tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post6628712161114881113..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Word UpPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35257873408757765422009-10-01T08:34:35.310-07:002009-10-01T08:34:35.310-07:00This thread is hereby closed.
take your concerns ...This thread is hereby closed.<br /><br />take your concerns up <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/10/lost-in-translation.html" rel="nofollow">in the thread for this post instead</a>.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22762622738687763332009-10-01T08:20:17.202-07:002009-10-01T08:20:17.202-07:00Dwitzke,
Fair enough then.
What's the soluti...Dwitzke,<br /><br />Fair enough then.<br /><br />What's the solution? How do you help the far too many that do not, and cannot, exegete the text? How do you raise a generation of pastors that can do this when the current model is turning out so many that can't?Scott Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17407216819056323566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88843900671138410522009-10-01T08:04:14.382-07:002009-10-01T08:04:14.382-07:00Scott,
At the end of your post you said:
"...Scott, <br /><br />At the end of your post you said:<br /><br />"I suppose my last concern is that if a pastor is supposed to explain all of these idioms and literal confusions how many are equipped for such exegesis? I'm not trying to limit this to the realm of experts but how many pastors would find it overly time consuming, and overly difficult, to translate the Bible from English into English?"<br /><br />I, as a pastor of a small church, can appreciate your question here. But, that is exactly what the pastor is to to. He has a responsibility to explain to his people what the text means; that is his job, not the job of the translator. <br /><br />Experts in translation are of great benefit to the Church, but they are not the end of the process of getting the Scripture from the original languages into the hearts of the people in the Church. The pastors are responsible for that last exegesis and exposition (kind of like the local expert, if you will). <br /><br />He does not have to re-invent the wheel every week in doing this, and he will not be able to go as in-depth in the languages as he may like every week, but he still must work in the languages. Yes, that is time consuming, and yes, far too many are NOT adequately equipped for this. But, that is why the church in America today is in such a bad state: Preachers no longer exegete the text, they exegete the commentaries. <br /><br />I would wish that every person in the church would be able to read and study from the original languages (or even be able to read and study well from the English!), but they can't, so it is my calling to strive to explain those idioms, figures, and hard sayings to help them draw out the implications in their lives. <br /><br />That seems to be what Ryken is arguing.dwitzkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01073349479436216262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56443521719689207912009-10-01T07:37:33.037-07:002009-10-01T07:37:33.037-07:00Frank, as usual you show your Christian charity by...Frank, as usual you show your Christian charity by not being able to answer a question without demeaning. I am openly admitting that I do not know Ryken's book and I am asking questions about what you represent from what I know from working within these languages. Sorry I have not read every book and author on translation theory. It's such a small limited field I'm sure I should be doing better. A more charitable disposition towards a Christian brother might be OK. That's an irony I'll let the discerning reader work out.<br /><br />Hebrew poetry is quite difficult becasue it leaves out many of the words we take for granted in normal discourse such as the definite article, the relative particle, personal suffixes, conjunctions, etc., which makes it unintelligible if translated literally.<br /><br />I would ultimately submit that in many ways the difference between "formal" and "dynamic" is in some ways a false dichotomy, probably even more so if one considers functional. They are all translations and at the end of the day while in some cases literal may be "better" than dynamic in others literal can actually obfuscate what the author was intending in the original language. Therefore to slavishly prefer literal can be counterproductive.<br /><br />I suppose my last concern is that if a pastor is supposed to explain all of these idioms and literal confusions how many are equipped for such exegesis? I'm not trying to limit this to the realm of experts but how many pastors would find it overly time consuming, and overly difficult, to translate the Bible from English into English?