Thursday, August 14, 2008
Who cares who translated my Bible?
In the past there was a tradition of not listing the names of the translators of the Bible. After all, translators didn’t write the Bible; they simply render into a modern language what is there in Hebrew and Greek (with a bit of Aramaic). Humility would seem to call for anonymity.
So why does the NLT list the names of its ninety translators? It’s not to stroke the egos of the scholars. Indeed, I get embarrassed when people ask me to autograph their NLT because they see my name up front.
The main value of knowing who translated the Bible you are reading is to let you know the theological perspective of the work. (Yes, it is also to tell you that the people who did it are highly trained specialists in the language and literature of the Old and New Testaments). But what difference does the theological perspective of the translator make?
A big difference. After all, as I like to say, a translation is a commentary without a note. Well, not quite, but what I mean is that to translate requires interpretation and interpretation means that exegetical decisions have to be made. Much of the Bible is crystal clear and easily rendered into a modern language like English, but not all of it.
Let me give an example from the very first verses of Genesis (1:1-2) and let’s do so by comparing the NLT and the NRSV.
Notice the difference? In the NRSV at the time (when) God created the
heavens and earth, the earth was formless and void. In other words, it was
already there and ready for God to use. The NLT hints at a creation from
nothing. There was nothing and then God created a formless earth which he
then shaped into the habitable planet described in the rest of Genesis 1.
Here’s the rub. This important theological point cannot be solved by reference to the rules of Hebrew grammar. They both can be defended. The NLT (and other translations by evangelical scholars) base their rendering on other, later Scripture passages that clearly teach creation from nothing. The NRSV rather takes its cue from the cultural environment. The surrounding cultures (Egyptian, Canaanite, Mesopotamian) all describe primeval waters from which creation derives.
This is just one striking example, but it does indicate that you should know something about where your translation came from. It is also a good idea to use multiple translations when doing serious study, but more about that in the future.
So why does the NLT list the names of its ninety translators? It’s not to stroke the egos of the scholars. Indeed, I get embarrassed when people ask me to autograph their NLT because they see my name up front.
The main value of knowing who translated the Bible you are reading is to let you know the theological perspective of the work. (Yes, it is also to tell you that the people who did it are highly trained specialists in the language and literature of the Old and New Testaments). But what difference does the theological perspective of the translator make?
A big difference. After all, as I like to say, a translation is a commentary without a note. Well, not quite, but what I mean is that to translate requires interpretation and interpretation means that exegetical decisions have to be made. Much of the Bible is crystal clear and easily rendered into a modern language like English, but not all of it.
Let me give an example from the very first verses of Genesis (1:1-2) and let’s do so by comparing the NLT and the NRSV.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. (NLT)
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep…” (NRSV)
Notice the difference? In the NRSV at the time (when) God created the
heavens and earth, the earth was formless and void. In other words, it was
already there and ready for God to use. The NLT hints at a creation from
nothing. There was nothing and then God created a formless earth which he
then shaped into the habitable planet described in the rest of Genesis 1.
Here’s the rub. This important theological point cannot be solved by reference to the rules of Hebrew grammar. They both can be defended. The NLT (and other translations by evangelical scholars) base their rendering on other, later Scripture passages that clearly teach creation from nothing. The NRSV rather takes its cue from the cultural environment. The surrounding cultures (Egyptian, Canaanite, Mesopotamian) all describe primeval waters from which creation derives.
This is just one striking example, but it does indicate that you should know something about where your translation came from. It is also a good idea to use multiple translations when doing serious study, but more about that in the future.
posted by Tremper Longman at 3:41 PM
Dr. Longman, Good post.
Until recently I subscribed to the viewpoint that only "essentially literal" translations were worthy of being read.
One of the major factors for me in changing my position was the scholars involved in the NTL and TNIV translations. Several of my favorite authors are involved with these works. Both the NLT and TNIV are now, along with the REB, my favorite translations.
Another help for me was the book How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss. One of the points they repeatedly made, like you mentioned in your post, is that all tranlations involve interpretation.
