it was one of the poetic sacrifices they had to make. Not necessarily accurate...but also not intelligible to modern readers. And yet, I have to admit that it's more impressive to read (once you know what it is) than serpent or adder.
I need to look more into that obscure word…
Good review. I find it difficult to see how one who doesn't see the Bible as the inspired word of God can capture the full meaning of the text. It just doesn't seem right. I am aware that things will be lost in translation especially when the language that is being translated from is not an active everyday language anymore, but I'm confident that what we have in these multiple English translations are effectively the word of God. If this wasn't the case, I'd be inclined to think that God doesn't want us to understand the scriptures, which wouldn't make much sense.
Right!
I have this book. I was interested in seeing this video because I wanted to see what you would say about it. Already having an opinion formed, I found your statements in agreement with my thoughts.😅 So, you basically nailed it. What you said...tis true. There are some good bits in the book that can be gleaned.
Yes, he’s brilliant! But we don’t have the same value system.
If one would value literary beauty in Scripture, I think you might as well stick with the KJV, which is beautiful and of great cultural import.
Successive translations ought to place accuracy and readability as prime import, and look to literary beauty as they can.
I agree with 85% of this! It’s just the “stick with the KJV” part I might disagree with: I have stuck with the KJV as a constant companion, but not an exclusive one.
Still the best I've heard for tohu vavohu, is "unformed and unfilled." I heard that from Stephen Brown, but i don't know if it's original to him.
I like it!
The updated edition of the NRSV (which just came out digitally) has opted for "complete chaos." It seems they were listening to Alter.
@@MAMoreno interesting, I like a to include the "and," and it seems to me that "chaos" has overtones of being out of God's control, so I've not preferred that. It may also fit better the theology of those that go for an old earth position, though I'm sure people have lots of reasons I'll never think of.
People must stop looking for “original” literary elegance in the bible. You cannot have it, for it cannot be translated.
Compare translations of Chaucer to Chaucer! I very greatly enjoy the former, but it just is not as good as Chaucer’s own Middle English.
For the opposite effect, read Milton. No one who cannot read English will ever grasp or understand the extraordinary beauty of Milton’s poetry - and might not as ESL.
The Scriptures are meant to be understood, so if you aren’t a native speaker of ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek (and no one alive is), and aren’t at least tolerably able to read them as a second/third language, then study the Scriptures in a translation that is as straightforward as possible.
The more effort spent trying to untangle "majestic" wording the more effort is spent coming to an understanding of the text.
Fantastic review!
Thank you!
Hi Mark yes a translation should be understandable but literal as much as possible , but not to point it observes meaning. God's Word is God Breathed. Thank you Mark 😊
Dave, thanks for dropping by! You may want to watch my INCREDI-NASB video: ruclips.net/video/reBR7di1Nr8/видео.html. I understand what you're saying, but I think the issues are a bit more complex!