Showing posts with label bible translation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible translation. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Get the Faithlife Study Bible for FREE!

For months in 2011 and early 2012, my blogging, PhD research, and pretty much everything else took a back seat to my work on the Faithlife Study Bible (FSB). Now I'm finally free to share our work with the world. Basically, we created a digital study Bible from the ground up--totally designed for digital and designed with tablet devices in mind. It works on your Android device, Kindle Fire, iPhone, iPad, Mac, or PC, as well as on Logos, Vyrso and the web.

Screenshot from Genesis 1 on an Android Tablet       
I was part of the team that wrote or edited the study notes and articles. We produced over 1.4 million words of notes and articles (my contribution was over 225,000 words) and provided in-depth content. One of my long-standing pet peeves with the study Bibles I own is that they always stopped short of answering my question. Invariably, I would have a question on a particular verse, but the notes would often skip that verse or offer a very superficial comment. One of the ways we dealt with that problem was by building the Faithlife Study Bible with three layers of notes. Since it's digital, additional content in the second layer of notes can be uncovered with a tap or mouse-click. Print study Bibles are limited by how much can fit on the page. If there's still more to say after that additional paragraph or two, we have links for further reading. Those links include FSB articles, Lexham Bible Dictionary articles (the Bible dictionary that comes free with our study Bible), and links to additional Logos resources on the topic. Our three layers of content offer detailed notes on a wide range of issues, but the other way we'll avoid the dead-end, skipped verse problem of traditional study Bibles is by continually adding to our study Bible. The Faithlife Study Bible is still growing. We're still adding notes and articles and responding to user feedback to make sure we've adequately addressed the important issues.
Another limitation of print study Bibles is that they're stuck with the translation they were based on. (That also used to be one of the ways you could justify the need for producing yet another study Bible.) The Faithlife Study Bible works with seven translations (I think that was coincidental but it is perfect). It comes free with the Lexham English Bible, a literal translation designed for maximum transparency to the underlying Greek and Hebrew. If you prefer a different translation, the FSB works with ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, NASB95, and NIV2011, but you'd have to buy the one you want separately (unless you're already a Logos user...if you access Faithlife with your same account, it will sync with all the Bible and Logos resources you already own).

Faithlife Study Bible comes bundled with almost 400 photos, videos, and infographics AND the Lexham Bible Dictionary with 2,700 articles and 1.5 million words. (And guess what...the Bible dictionary isn't done yet either. We're still adding articles from top scholars in biblical studies.) 

The study Bible is also integrated with Faithlife.com, a new social network designed for Christian fellowship centered around studying the Bible and growing in faith.

Connect to Faithlife.com
The best part is that you can get all of this for free with a coupon code!

Here’s how to download and use it.

1. Go to http://faithlifebible.com/free

2. Enter your coupon code (Your code is DougMangum FREE)

3. Download the app

4. Log in with your Logos.com/Faithlife.com account

5. Enjoy the Bible!

Where to Download the App:
iPhone/iPad Android—Google Play Kindle Fire Web Version Logos for Mac and PC

Saturday, May 14, 2011

NIV Ads: Just Marketing or Plain Misleading?

I have not been a fan of the NIV ever since I was able to understand the complexities of translation philosophy. In my opinion, it was more popular due to its marketing strategy than for its merit as a translation. (My opinions on the NIV can be found mixed among my posts on bible translation.) I'm sure Zondervan has high hopes that NIV 2011 will help them retain market share and win over the crowd that largely panned TNIV due to the gender translation issue. While initial reports suggested NIV 2011 was more restrained on that issue, I don't think they went far enough to fix the problems with TNIV (as noted here). My litmus test remains their translation of Isaiah 19:16. TNIV and NIV 2011 gut the original of its intentionally insulting rhetoric. I won't translate the verse here lest I offend you.

I have ignored most of the recent advertising push to promote the NIV 2011, but a full back cover ad on a Christian magazine caught my eye. Here's the text from the ad. Is it just marketing spin or a misleading misrepresentation of the facts?

It's amazing how going back to the beginning moves us so far forward. Translated from the most reliable ancient biblical manuscripts. Tirelessly researched by the world's preeminent biblical scholars and linguists. And made crystal clear for English-speaking audiences worldwide. The New International Version is the translation that's easy to understand, yet rich with the detail found in the original Scripture.

Let's look at these claims and their implications.

1. "Translated from the most reliable ancient biblical manuscripts." Oh no! I need to get an NIV. My other Bibles didn't use the most reliable ancient manuscripts. Actually, most translations use the same critical texts in Hebrew and Greek created by scholars from what seem to be the most reliable ancient manuscripts. NIV has a slightly different Greek text than the standard NT critical text, but we are all essentially working with the same manuscript data. The difference is in which variations get preference in translation.

