You need an excellent translation to understand the Greek New Testament

Iyov took a swipe at Dennis Danielson’s Paradise Lost: Parallel Prose Edition a few weeks ago. At the time, I thought I could take the following comment at face value:

[A] leading “academic” has now endorsed a watering-down of Paradise Lost.

But that’s not the case. This excellent review by Ben Myers has the goods. On the contrary, Danielson’s volume is a tour de force. It is, in the context of Bible translation, an argument in favor of a diglot Greek-English edition of the New Testament. How so? The average student, after reading Danielson’s prose version of Paradise Lost, can go back to the original and make sense out of it without further explanation. I find that to be the case in reading the Greek New Testament alongside REB. This is what I mean.

My Greek is reasonably good, at the same level as my Miltonic English. In short, I read the Greek, and here and there a question mark remains. I read REB, return to the Greek, and it all makes sense without further explanation. For example, Romans 3:21-22:

νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται

μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν

δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας

οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή

But now, quite independently of law,

though with the law and the prophets bearing witness to it,

the righteousness of God has been made known;

it is effective through faith in Christ

for all who have such faith –

all, without distinction.

REB is better than any other English translation I know of in this sense. For the same purpose, NRSV, NAB, and NJB on the one hand and ESV, (T)NIV, and HCSB on the other are good second choices. KJV, NKJV, and NASB are too wooden. NLT1, NLT2, CEV, and NCV are too free and, I think it’s fair to say, indulge in simplification.

What options do you have if your Greek is not as good as your Miltonic English? Here’s the answer you hoped you’d never hear. I stand by it just the same: none. You might as well stick to REB for the New Testament, or one of the good second choices listed above.

Back to Danielson’s Paradise Lost. Danielson is, one assumes, an evangelical. He teaches at Regent College in Vancouver BC. Two strikes against him from Iyov’s point of view. Despite Iyov, who seems to think slander in the name of a worthy cause is justified (as do one or two other bloggers I know), Danielson is an acclaimed scholar. Iyov’s conclusion that Danielson’s prose version dumbs down Milton’s poetry is also misleading. Ben says:

This prose translation may actually help readers to stay closer to the text than they would when their reading is mediated by a clutter of scholarly footnotes and interpretive comments. In spite of the inherent limitations of prose, and in spite of the ways in which Milton’s style eludes any single rendering, Danielson nevertheless succeeds remarkably in drawing your attention back to the shape of the narrative action and to the structure of Milton’s own language.

Look at the examples Ben gives, and judge for yourself.

The ideal translation of the Bible in my book is not one that simplifies and paraphrases the source text with the unattainable goal of allowing “the modern reader to hear the text in the same way the original readers heard it” (Mark Strauss). An excellent translation of the Bible will be intelligible on its own, stretch the resources of the English language beyond the bounds of “normal, idiomatic English” in the interests of bridging the distance separating one cultural context from another, and, in the process, draw attention back to the argument, structure, and language of the source text.

Danielson does all of these things for Milton. He cannot be accused of writing “in the most natural English of any version” Field-test his prose: it would not pass muster with champions of “normal, idiomatic English.”

It is not the case, as Iyov suggests, that Danielson’s prose version prioritizes naturalness of expression over faithfulness to the structure and language of the original. This sets his work apart from DE translations’ claim to fame, their natural English. The obsession with naturalness DE translations are noted for is the very reason they cannot be said to be faithful to the structure, style, and register of the original.

It astounds me that CEV, the most famous DE translation on the market, is praised by linguists like Wayne Leman. In passage after passage, the only thing CEV has going for it is its natural English. That is not enough. In my next post, I will document my concerns.

Comments

[J. K. Gayle]

Excellent post, John!

Very well put:

"An excellent translation of the Bible will be intelligible on its own, stretch the resources of the English language beyond the bounds of “normal, idiomatic English” in the interests of bridging the distance separating one cultural context from another, and, in the process, draw attention back to the argument, structure, and language of the source text."

I suspect DE translators (and Wayne too) will say they want just that "sometimes" -- but they want to have their cake and to nibble at it too. Thus they will say "I'm a pragmatist, too, not a 100% DE translator" or "Let the field test decide when we ought to go out of bounds beyond" -- which is like what C. S. Lewis's modernists do: "We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

[Mike Aubrey]

I'll give you that the CEV does simplify things - but a few of those other translations don't indulge in simplification, so much as turn hypotactic Greek in to paratactic English.

This isn't to say that they're accurate all the time, but then neither is the REB.

[JohnFH]

Hi Mike,

CEV and NCV simplify and for that reason are marketed to children.

NLT1 and NLT2 tend to simplify by reducing figures of speech and metaphors to abstract propositions. I have provided examples of this tendency on other occasions.

That's what happens when you prioritize clarity over resonance and allusiveness. You lobotomize poetry and figures of speech in the process of disambiguation.

[Mike Aubrey]

That's true, but in my experience, no translation doesn't lobotomize poetry - either of creative meaning or in propositional meaning.

No translation, not even ones that haven't been made yet, can stand up to the standard you've created.

[JohnFH]

Mike,

BTW I plan to link to your objective genitive posts in an upcoming post. Excellent work.

All goals worthy of the name can only be approached asymptotically. I remain convinced that a metaphor-for-metaphor translation is a worthy goal, one that NLT and other translations on the DE side of the continuum in particular have not pursued.

[Mike Aubrey]

I remain convinced that a metaphor-for-metaphor translation is a worthy goal, one that NLT and other translations on the DE side of the continuum in particular have not pursued.

Agreed, it is a worthy goal. Is it possible? I don't know. We translators are traitors after all (its it better in Italian?).

I will look forward to your comments on this genitive debate.

[JohnFH]

Traduttori, traditori. But it's still possible to make headway, one figure of speech / metaphor at a time.

[Ben Myers]

Thanks for this excellent post. Just to clarify one detail: Danielson isn't at Regent College; he's Professor and Head of English at the University of British Columbia.

Thanks again!

[JohnFH]

Thanks for the correction, Ben. One more proof that Iyov cannot always be taken at face value.

According to Regent's website, Danielson is on their board. He must at least be sympathetic to Regent and its educational goals.

[Ben Myers]

Oh yes, I'm sure that's true.