See my remarks below after Jan's
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan de Koning" <jan@dekoning.ca>
To: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>; <spamfilter@BizTaxPros.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Troy's two cents
> At 04:04 PM 17/03/02 +0000, Jim Eisele wrote:
> >Troy writes
> >
> > >e) I believe that the original autographs of scripture were inspired by
> >God.
> > >I believe that they are completely authoritative. I also believe that
they
> > >have been destroyed. Not one shred of any of it remains. If God did not
> > >preserve his word, then he is a liar and a fruitcake, and I want no
part of
> > >him. (Psalm 12:6-7). If he did preserve his word, then it is here. Now
> > >where is it? I have made my choice. If you don't like my choice, lump
it,
> > >or blow it out your ear for all I care.
> >
> >Troy, I see no constructive value in your last statement.
> >
> >Why would God have wasted the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, etc. etc. etc. etc.
> >etc. people's time? Not to mention all foreign translations.
> >
> >Jim
>
> Jim,
> You are not complete. Copying and translating is human work, so to make
> sure that they do what they say the people like Troy should read the Bible
> in the original Hebrew and Greek, in so far as it is available.
> Mind you many of us get a much richer experience of reading the Bible by
> knowing some Hebrew and Greek. It makes you see as well that translators
> had a certain philosophy before starting translating, so that words are
> translated into English by different words, as I have shown in the past in
> a few cases. I wonder how some literalists deal with those cases.
> Jan de K.
>
>
I think that translations may be driven by at least two purposes. One is to
clarify the meaning of an ancient word or expression. The problem with many
newer translations, as Hebraist Robert Alter has trenchently pointed out in
the introduction to his excellent translation of Genesis, is that many
modern translations end up *explaining* the text rather than rendering it in
a literary style that does justice to the original; explanations often end
up explaining away the text rather than being faithful to it. In this
respect the KJV is superior in literary style, but it is based on a textus
receptus that has long been superceded. As I use to tell my Greek students,
I would use (and do use) the KJV for devotional and liturgical purposes, but
never to argue theological points.
The other thing that often drives translations is the translator/s'
theological agenda. Remember the outcry that greet the rending of the
passage in Isaiah 7:14 with the word "maiden" or "young woman" instead of
"virgin"? That is only one example of many.
As someone who translated Latin texts for over 40 years, I am well aware
of what a most difficult art the art of translation is. It is a science
also, but in the final analysis, every translator aims for the best way to
convey an ancient text and do it justice. And we all fall short. We need
to approach the Bible and read it with a sense of humility, especially when
we are using a translation, and rely on the good judgment of those skilled
in the languages who write the commentaries that illuminate the intricacies
and ambiguities of the texts.
Bob Schneider
rjschn39@bellsouth.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 19 2002 - 16:40:20 EST