<br /><br />Your misrepresentations aside, and since you so kindly asked: I would say that translation is about representing the text with as much lexical and rhetorical accuracy as possible, which betrays most likely what translation theory I would support.Scott Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17407216819056323566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32533442962253555852009-10-01T07:29:31.101-07:002009-10-01T07:29:31.101-07:00I personally think that no footnotes should be add...I personally think that no footnotes should be added to tell me what the literal translation is. <br /><br />Instead, give me the literal rendering in the body of the text and a footnote to tell me what you [i.e., translators] think it means. <br /><br />In the case of <i>sarx</i>, give primacy to the literal "flesh," and if you just can't move on without offering your interpretation of "sinful nature," put your interpretation in 4 point font at the bottom of the page, let what the text actually says be in the body.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47656749939944039032009-10-01T06:39:44.803-07:002009-10-01T06:39:44.803-07:00To add one more gripe, I have countless times note...To add one more gripe, I have countless times noted dropping conjunctions in the name of "smoothness." Conjunctions are there for a reason, and it should take an avalanche to impel one to overlook them, particularly in the Greek NT — and even then, I'd add a footnote. (This contributes to the 1.5 million figure.)DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12228906924922719862009-10-01T06:28:20.889-07:002009-10-01T06:28:20.889-07:00To give one specific example, rendering sarx as &q...<i>To give one specific example, rendering sarx as "sinful nature" without a footnote is not translation, but interpretive paraphrase. And finally....</i><br /><br />I agree completely, and...to translate it as "human being"? I rather like the ESV, but I want to give the translation committee a beat-down every time I read through Romans.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56725672354693596312009-10-01T06:25:48.771-07:002009-10-01T06:25:48.771-07:00The book is on my to-read list, but not at the top...The book is on my to-read list, but not at the top. I have, however, worked in the Heb/Gk text for ~36 yrs, and offer these fwiws:<br /><br />1. The line between dynamic and formal is not sharp and black, but a bit fuzzy.<br /><br />2. It is <i>impossible</i> to avoid a certain amount of paraphrase and dynamic equivalence, if one wishes for <i>any</i> sort of even <i>marginal</i> coherence.<br /><br />3. It also is impossible to avoid doing exegesis in translation, and to have a translation unaffected by the results of that exegesis.<br /><br />4. At issue (imho) is the extent to which one is willing to package interpretation-as-translation without restraint or notice.<br /><br />5. That having been said, I myself am okay with putting NIV and The Message along a continuum in the same category, though the former would lean on one edge, and the latter on the far opposite edge.<br /><br />6. To give one specific example, rendering <i>sarx</i> as "sinful nature" <i>without a footnote</i> is not translation, but interpretive paraphrase. And finally....<br /><br />7. If I ever issued a translation of the NT (!!), there would be 1,500,000 footnotes. Half of them would start with "Or...", and the other half would start with "Literally...."DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81584305138419656542009-10-01T06:24:29.101-07:002009-10-01T06:24:29.101-07:00Don't most of the "literal" translat...Don't most of the "literal" translations (NASB, etc) depart somewhat from literal-ism when translating idioms? If so, what's the fuss about?Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24438385391982154712009-10-01T06:01:39.726-07:002009-10-01T06:01:39.726-07:00[con’t]
| D) What about verbless clauses? Is it
...[con’t]<br /><br />| D) What about verbless clauses? Is it <br />| not "dynamic" to supply the verb? <br /><br />Let’s not mix categories. There’s a vast difference between supplying the implied “is” or the distributed force of a verb over a series of clauses and changing the words “cleanness of teeth” to “empty stomachs”. The difference is the difference between translation and exegesis.<br /><br />| E) What about Hebrew poetry?<br /><br />What about it? One of the hallmarks of Renaissance literature is the abundance of translations of poetry – it was sort of a cottage industry of the age to take poems from other languages and translate them. The art of translating poems may have hit the high water maker in the West during the Renaissance. Yet the KJV translators (who were translating during the Renaissance, in an environment where this practice was well-known and well-understood) chose to translate the words as literately as possible – but with a high degree of concordance.<br /><br />What this speaks to is the obligation of the translator to be as transparent as possible, and Ryken’s point (with which I would agree) is that the translator is not the re-interpreter: he is a messenger, and he has a specific message to deliver. How he choses to deliver that message speaks to what he thinks of the one who sends the message and the message itself.<br /><br />[-30-]FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36357211178729136632009-10-01T06:01:15.027-07:002009-10-01T06:01:15.027-07:00| Questions without reading Ryken's
