Bible Versions: What is the Best Bible Translation? by David Malcolm Bennett
Most of the other translations of Is. 26:12 are weak by comparison. Hear them: “thou has wrought for us all our works” (RSV); “Thou hast performed for us all our works” (NASB); “you have done for us all our works” (ESV); “all our works are thy doing” (NEB); “everything that we achieve is the result of what you do” (GNB). They say the same thing, but they don’t say it as well. However, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is very close to the NIV. Interestingly, the CEV translates this as “everything we have done was by your power”, which is a good example of the dynamic approach in action.
The NIV’s rendering of the hymn of love in 1 Cor. 13 is accurate, clear and has excellent rhythm. It helps you to fall in love with such agape love. Listen to just part of it:
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails.
That is very moving. It also avoids the trap of saying “believes all things” (v.7 see KJV and RSV). Are we really meant to believe “all things”? It says, instead, “always trusts”, which is a perfectly legitimate, and probably accurate, translation of the Greek. F.W. Grosheide sees the concept of trust in the Greek word pisteuei here. In addition, he says, “When we love somebody we trust him fully”.3 Gordon Fee also argues that Paul means here “love never ceases to have faith.”4 In other words, in part at least, love “always trusts”. It is not a case of believing all you hear.
A few years ago one of the ministers at my church was preaching through the book of Nahum. This was a very courageous thing to do, for many in the pews in any church do not like to hear about God’s judgment. One Sunday during that series I was privileged to take my turn in the public reading of the Scriptures. It was Nahum chapter 3. In one sense this is a terrible chapter. It declares the judgment of God upon the city of Nineveh. If you read it and it does not disturb you, then there must be something wrong with you. But this chapter, particularly the early verses, is a marvelous passage to read out loud, especially in the NIV.
Read these verses aloud.
1Woe to the city of blood,
full of lies,
full of plunder,
never without victims!
2The crack of whips,
the clatter of wheels,
galloping horses
and jolting chariots!
3Charging cavalry,
flashing swords
and glittering spears!
Many casualties,
piles of dead,
bodies without number,
people stumbling over the corpses –
4all because of the wanton lust of a harlot,
alluring, the mistress of sorceries,
who enslaved nations by her prostitution
and peoples by her witchcraft.
5“I am against you,” declares the Lord Almighty.
First off, I would like to praise this author for giving such a balanced view of the majority of Bible translations. It is refreshing to see someone come at it from a fairly neutral angle.
However, I also have to voice some disappointment with it. First off, among the Translation and Interpreting Studies community (and amongst professionals), it is very rare to speak of any kinds of "equivalence". In fact, while Nida's work is foundational to most modern Western thought on translation, no analyst in a research or even professional settings would start looking for "dynamic" or "formal equivalence", mostly for the reasons the author gives. (I would like to congratulate the author on their handling of these terms). They simply do not make any scientific sense as terms. Language is much more complicated than can be covered by these terms – a point I go into in detail in my earlier Pneuma Review article here: https://www.academia.edu/1317676/Using_the_Right_Bible_Translation. (I would welcome it being republished alongside its companion piece.)
For this reason, even the term "paraphrase" is out of place, since, by definition, all translations are paraphrases. I therefore have to disagree with calling The Message a "paraphrase" that "must be used with caution". Actually, to a large extent the way Eugene Peterson describes his approach to translation is much closer to the way that most trained professionals would handle their work – deciding on strategies and choices based on translation purpose and intended audience. In this light, The Message has more right to the title of a "translation" than say, the NKJV, since the latter was a review of the KJV where the reviewers do not explicitly mention going back to the original manuscripts. The Living Bible is a very different case altogether.
In sum, therefore, this is a very good article but one with a few technical flaws. Please send my congratulations to the author. I would also suggest that he would find Exploring Translation Theories by Anthony Pym and Translation as a Purposeful Activity by Christiane Nord. I am sure they will aid his reflection on Bible translation even more.
First off, I would like to praise this author for giving such a balanced view of the majority of Bible translations. It is refreshing to see someone come at it from a fairly neutral angle.
However, I also have to voice some disappointment with it. First off, among the Translation and Interpreting Studies community (and amongst professionals), it is very rare to speak of any kinds of “equivalence”. In fact, while Nida’s work is foundational to most modern Western thought on translation, no analyst in a research or even professional settings would start looking for “dynamic” or “formal equivalence”, mostly for the reasons the author gives. (I would like to congratulate the author on their handling of these terms). They simply do not make any scientific sense as terms. Language is much more complicated than can be covered by these terms – a point I go into in detail in my earlier Pneuma Review article here: https://www.academia.edu/1317676/Using_the_Right_Bible_Translation. (I would welcome it being republished alongside its companion piece.)
For this reason, even the term “paraphrase” is out of place, since, by definition, all translations are paraphrases. I therefore have to disagree with calling The Message a “paraphrase” that “must be used with caution”. Actually, to a large extent the way Eugene Peterson describes his approach to translation is much closer to the way that most trained professionals would handle their work – deciding on strategies and choices based on translation purpose and intended audience. In this light, The Message has more right to the title of a “translation” than say, the NKJV, since the latter was a review of the KJV where the reviewers do not explicitly mention going back to the original manuscripts. The Living Bible is a very different case altogether.
In sum, therefore, this is a very good article but one with a few technical flaws. Please send my congratulations to the author. I would also suggest that he would find Exploring Translation Theories by Anthony Pym and Translation as a Purposeful Activity by Christiane Nord. I am sure they will aid his reflection on Bible translation even more.