2. "Tirelessly researched by the world's preeminent biblical scholars and linguists." Other Bible translation committees don't have the "preeminent" scholars (only the eminent ones), so NIV must be better. And they worked "tirelessly" this time. Actually, in these past two decades of expanding English Bible versions, many scholars have been involved in the production of multiple versions. Some of the same people working with a different translation philosophy. But at least when working on the NIV, they didn't get tired.

3. "And made crystal clear for English-speaking audiences worldwide." This is a value judgment. Crystal clear relative to what? Young's Literal Translation? The New American Standard? The King James? What is made clear? The meaning of the "original"? The English style? 

4. "easy to understand, yet rich with the detail found in the original Scripture." It's as easy to understand as most moderately idiomatic English translations. But I don't understand how they can claim, in all seriousness, to be "rich with the detail found in the original Scripture." The gender-sensitive issue forces a translation that completely suppresses the rich metaphorical detail of the Hebrew in Isaiah 19:16.

I realize that some people will honestly agree with the opinions about the NIV found in this ad. Only the last claim is, in my opinion, stretching the truth. Our Bible translation preferences have been conditioned from years of using a particular favorite. For a long time, the NIV has been that favorite for a lot of people. An ad like this is designed to get people to stick with the NIV, hopefully without thinking too much about it.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

New Leaven on the New NIV

Making my way through the hundreds of unread posts in my feed reader, I found a couple of good posts about the new NIV over at New Leaven.

T.C. has drawn my attention to the fact that NIV2011 played it safe with the gender issue (which was my main criticism of TNIV - I still think it went too far). He also points out a site by Robert Slowley that has posted some stats comparing the NIV 1984, TNIV, and NIV 2011. T.C. has also compared several texts from Romans where new NIV has more theological clarity than old NIV. Check out his posts for more details!

The NEW and "Improved" NIV is . . .

driven (IMO) more by a desire to sell more Bibles and maintain the market share of NIV in light of competition from HCSB, ESV, and NLTse than by any real need for another English version. It is clear that the translators are less interested in revealing the linguistic and literary complexity of the biblical world than with maintaining an ignorant public's faith in the accuracy of the putative original language and text. My opinion is based on the quote from Douglas Moo shared here by Joseph Kelly and reproduced in part below.
When the books of the Bible were first written, they captured exactly what God wanted to say, in the languages and idioms used by the ordinary people of the time. Those first readers of God’s word could understand the meaning of what God was communicating in the form that God chose to say it—the Hebrew and Greek that were the languages of that time.
This is perhaps the greatest oversimplification of the issues of writing, literacy, and vernacular speech vs. scribal language that I have ever seen/heard/read from an educated Bible scholar. Disappointing but not unexpected considering the audience.

Responses to the translation (now available online) have proliferated around the biblioblogosphere this week. A helpful roundup of some of the posts is at Near Emmaus. I have not yet had time to look closely at the translation to see how it compares to earlier NIV or if it fixes what I disliked about TNIV. John Hobbins offers an analysis of their translation of Ecclesiastes 11:1-2. Rick Mansfield has offered his initial thoughts on the translation.

I'm sure there are more, but if this is an issue you're interested in, there's plenty to read already.

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Shift: Back to Square One

Isn’t it wonderful when, after doing some preliminary research and writing an introductory paper on a potential thesis topic, you discover you missed an important source that reveals massive additional bibliography on the subject and strongly suggests there’s nothing more to be said?

I am interested in the topic of creation in the Hebrew Bible and had begun exploring it especially through the aspect of Deutero-Isaiah’s use of the motif. I’ve presented a paper on the topic at a regional SBL and discussed the topic with potential dissertation committee members. Only one advisor cautioned me that there might be little new ground to explore on this motif, or at least, it would be a huge challenge to find because of the massive bibliography on the book of Isaiah and creation separately. I have finally realized how self-guided PhD research really is and how much it is on me alone to track down what’s been done and find my own avenue for original research.

Here is the opening to the chapter by Richard J. Clifford I read last night but should’ve read months ago:
Given the many verbs of creating in Second Isaiah . . . , it is remarkable that explicit scholarly discussion on the topic began only in the 1930s. Recent years have made up for previous neglect; there now exist over a dozen articles, three books, and numerous treatments within commentaries and monographs on creation in Second Isaiah. The first part reviews critically some of the scholarly contributions, for several questionable assumptions have crept into the consensus, viz., that the “problematic” is the relation between originally distinct concepts of redemption and creation; that the concept of creation is subordinated to redemption; and that a distinction between creation of the whole and of the individual is operative in Second Isaian hymns and individual laments.[1]
Now it is somewhat gratifying to discover one’s independently reached thoughts on a subject have been anticipated by a scholar of Clifford’s caliber, but that is little consolation when one is attempting to craft a thesis proposal.