| book .....| Questions without reading Ryken's <br />| book ...<br /><br />Oh boy ...<br /><br />| ... from somebody that functions <br />| in Hebrew and Greek without <br />| interlinears and lexicons for every <br />| word: <br /><br />I see: you know about Ryken’s book because you are fluent in Greek and Hebrew. There’s an irony there which I will let the reader of this thread sort out.<br /><br />| A)Does he know Greek and Hebrew <br />| at all? <br /><br />I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that, because he’s a professor of English, his Hebrew and Greek are probably not as robust as yours. Let’s assume for the sake of your questions Dr. Ryken knows no Hebrew or Greek.<br /><br />| B) Why is it so often that those that <br />| know little to know Hebrew and <br />| Greek often find it unimportant?<br /><br />Who said that? I find it somewhat baffling that in a discussion which we are talking about <i>translating from Greek and Hebrew</i>, this objection would come up. The Greek and Hebrew are “unimportant”? So what is the source of our translation?<br /><br />The question is simply not “are Greek and Hebrew important?” Of course they are important. The question in this case is “how do we represent the Greek and Hebrew best in English?”, or better, “for what purpose do we use English translations?”, or best: “How important is the translation which we receive?”<br /><br />It’s a pretty deep misunderstanding of the question and the problem here to say that the Greek and Hebrew are “unimportant”.<br /><br />| (I don't know if this is Ryken or not it <br />| is just I have run into this so often it <br />| is almost formulaic from the <br />| uninformed) I wonder what people <br />| would say if I told them I didn't <br />| know how to read music or play any <br />| instruments but at the same time <br />| asserted that I was going to 'prove' <br />| how all those musicians were wrong. <br /><br />I suspect that, given your example here, you don’t really understand how criticism works. You don’t have to be a gifted musician to know when you have heard a horrible recital of some piece of music, or to be able to recognize that some piece of music is completely awful.<br /><br />To say that you must is to adopt an epistemology that pretty much rules out almost all communication – let alone translation or critical analysis.<br /><br />| Translation theory is more <br />| complicated than ideas about <br />| translation. You learn this when you <br />| actually have to do them. <br /><br />Aha. So you’re saying that translation is not about achieving a goal which in some way has framed the role of the reader and the role of the writer? I wonder what it is about then?<br /><br />Let’s see if you tell us as we go forward ...<br /><br />| C) What does he suggest to do with <br />| idioms, euphemisms, and the many <br />| other linguistic devices that can <br />| make certain statements in a <br />| language nonsensical and <br />| inaccessible to outsiders if <br />| translated literally? <br /><br />I don’t have either of Ryken’s books I have referred to here, but here’s what I think he would say to that:<br /><br />We are talking about <i>God’s word</i>, therefore, if God used an idiom in Hebrew to say something through (for example) the prophet Amos, we should respect the <i>inspiration</i> which ontologically produced that statement and <i>translate the idiom word for word</i>. It may produce a statement in the receiving language which, for the first-time reader, doesn’t make any sense – but we do owe God the benefit of the doubt that what he breathed out is what he meant to say.<br /><br />While I have sympathy for what you are saying here, Scott, what you are really advocating for is that the translator also be the exegete. In my view (and I think in Ryken’s view), putting exegesis in the text is actually a mistake because it changes what God says into what we think God ought to have said in order to be more clear, or more accessible, or whatever.<br /><br />[more]FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9879748644661897002009-10-01T05:06:00.806-07:002009-10-01T05:06:00.806-07:00Tian --
I own both. Not everyone used to own a b...Tian --<br /><br />I own both. Not everyone used to own a bookstore, and your book budget may be lower than mine, so here's my suggestion if you cannot buy both:<br /><br /><i>Word of God in English</i> is, in my estimation, the better book. It is more comprehensive. <i>Understanding English Bible Translations</i> is more concise, but some of the nuance of the older book is obscured. However, it is also easier to read.<br /><br />Both are a great investment in your understanding of this issue. I recommend both, but buy the one which better suits your needs. Do you need comprehensive or concise?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45876539112080049772009-09-30T23:51:09.044-07:002009-09-30T23:51:09.044-07:00Scott,
From what I gathered from his first book . ...Scott,<br />From what I gathered from his first book . . . Concerning your question C) - Ryken argues that it is the responsibility of those who preach in the church to explain these nuances and idioms, etc. rather than the translator. D) He recognizes the necessity of supplying verbs, but urges great caution in doing this, so as not to lead the reader to a wrong understanding (and he recognizes this is a difficult thing to do).dwitzkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01073349479436216262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76497175927119277622009-09-30T21:41:22.144-07:002009-09-30T21:41:22.144-07:00To puritanicoal:
I agree with you, but I didn...To puritanicoal: <br /><br />I agree with you, but I didn't mean that we should stop at the English translation. My point was that some people, by presuming a knowledge they don't have, end up biting off more than they can exegetically chew. <br /><br />They may fancy themselves a hybrid of Dan Wallace/James White & end up cashing exegetical cheques that their bodies can't cash. <br /><br />So go ahead and handle the Greek bible, but just KNOW what you're doing. I know:self-evident.<br /><br />Now I think my post is maybe more tangential than direct to Frank's review, but it bears saying in passing. <br /><br />God Bless.Pierre Saikaleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409964448078910855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10646978031119126222009-09-30T21:12:34.800-07:002009-09-30T21:12:34.800-07:00Questions without reading Ryken's book from so...Questions without reading Ryken's book from somebody that functions in Hebrew and Greek without interlinears and lexicons for every word:<br /><br />A)Does he know Greek and Hebrew at all?<br /><br />B) Why is it so often that those that know little to know Hebrew and Greek often find it unimportant? (I don't know if this is Ryken or not it is just I have run into this so often it is almost formulaic from the uninformed) I wonder what people would say if I told them I didn't know how to read music or play any instruments but at the same time asserted that I was going to 'prove' how all those musicians were wrong. Translation theory is more complicated than ideas about translation. You learn this when you actually have to do them.<br /><br />C) What does he suggest to do with idioms, euphemisms, and the many other linguistic devices that can make certain statements in a language nonsensical and inaccessible to outsiders if translated literally?<br /><br />D) What about verbless clauses? Is it not "dynamic" to supply the verb?<br /><br />E) What about Hebrew poetry?Scott Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17407216819056323566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7764686648471365052009-09-30T21:02:15.467-07:002009-09-30T21:02:15.467-07:00Hi Frank,
I've read 'the Word of God in E...Hi Frank,<br /><br />I've read 'the Word of God in English' on loan and had planned on purchasing my own copy until this new revision was released. Which book would you recommend more?<br /><br />Thanks!TAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475633816860516554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31766772221870308542009-09-30T19:48:08.615-07:002009-09-30T19:48:08.615-07:00Yes, but he thinks the right way to go is a wholly...Yes, but he thinks the right way to go is a wholly-functional route, and while I find his logic intriguing, I am sure he is at least half-wrong.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4498007992865839322009-09-30T19:47:08.682-07:002009-09-30T19:47:08.682-07:00Frank,
Dr. Ryken's works are very good. I fin...Frank,<br />Dr. Ryken's works are very good. I find his defense of formal equivalence to be very good.<br /><br />Like you I agree that formal or essentially literal is the best method for translating the scriptures, however; when I see Dr. Ryken's categorizing all other translations together I come close to questioning his motive. Here is what I mean by that, In "The Word of God in English" one is left with impression that the book is an apologetic not for the translation method in general but for the ESV in particular.<br /><br />He gives what I think is nothing more than a "tip of the hat" to the NASB or NKJV and gives the HCSB, a version which I think is significantly more literal than the NIV and is in the formal equivalent family, almost no mention at all.<br /><br />His arguments for formal equivalent are solid but he borders on an "ESV-only" mindset as are very many proponents of the ESV. I grew up in churches that were "KJV-only" and not only will not be associated with anyone who adopts that type of thinking I will also not use their "approved" version on principle even if it were the "best available" - which by the way I don't believe the ESV is given its awkward English style which is not common use English.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2279531484261407972009-09-30T14:44:27.751-07:002009-09-30T14:44:27.751-07:00Professor Mark Snoeberger from Detroit Baptist The...Professor Mark Snoeberger from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary is, like Dan, a CalvieDispieBaptoGelical (actually, he's probably more like a CalvieDispieBaptoFundie). He wrote a <a href="http://systematicsmatters.blogspot.com/2009/09/ryken-and-functional-equivalency.html" rel="nofollow">blog post taking issue with the thesis of Ryken's book</a>, and I thought it had some very convincing points--he would agree with you on some points, Frank.greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68327776110466176012009-09-30T12:56:23.816-07:002009-09-30T12:56:23.816-07:00Chri...um...Puritanicoal ;-) I know you!
