On Bible Translation

I stumbled across an excellent blog post series on Bible translation at Challies.com. In Part 1, the author talks about three styles of rendering the translated English text (paraphrase or free translation, dynamic equivalence or thought-for-thought, and formal equivalence or word-for-word) and such general questions as the difference between thematic interpretation (bad) and linguistic interpretation (necessary). In Part 2, he discusses the different text lines which came together in the Textus Receptus pioneered by Erasmus, later displaced by the Westcott and Hort text toward the end of the 19th century. The more I read about translation, the less I like the KJV. What thinkest thou?

Comments

[Ronan]

I eye with much envy those non-English speaking LDS who get to have nice modern Bible translations. I rarely use the KJV for study, but I have to admit that it is fairly literal. It also sounds nice. And if we ditched the KJV we would have to update the language of modern scripture too. Will we do it? Maybe in 500 years when no-one understands Elizabethan English anymore.

I did notice something delicious in the Ensign a few years ago. An article from a GA used biblical quotes from a different translation (can't remember which right now).

[Nate Oman]

Ronan: Actually GAs quote from non-KJV translations quite commonly. Check out Jeffery Holland's talks in particular. For my part, I find that there are certain bits of the bible that I like modern translations for (I prefer the New English Bible) and some parts that I prefer the KJV for. For example, Isaiah, I think, is much easier to follow in a modern translation, while I have to admitt that I much prefer the Psalms in the KJV. For some reason I like Paul's letters in modern translation, but I prefer the Gospels in the KJV.

While the KJV is an inaccurate translation in a lot of ways, the English language is aboslutely wonderful, perhaps the only literary masterpiece ever produced by a committee. I think that rather than abandoning the KJV, members simply ought to be more comfortable supplementing it with other translations. This, I take it, is what Holland and other modern-translation-using GAs seem to be doing. It seems like a good compromise to me.

[Justin]

Elder Manfred H. Schütze quoted from the NIV several times in an April 2002 Ensign article on Gideon.

I found one reference to the NIV by Robert D. Hales in the October 1997 General Conference.

I looked through Elder Holland's Conference addresses, and I found one citation to the New English Bible and an uncited reference to "other translations" of a NT verse.

Neal A. Maxwell cited to the RSV in the April 1991 GC, as did Marion G. Romney in April 1976.

[Dave]

I get the impression leaders conspicuously quote from a non-KJV English Bible from time to time just to keep "KJV only" from becoming an article of faith.

Justin's cite of Elder Schutze (how'd you get that umblatt to show up?) also points up the special challenge that non-native English speakers have with the grammar and vocabulary of the KJV, which might make use of the NIV or an equivalent a particularly appropriate alternative.

[Justin]

I cut-and-pasted his name from the online Ensign article.

My searches were done quickly, so there may be other citations to other translations. I couldn't find any cites to the NRSV, NASB, Amplified, CEV, or Good News Bible by a GA.

[Darren]

...perhaps the only literary masterpiece ever produced by a committee.

I've recently heard of the 9/11 commision report be described this way, where it was called the second great committee written book, next to the bible. This might have been tounge-in-cheek, however.