So, I’m shifting gears to a different area of research, back to square one with my proposal. Well, not totally square one, I’m shifting to one of my other interests, probably Biblical Hebrew and Translation Studies.

[1] Richard J. Clifford, “Creation in Isaiah 40-55”, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (CBQ Monograph Series 26), 163-176.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Free ESV iPhone App!

A few days ago I learned that Crossway has released an ESV app for the iPhone. We’d put Olive Tree’s Bible Reader on my wife’s iPhone, but I didn’t really want to pay for additional translations, so it only had ASV, KJV, and NET. More than that, I found it difficult to actually use because of the continuous text layout. So I was pleasantly surprised to see the ESV app has a very easy-to-read elegant text layout and easy-to-use navigation features for quickly flipping to a new passage.


If I had an iPhone or an iPod touch with this app, I would probably stop carrying a Bible to church. If you have an iPhone or an iPod touch, you should check it out!


HT: ESV Blog, Bible Design and Binding, and Art Boulet via Twitter on Mar 16th.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Review: NLT Mosaic Bible

_DSC0553 I originally considered categorizing this review of NLT Mosaic according to the "Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" cliche, but I couldn't think of anything Bad or Ugly to say. So, I'm going with something a bit weaker: what I like and what I like less.

What I Like:

1. The Concept. The Mosaic Bible leads off with 53 short meditations/devotional readings, one for each week of the year. The sequence follows the church year from Advent to Pentecost. Each reading is interspersed with brief quotations and artwork that sp_DSC0620an the entirety of Christendom, both globally and chronologically. It's a mosaic piecing together little bits and pieces of traditional and contemporary Christianity. This is a great way for Christians in the United States to be introduced to the great breadth of the Church around the world. Too often our view of church is limited only to the hundred people or so we may see on any given Sunday in our own small corner of the planet.

_DSC0590 2. The Artwork. The color pictures capture well the essence of each week's topic. Biblical scenes are depicted frequently in art from Africa or Asia, and I'm reminded that it was more than just Flemish painters in the Renaissance who read their world back into their biblical scenes. The art is also an effective reminder of media translation. Think about it. We've transferred the biblical text from the original languages into native tongues around the world, carrying a foreign ancient text into a new culture. Is it any different to translate the world of the Bible into visual images that are meaningful in that same culture?_DSC0551

3. The Book. The book itself is an attractive hardcover. It appears to be sturdy and durable, but I'm too gentle with my Bibles to ever have one fall apart anyway. The binding is glued and the paper is noticeably different between the meditations and the Bible itself.

What I Like Less:

Since this is really a devotional Bible, I don't have anything to critique content-wise. The meditations that I've read are meaningful and thought-provoking. My only criticism is that by picking and choosing bits and pieces from various lectionaries they've created a set of readings that doesn't actually align with any denomination's regular reading cycle. I'm not even sure this is necessary or important since the goal was to share segments from the breadth of Christianity.

The Bottom Line:

_DSC0589 The Mosaic Bible is still effective in raising awareness that a church calendar exists and that some denominations structure their year around these seasons. The audience for this Bible appears to be evangelicals anyway who are often blissfully unaware of what is going on in most mainline denominations. (I know I'm always surprised when the fish sandwich returns to prominence at McDonalds every year, strangely corresponding to Ash Wednesday. This Bible may not help you with that culture shock per se.)

If you're looking for a new Bible to read through in 2010, I recommend the NLT Mosaic. The translation is fresh and clear and the weekly devotions will expose you to a whole wide world of Christian thought and art that you never knew existed.

The Fine Print:
In accord with FTC guidelines regarding endorsements, it is my duty to disclose that I received a complimentary copy of the Holy Bible Mosaic from Sean Harrison at Tyndale House Publishers in exchange for this review. The FTC apparently considers this a paid endorsement and treats the review copy as compensation. Their guidelines require that any such material connection between the reviewer and the publisher be disclosed. However, unlike paid endorsements, there is no agreement, express or implied, between me and the publisher requiring a positive, glowing endorsement.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

New Evidence from Ps 23 for the Divine Council

If you never learn the biblical languages, then your exegesis could always be derailed by a multitude of English homonyms, not to mention real semantic issues like range of meaning. My sense of humor tends toward puns and dry wit, sometimes hilarity ensues, sometimes it elicits groans. Anyway, a random thought occurred to me today in conversation about a shepherd's staff for a nativity costume. I think we can use Psa. 23:4b as proof that God has a divine entourage. Here's my gratuitous translation proving it.
Your club and your staff, they console me.
There you have it, proof of the divine council. God has a staff. Their job is to console. (If you don't get it, remember what I said about homonyms and read it again.)