I think ...Chri...um...Puritanicoal ;-) I know you!<br /><br />I think you got it right with something I think explains the dichotomy between knowing and not knowing the languages: <br /><br /><i>This does NOT mean that you have to know Greek to 'share the Gospel</i>. <br /><br />While a translation is sufficient (given it's been faithfully interpreted) to share the Gospel, it may not be sufficient in discussing matters of semantics and syntax.<br /><br />I agree with Peter's original statement: learn Greek and Hebrew. I don’t see what the problem is here. As a teacher of God’s Word, especially in a vocational context, why would you not do this? There was a time in the world when one would have been laughed out of the pulpit for not having some knowledge of the languages. What happened?<br /><br />We generally look foolish when we stand up before people and intersperse our teaching with "the Greek this..." and the "the Hebrew that..." while having absolutely no working knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. It’s like someone commenting on the syntax of Goethe’s original prose without actually knowing basic German grammar. It’s almost laughable if it weren’t so sad. Besides, most references to the “original languages” I hear today from the pulpit add almost nothing to point the person is attempting to make. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that until we can actually answer basic questions required of a first-year Greek or Hebrew student, perhaps we should dispense with the references in our teaching, as they almost always add nothing significant to the conversation besides our looking intelligent. Moreover, because we can speak English doesn’t necessarily mean that we are qualified to run around and ramble about English grammar. Now apply that to an ancient language separated from us by centuries of linguistic de-evolution and transformation. Good luck.<br /><br />BTW, for the most part, I enjoyed Ryken’s book.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16160110133067519161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72369070336338835722009-09-30T12:54:17.134-07:002009-09-30T12:54:17.134-07:00Frank, I largely agree with you, and I see where y...Frank, I largely agree with you, and I see where you are headed with your argument. <br /><br />I can probably end our 'nuanced tributary' with this: I don't think any 'evangel-ee' is going to hell because an evangelist had to 'punt' on an argument involving Greek nuances. But, I'm not willing to say knowledge of Greek nuances is a solely academic endeavor to be shunned because the English translation seems "clear" (Zaphon's word).puritanicoalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037018607747983203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43865436499239054622009-09-30T12:39:36.401-07:002009-09-30T12:39:36.401-07:00Also for Paula's sake...
Rob Bell's theol...Also for Paula's sake...<br /><br />Rob Bell's theology has been in the toilet for years and is in need of being flushed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-516815547185071692009-09-30T12:37:25.225-07:002009-09-30T12:37:25.225-07:00Thanks Frank - I understand now that when you say ...Thanks Frank - I understand now that when you say "formal," you mean word-for-word rather than thought for thought (the extreme of which for the latter, is a paraphrase). I intentionally prefer the NASB for the same reason, so I feel the same way you do on that.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12150564578981286912009-09-30T12:32:44.635-07:002009-09-30T12:32:44.635-07:00BTW, sneaky of everyone to derail this meta to a d...BTW, sneaky of everyone to derail this meta to a discussion of the original languages while DJP is on a sabbatical at a Tibetan monastery (or wherever Frank said he was).Paulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15700962695127146890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2687381274036383322009-09-30T12:22:49.239-07:002009-09-30T12:22:49.239-07:00Frank,
Well said. I DO know and use the languages ...Frank,<br />Well said. I DO know and use the languages in my study and prep for my sermons, and you are absolutely right that a monoglot is able to evaluate and discern the necessity for proper translation without knowing the original languages. The reason for being able to come to the conclusions you have is because you have researched the issue, not because you learned the languages. I have read Ryken's first book you mentioned, and I agree it is a must read for anyone who wants to take this issue seriously. I look forward to reading the second book. Thank you for your review of it.dwitzkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01073349479436216262noreply@blogger.com