Thanks again for the post. I'm glad you're now part of the NLT Blog team.
Wonderful post. Thanks very much.
May I suggest that writing from an oral culture could very well read precisely like the NRSV and yet mean precisely what you're getting at? Actually, I'm guessing that's kind of your point. My point is that seeing both helps me imagine the primitive thought AND see the need for considering it more precisely.
Your overall point is excellent: Interpretation is required no matter what. I love it. And so we (should) fall on our faces before God instead of fighting each other over a comma or period.
Again, thanks so much. :)
Thank you very much for this post. Are you characterizing the NLT (and other evangelical translations) as representative of the "historical-grammatical" textual approach, while the NRSV embodies the "historical-critical" approach? Does this distinction include validation for a Christological interpretation of OT passages, or is that yet another issue?
William A. Beardslee
Phyllis A. Bird
George Coats
Demetrios J. Constantelos
Robert C. Dentan
Alexander A. DiLella
J. Cheryl Exum
Reginald H. Fuller
Paul D. Hanson
Walter Harrelson
William L. Holladay
Sherman E. Johnson
Robert A. Kraft
George M. Landes
Conrad E. L'Heureux
S. Dean McBride, Jr.
Bruce M. Metzger
Patrick D. Miller
Paul S. Minear
Lucetta Mowry
Roland E. Murphy
Harry S. Orlinsky
Marvin H. Pope
J. J. M. Roberts
Alfred v. Rohr Sauer
Katharine D. Sakenfeld
James A. Sanders
Gene M. Tucker
Eugene C. Ulrich
Allen Wikgren
Do we like the NSRV now?
What? NRSV?
I have replied critically to this post here.
Tremper,
First of all, thanks for taking advantage of the blog genre to express your point of view, and thanks to the NLT team for starting this blog. The criticisms I will now offer are meant in a constructive way. I have a number of issues with NLT2, but the same is true with other existing translations. I am convinced that NLT2 is a gift of God to the people of God, whatever its shortcomings may be.
I think the distinction you draw between NLT2 and NRSV in this instance is overblown. Both NLT2 and NRSV consider more than one rendering of Genesis 1:1 as defensible, and are careful to note legitimate alternatives in the footnotes. If you are suggesting that NLT2 includes theologically unacceptable translations among its “Or” alternatives, this is a news scoop of which many people are unaware, and which, if confirmed on this NLT blog, will be given wide play, you can be sure, among Bible bloggers.
The facts, I think, suggest otherwise. There is a third way of resolving the exegetical and theological questions raised by the syntax of Genesis 1:1-3 which you do not discuss. It is compatible with the alternate readings supplied by NLT2: “Or In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, . . . Or When God began to create the heavens and the earth, . . .” On this exegetical construal, that the earth was formless and void and was already there and ready for God to use is what Genesis 1:1-3 suggests, but, nevertheless, God created everything there is ex nihilo, as other Scripture teaches. In the same way, although the creation of angels/ divine beings (note the “Let us” further on in Gen 1, “the sons of God” which appear later in Genesis, etc.) is not recounted in Gen 1, this is not necessarily in contradiction with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Traditional Jewish and Christian teaching on such matters tends to be “and / and,” not “either or.” Thus it is traditional Jewish (and Christian) teaching that the “stuff” of angels is fire and the “stuff” of human beings is dirt, but that is not taken to contradict the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Before God created angels from fire and human kind from the dirt, he created fire and dirt ex nihilo. In the same way, at a point in time (as it were) before God began to create heaven and earth in a fully functional sense, he created the formless earth ex nihilo.
Your appeal to confessional differences in this instance is also misplaced. The facts are these: there are a number of evangelicals, non-evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, who concur with Rashi and Ibn Ezra – quite apart from ANE analogues – that Gen 1:1 is a “when” clause (see Andersen-Forbes analysis of the syntax of Gen 1:1-3 in the LOGOS module, for example), but who do not fall into the non sequitur according to which the classical Jewish and Christian teaching of creation ex nihilo must therefore be abandoned.
John Hobbins
ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home