If you want a much better example of how a literal over-reading of Scripture creates humor, Scott's old post here is one of my all-time favorites.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

New NIV Revision Announced

Yay, another revision of an English Bible translation! Just what we need. [Note the sarcasm - we have more than an adequate supply of English Bibles in contemporary language reflecting the latest research in biblical studies and translation theory.] This time they're revising the greatest English version ever - the New International Version (NIV)! [Again, sarcasm. NIV is not in my top 3.]
On Tuesday, September 1, 2009 Biblica anounced the first update in a quarter century of the world’s most popular version of the Bible. The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), the independent body of global biblical scholars solely responsible for the translation of the world’s most popular Bible, is slated to finish its revision late next year, with publication in 2011. [Press release here.]
Biblica is the new name for the International Bible Society, the organization responsible for the NIV. Note the wording of their announcement - "the first update in a quarter century." Apparently, they no longer consider the controversial TNIV to be an update of the NIV.

There is an article in Christianity Today discussing the announcement. The title is telling "Correcting the 'Mistakes' of TNIV and Inclusive NIV, Translators Will Revise NIV in 2011." The title is a little misleading, though, since the article quotes Doug Moo as saying they're not sure exactly how they're going to handle the gender-inclusive language issue. It seems clear that they realize they went too far before, but they're not sure how far to go now. Maybe they should compare notes with the NLT and NRSV for some pointers.
Doug Moo, chairman of the the Committee on Bible Translation (which is the body responsible for the translation) said the committee has not yet decided how much the 2011 edition will include the gender-inclusive language that roiled critics of the TNIV.

"We felt certainly at the time it was the right thing to do, that the language was moving in that direction," Moo said. "All that is back on the table. This has been a time of transition in the in the way the English language has handled gender, and it is in flux and in process as things are changing quickly."

It also appears that they will discontinue publishing both the 1984 NIV and the 2005 TNIV once the new revision is published in 2011. So if you're in the market for a new Bible, a lot of old NIV and TNIV copies might be going on clearance. Or maybe you'll just want to buy a different version.

HT: Brian LePort for the CT link.

Friday, May 29, 2009

The Message of Malachi

Over at New Leaven, TC posted about an interesting translation issue with Malachi 4:6 (Hebrew 3:24). Is it the "hearts of fathers to their children" (NLT) or the "hearts of parents to their children" (TNIV)? Does it matter? Which one did Malachi have in mind? The translation problem centers around translating gender. Should it be inclusive or masculine? I commented there that I prefer "fathers":
because I don’t see “abot” being used generically in Hebrew to mean “father and mother” in the same way that “adelphoi” is often “brothers and sisters” in the NT. Of course, I haven’t looked for all the possible examples yet. It would be useful to see if the OT ever refers to “parents” as a unit. The only examples I could think of referred individually to “father and mother” and don’t use “abot” to refer to both.
I also suggested that Malachi's emphasis on the covenant might be a helpful context to consider if one is trying to determine what he had in mind. TC didn't (and maybe still doesn't) believe me that covenant language is part of the background of Malachi 4:6, so this post is my attempt to "establish covenant language at 4:6".

Malachi follows a typical prophetic structure of accusation-judgment-salvation. The accusation calls Israel to account for their failure to keep the covenant (chs. 1-2). The accusation seems to focus particularly on improper sacrifice and the failure of the priests to do their jobs correctly. (See Mal. 2:4-10 for a specific example.)

The judgement is pronounced in ch. 3, looking ahead to the day of the LORD (when God himself comes to set things right). The immediate context leading up to ch. 4 is concerned specifically with covenant - e.g., Mal. 3:12-18.

Then chapter 4 ends with the oracle of hope looking ahead to future salvation for the righteous and punishment for the wicked. 4:1 continues the judgment, and then 4:2-3 intertwine hope and judgement. It ends with 4:4-6 as the final statement looking forward to salvation for those who will finally turn back to the covenant.

So, the concept of covenant seems to be endemic to the entire book of Malachi. It's central to Malachi's message. Of course, we still have to figure out whether it's accurate to translate abot as "parents" though. I'm not so sure that it is.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

I like being a generalist

Michael Bird and Craig Keener have an excellent article on the SBL forum about why we need "generalist" scholars in biblical studies. The topic resonated with me as I've been having a difficult time facing the prospect of specializing for the dissertation. My interests have always been broad and wide-ranging. I guess that's what happens when you're a history major studying everything that happened from the beginning of time up to the recent past.  Part of the attraction of studying Hebrew Bible was that it ties in with so many of my other interests.  Here's a list of my general interests in order of importance.  Because of the nature of my program, I'll have to specialize near the top of the list.
1.  Hebrew Bible: Pentateuch (esp. Genesis and Deuteronomy), Job, Isaiah, and Psalms.
2.  Early Biblical Interpretation: inner-biblical exegesis, Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinic literature, New Testament, Targum, Peshitta, LXX
3.  Northwest Semitic epigraphy and paleography (Aramaic, Phoenician, Ugaritic)
4.  History of ancient Israel & the ancient Near East
5.  Israelite religions in the context of religions in the ANE
6.  Religious Studies (History of Religions, Sociology of Religions) - especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from origins through the Middle Ages.
7.  History of the Classical World: ancient Rome
8.  History of Biblical Interpretation: medieval Jewish and Christian interpretation, Reformation
9.  Bible Translation & Translation Studies
10.  Biblical Theology
And that's just the Bible-related list of interests. Now if only I could narrow things down enough to specialize for just a few years . . .

Other bloggers on this topic: Charles Halton; Nijay Gupta; Mark Goodacre; Pat McCullough

Saturday, May 23, 2009

The American Standard Version

I was asked today what I thought about the American Standard Version. The truth is that I haven't thought about it much at all apart from the fact that it was one of the few free English Bibles my wife could get for free on her iPhone with Olive Tree Bible Software. I assume that it was free primarily because it's in the public domain and otherwise out-of-print. However, it's an important version as the grandfather or great-grandfather of many current English versions (RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB).

The American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901 was a thorough American revision of the English Revised Version (ERV) completed in 1885. The distinctive feature of the ERV was that it was the first English Bible to use a Greek text based on the codices that had come to the attention of scholars since 1611 - Alexandrinus in the 1600s and Vaticanus in the 1800s.

One of the publications from the ERV committee states:
The Greek text followed by these Revisers is of far higher authority than that known and followed by the King James' revisers. Their Greek text was based on manuscripts of the later parts of the Mediaeval Ages, but ours has been Perfected by the discovery of far more ancient manuscripts, and by an abundance of quotations from the early fathers of the Church, and use of ancient versions. (Source)
The version is literal in translation approach, very similar to the KJV. In fact, part of their object was to remain as similar to the KJV as possible - revealing the strong influence that translation had on religious life for the English-speaking world even 250 years later. The chairman of the American Revision Committee is reported to have said: "The revision will so nearly resemble the present version, that the mass of readers and hearers will scarcely perceive the difference[.]" (Source)

The same publication quoted above in reference to the ERV states their approach explicitly:

From the outset the object sought by the revisers has been "to adapt King James' version to the present state of the English language without changing the idiom and vocabulary,'' and further, to adapt it to "the present standard of Biblical scholarship." Since 1611 this latter has made great advances, especially during the last quarter century.

One of the Committee stated his understanding of the object sought in these words: "The new Bible is to read like the old, and the sacred associations connected with it are not to be disturbed; but within these limits all necessary and desirable corrections and improvements on which the best scholars are agreed will be introduced: a good version will be made better; a clear and accurate version clearer and more accurate; the oldest and purest text is to be followed; errors, obscurities and inconsistencies are to be removed; uniformity in rendering Hebrew and Greek words and proper names to be sought. In one word, the revision is to give, in idiomatic English, the nearest possible equivalent for the original Word of God as it came from the inspired organs of the Holy Spirit. It aims to be the best version possible in the nineteenth century, as King James' version was the best which could be made in the seventeenth century." (Source)

Of the handful of readings I reviewed in the ASV, it seemed substantially similar to the KJV - even keeping "thee", "thou" and "thy." The one idiosyncratic thing I noticed was the substitution of "Jehovah" for the divine name instead of "LORD." They note their particular decision to translate that way in the preface to the ASV:

The change first recommended in the Appendix - that which substitutes "Jehovah" for "LORD" and "GOD" - is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as
it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries.

The change was not followed by the main subsequent English versions, and it is now known that "Jehovah" was never the proper pronunciation for the divine name anyway (being the vowels of one word written with the consonants of another).

The version is still important as the first American translation to incorporate the results of biblical scholarship, especially related to the New Testament text. All but a few English versions now use Greek texts based on those same earlier manuscripts. It's also important as the starting point for many of the more formal-equivalent translations used today. The RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NASB are all related to the ASV.

To get a taste for the ASV as a translation, here's Psalm 23.

Psalm 23:1-6

1 Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: He guideth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Yea, thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: Thou hast anointed my head with oil; My cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and lovingkindness shall follow me all the days of my life; And I shall dwell in the house of Jehovah for ever.

If you're interested in the history of English Bible translations, I've found Michael Marlowe's Bible Research website to be an excellent source of information. The translators' preface and many other relevant primary documents can be found there.

All in all, the ASV is a solid, literal translation of the Bible. The language is a bit archaic, even for the late 19th century, but I suppose that was necessary to retain the flavor of the KJV as much as possible.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Behold, a Virgin shall be with Child . . .

...and so Matthew 1:23 invokes Isaiah 7:14 as foretelling the Virgin Birth - Jesus as the Son of God conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Isa. 7:14 (ESV)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel.
The interesting thing - if you read Hebrew - is that Isa. 7:14 does not use the common word specifically denoting a "virgin." Some say that this ambiguity shows that Isaiah didn't really have a miracle in mind. He wasn't thinking that a real virgin would conceive because he used a word that simply means "young woman." In fact, there was quite a fuss back when the RSV came out and translated Isa. 7:14 with "young woman" instead of "virgin." The translation itself was undermining the Virgin Birth!!! Or so the argument went. One of the revisions the ESV made to the RSV text was to translate with "virgin" again.

The problem is that the words for "young woman" and "virgin" in Hebrew and Greek overlap quite a bit in their semantic fields. The Hebrew word for "young woman" in Isa. 7:14 is 'almah. The more typical word that appears to mean "virgin" more specifically is betulah. The Septuagint (LXX) translated Isa. 7:14 using the word parthenos "virgin" - the more usual equivalent for betulah. So, the connotation of virginity in Isa. 7:14 entered the text more explicitly with the LXX, which was used in turn for the quotation in Matt. 1:23.

In an attempt to understand the semantic fields of 'almah and betulah more fully, I examined every occurrence of each in the Hebrew Bible and noted its rendering in the LXX. The first occurs only 7 times; the second occurs 50 times.

The LXX renders 'almah in two different ways - 4x with neanis "young woman", 1x with neotes "youth", and 2x with parthenos "virgin." On the other hand, betulah is rendered by parthenos 43 out of 50 times. Of the remaining seven, several are left out in translation and some use yet another word such as korasion "girl."

The usage of these two Hebrew words doesn't provide enough information to draw a line between them and say betulah implies virginity and 'almah is ambiguous. Both words are used to refer to unmarried young women who are either betrothed or eligible to be betrothed. The fact that they are eligible for marriage implies they are assumed to be virgins. We can't say betulah inherently implies virginity because the Hebrew writers felt compelled to make that explicit at times, following betulah with a phrase clarifying "who has not known a man" (see Gen. 24:16 and Judges 21:12 for examples).

The ESV, which seems to want 'almah to be "virgin" consistently in its translation, often uses "young woman" or "maiden" to render betulah. This usage highlights a similar overlapping semantic range in English. If you look up "maiden" and "virgin" in an English dictionary, you find that the primary meaning of "virgin" is a "person who has never had sexual intercourse", but the secondary meaning is "an unmarried girl or woman." Likewise, the word "maiden" refers to a "girl or unmarried woman" in its primary meaning, but "virgin" is a secondary meaning.

The problem is that most of the uses of 'almah and betulah don't provide enough context to determine whether a distinction was intended between "young woman" and sexual "virgin." My sense is that 'almah implies virginity because of the positive overtones of eligibility for marriage versus the shame and censure (for a woman) of extramarital sex. I finally found a pair of references indicating that 'almah and betulah are more or less synonymous. We think betulah is more specifically "virgin" simply because it occurs more frequently than 'almah.

Genesis 24 tells the story of how Abraham's servant found a wife for Isaac - Rebekah. Immediately after the servant had prayed that God would show him the right woman, he sees Rebekah coming out for water.
Gen 24:16 (ESV)
The young woman (na'arah) was very attractive in appearance, a maiden (betulah) whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.
After the servant meets Rebekah and gets invited into her home, he retells the story of their meeting to her father and brother.
Gen 24:43 (ESV)
Behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the virgin ('almah) who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, "Please give me a little water from your jar to drink"
I think it's telling that this story presents the same event twice and uses both betulah and 'almah to refer to Rebekah. Both terms referred to an unmarried virgin woman.

In Isa. 7:14, the LXX is simply drawing out a logical connotation of the meaning of 'almah. From the perspective of Matthew, that explicit detail was precisely the right interpretation.

Update: Ben Witherington also posted on the Virgin Birth on Dec. 12 and addressed some of the same issues of terminology that I've raised. I skimmed his post back then but hadn't looked at it again before finishing my post. If you're interested in more on this issue, go there.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Old in the New: NLT Romans 1:17

I started reading Romans in my NLT Study Bible recently and the NLTse translation of Romans 1:17b struck me as odd. This is the part of the verse where Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4b. I know committee translations have a different person translating virtually every book and that translators rarely work in both the OT and the NT. However, I think it's nice if a translation has an internal consistency. They could try to make NT quotes correspond somewhat with the OT translation (in so far as the NT quote matches the OT base text, that is). Several popular translations have this internal consistency, at least for the example of Rom 1:17b and Hab 2:4b.

KJV:
Hab 2:4b: but the just shall live by his faith.
Rom 1:17b: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
ESV:
Hab 2:4b: but the righteous shall live by his faith.
Rom 1:17b: as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."
NIV:
Hab 2:4b: but the righteous will live by his faith
Rom 1:17b: just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
The Hebrew literally translated reads, "The righteous by his fidelity will live." The only difference in the KJV, ESV, and NIV is the missing pronoun "his" which is not represented in the Greek of Romans 1:17b. This is also not a case where the NT quote diverges much from the LXX. The only difference is that the LXX reads "my faith," a clear case of reading a waw as a yod (anyone who's read Hebrew directly from any manuscripts knows how similar these two letters can be).

LXX Hab 2:4b
ho de dikaios ek pisteos mou zesetai
But the righteous will live by my faith.
Grk NT Romans 1:17b
ho de dikaios ek pisteos mou zesetai
But the righteous will live by faith.
[Please forgive the imprecise Greek transliteration. I couldn't figure out how to get a Greek font to work. If you have any tips or fonts to share, please comment.]

Now looking at the rendering of the NLTse, it makes the OT quote virtually unrecognizable. If all you knew was the NLT translation, the Romans quote wouldn't sound familiar at all.

NLTse:
Hab 2:4b: But the righteous will live by their faithfulness to God.
Rom 1:17b: As the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.”
The NLT of Hab 2:4b is a pretty good translation. They've followed the gender inclusive policy of translating the pronoun in the 3rd plural, and they've added the words "to God" obviously implied by context.

However, I'm still scratching my head over the rendering of Rom 1:17b. The verbal "will live" has become a noun "life" and the object of the verb "has." The subject "the righteous" was made subject of a relative clause and the main clause replaced with a filler "It is." Wouldn't it have been better style to translate, "A righteous person has life through faith"? Or better yet, why not make the text correspond to the NLT rendering of Hab 2:4b with "the righteous will live by faithfulness to God." This would create a similar consistency to that found in the examples from KJV, ESV, and NIV.

Maybe they can work on changes like this for the NLT 3rd edition. It would make the NLT more useful to me as a translation for teaching and study.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Translation Insights from the Nida School 2008

I spent two weeks this month learning in an interdisciplinary intellectual endeavor sponsored by the American Bible Society known as the Nida School for Translation Studies. I was in Misano, Italy from 9/7 to 9/21 where the food is excellent, the ocean view is spectacular, and the mosquitoes are terrible. (The learning experience came at a great cost, however. My blogging inactivity must have led to my getting bumped from Jim West's blogroll. Either that or I was cast aside when he found someone new. I'm very disappointed by this.)

Here are the seven most important insights about Bible translation that I took away from the Nida School 2008.

1. Translation is hard work. It really is impossible to fully translate a text.
2. That's because translation involves making difficult choices.
3. Those choices inevitably involve loss on the balance between form and meaning.
4. There is a high degree of subjectivity involved in making those choices.
5. Translation is an art, not a science.
6. Functional equivalence (or dynamic equivalence) becomes more important when translating the Bible for a non-Western culture. Sensitivity to the target culture is absolutely essential. Western culture was shaped by the Bible. The same categories do not apply to cultures that developed independently of the Bible or Western influence.
7. Many modern theories in Translation Studies involve significant change and adaptation of their source material. That level of change is considered unacceptable for most people involved in translating sacred texts such as the Bible.

My research at the Nida School focused on the strategies that English translations have used to render sexual euphemisms in the Hebrew Bible. I'll summarize my findings in a future post, so you all have something to look forward to.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Literal vs. Idiomatic Bible Translation Method

My experience at the Nida School has been very eye-opening so far into the many different perspectives on translation studies.  We have quite a bit to read, and I came across this quote describing the problem with the debate over whether a literal or idiomatic translation was the better approach.

As is the case in many debates, those in the two camps often wind up talking past each other.  This is sometimes because of differing definitions of or assumptions behind key terms, and sometimes because of differing perceptions of the nature of the subject matter under debate. ...  It is always desirable, but never easy, to agree on terms so that those debating can at least be talking about the same thing.  It is even more difficult, but at least equally desirable, to achieve a perspective which will allow one to understand both sides, to see not so much what was wrong with each, but what was right as well, and how intelligent people could reasonably see each as not just reasonable but right (Tuggy 2003, 244).

That last part describes what I'm trying to accomplish here - get a perspective to understand the different approaches to translation and see what is good about each of them. 

Source Information:

Tuggy, David. 2003. “The literal-idiomatic Bible translation debate from the perspective of cognitive grammar.” In Kurt Feyaerts, ed., The Bible through metaphor and translation: a cognitive semantic perspective, pp. 239-288. Bern: Peter Lang, 2003.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Greetings from Italy

The weather is beautiful here in Misano Adriatico, Italy.  The Nida School for Translation Studies is now underway.  The program for the next two weeks includes sessions focused on cognitive linguistics with David Tuggy and sessions with Edwin Gentzler focused on translation theory from the perspective of cultural studies and comparative literature.  There's a whole wide world out there of translation studies that bible scholars and bible translators rarely ever encounter, so I anticipate a very educational experience over the next two weeks.

Here's a view of the San Pellegrino Institute hosting the Nida School.

San Pellegrino Web

Here's the view of the ocean from my room.

room with a view Web

The beach is only a short walk away.  I went down this morning to discover that even early in the morning (around 9 am) one can see the native retiree population in all their speedo-ed glory.  I quickly withdrew from the area and went to read some linguistics articles.

Beach Web

If I gave you a full-resolution pic, you'd be able to see some of the natives in the center of the picture.  Apparently, Misano is something like an Italian version of the Riviera and the place was swarming with tourists only a week or two ago.

Unfortunately, I'm not on vacation.  I'm working.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Speaking of Translation Issues...

The top story of the day among bibliobloggers appears to be the Israeli Education Ministry's ban on translating the Bible into "simple Hebrew."

From Ha'aretz:
The Education Ministry is to ban Bible aid booklets
that help elementary and junior high school students by "translating"
the text into simple Hebrew. Private publishers defend the booklets by
arguing that biblical Hebrew is a foreign tongue to young Israelis.


Teaching experts lambast the booklets, warning that children will
skip reading the Bible and opt for the simplified version. This will
not only deteriorate Bible studies but also impact the Hebrew language,
which is based on the Bible, they say.

The idea of translating the Bible into simple
contemporary language is "scandalous," Drora Halevy, the ministry's
National Supervisor for Bible Studies, told Haaretz. The booklets
present the text in "skimpy slang" that cheapens the Bible, she added.
"It's a purely marketing initiative intended for the below-average; it's a
disaster," says Professor Yaira Amit, a Bible instruction expert.

Booklet publishers Rafi Moses and Reches Publications say the Bible
is a foreign language to Israeli children, who need to read it in
simple language to understand it.

Halevy and other Bible and Hebrew language experts fear that
children will simply not bother to read the Bible, but use the simple
language version instead.

"The Bible is the Hebrew language's dictionary. It's the foundation
of everything," says linguist Zvia Valdan. "If you read it without the
original expressions and rhythms, it will lose its impact and power."

I tend to agree with Jim West that "the Israelis are onto something here." The same scenario could easily be applied to the situation with English Bible translation today. A dumbing down of all literature is under way as noted by Iyov, and the argument over dynamic equivalent translations could lead to a similar banning of translations as envisioned in a wickedly humorous spoof by John Hobbins. Peter Kirk has also posted some thoughtful comments on the story, following on issues raised by John and Iyov.

It's a difficult issue because on the one hand, Peter's right that the difference between Modern and Biblical Hebrew is roughly equivalent to the difference between King James English and modern English (the time separation with Modern and Biblical Hebrew is actually much much greater - but the analogy holds as comparing a classical form of the language with a contemporary form). On the other hand, the expectations for students in America have been getting lower and lower. Challenging students is what drives real learning, not making things easier on them.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Departing for the Nida School

With all this talk of Bible translations (see my last 5 posts, all the comments, the blogs that link to those posts, and all their comments), I've decided the only thing to do is to create a from-scratch translation of the entire Bible myself. To that end, I depart in the morning to be discipled in the art of Translation Studies at the Nida School of Translation Studies for the next two weeks at the San Pellegrino Institute for Translation and Interpretation in Misano Adriatico, Italy.

The goal of the school is to get experts in translation studies talking to experts in Bible translation and biblical languages. Bible translation is a bit of a unique category in translation studies and Bible translators are often blissfully unaware of the new ideas and methods brought in to contemporary translation approaches. The theme of the seminar this year is Cognitive Linguistics, an area I have some interest in.

When I get back, I'll start to work on my Mangum Opus - the Best English Translation Ever Version or BETEV. I predict it will become the new standard in English Bibles with at least 400 years of staying power. Everyone will immediately set aside their TNIV's, their ESV's, their NLT's, and yes, even their KJV's, once they read it.

I may not finish for 20-30 years, though, so be patient.

Anyway, now you'll know where I'll be for the next 2 weeks. I'll try to post my thoughts on the seminar discussions and maybe a few photos of Misano.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

The Reactions that Proved the Rule

My ranking of English Bible versions evoked precisely the expected reactions (also see comments to the post) to successfully prove the rule that:

The argument over which translation is "better" often comes down to personal preference.

Most of the commenters realized and respected the fact that this was my ranking based on my personal preferences. My top ten is still a work in progress. It's hard to come up with ten. I've only read extensively in 4 or 5 of them. I probably should have done a top 5 list.

So, to be a better evaluator of all the translations, I will start regularly reading several of them in parallel. I also plan to try to read these in full: ESV, NLT, HCSB, NET, and TNIV.

I've also decided to look into the TNIV more closely and give it a chance. It was brought to my attention that I might not have been fair and consistent in my opposition to the TNIV compared to my acceptance of the NLT or NRSV on gender language issues, so I'm reconsidering the issue. I'll let you know what I find out.