Good Discussion on Translation

[Rey Reynoso]

No, of course not here. You gotta go listen to it here.

[Daniel]

That looks cool! Thanks for sharing! :)

[Marv]

Huh. Just now listening to the first (Grudem) one. Don't think I quite agree with him. I'll have to get around to a certain post I have in mind.

[Marv]

Though he does have a lot of good things to say.

[Marv]

Moo's discussion of translation is a bit better than Grudem's, I have to say. He seems to get the idea. He loses me a bit toward the end, thought. He puts the best face he can on the new and improved NIV's treatement of 1 Tim. 2:12.

 

He kind of makes a point somewhere in there about the necessity of not alienating your potential user. After you publish the thing, people actually have to use it or what's the point? Apart from all the translation theory and textual criticism factors, it's a practical consideration you have to take into account. If you're translating for some language group where 90% of the churches are Presbyterian, say, you can translate baptizo with some term meaning "dip completely under water" but you might find the folks sticking with the 1899 version, bad as it otherwise is.

 

I think in its infinite wisdom the NIV2011 AKA THE NIV has done this to themselves with that single verse. Or maybe I overestimate the clientele.

 

Clendenen and the HCSB seem to be an also ran here. Anybody use it? Kind of like Tim Pawlenty in the Republican debates, you're sure he has some good things to say, but you're even more sure he's going no where. He does a little song, a little dance in favor of their no doubt trademarked branding "Optimum equivalence," which is totally what want, equivalent that is optimum. Seems to be some kind of golden mean between the silly and the crappiness.

 

That was a pun. Think about it.

 

Reminds me of a similar selling point the NKJV put out back when: a cake-and-eat-it-too claim for retaining both form and meaning. They set up a false dichtomy between two views. On one side they quoted a certain scholar. On the other side they quoted another. Happened they were husband and wife. Also happened I knew and had worked with both of them. And I knew they didn't disagree and the citations were not in disagreement either.

[Rey Reynoso]

His presentation of the HCSB was awful. I personally use it and it's one of my favorite translations for reading out loud.

[Chad Gibbons]

I enjoyed listening to them. I agree that Moo's was the best of the three. He's kind of in a difficult position with the NIV, given it's wide usage. Like it or not, the original NIV is simply a huge success. It's popularity is unbelievable. I feel like the ESV and HCSB can get away with more simply because they don't have as broad an audience.

 

Also, is it just me, or does Grudem sound like Kermit too? I've apparently got muppets on the mind.

[Rey Reynoso]

YES! A couple of years ago or so when I was listening to a bunch of podcasts he had from his church, I thought "Man, this is good news that a powerful written voice like Grudem's sounds totally Kermit in recordings."

[Marv]

Forgot to mention:

 

One irrational objection I have is the thing has the publisher's name in the title.

 

I mean what's with that? Doesn't that kind of tip their hand? Christian publishers need a translation of their own now. I can't stand corporate branding. Like Ranger stadium here was originally The Ballpark in Arlington. Then it was Ameriquest field... Ugh.

 

Couldn't they come up with a name for the thing without putting the publishing house first?
Rey Reynoso said:

His presentation of the HCSB was awful. I personally use it and it's one of my favorite translations for reading out loud.

[Rey Reynoso]

Yeah but then again, the naming convention of all these versions is kinda of boastful. I mean, The English Standard? Really? The American Standard? International Version?

[Marv]

Well, what you gonna call your translation. I mean "Authorized Version" is taken. It has to be something dignified and important sounding.

 

Like in Steve Martin's old routine, you never find a financial institution called "Fred's Bank." It's First National Federated whatnot.

 

What are you going to call them, really? I really have to admit I haven't taken HCSB very seriously (partly) because I think the Holman thing cheapens it.

[Rey Reynoso]

The King James' Authorized Version: The Publisher AND the Standard both in the name! The Golden Standard!

 

I don't know. It all winds up being a marketing thing since no one names things like the Puritans would have.

 

God's Bible: With the Idiomatic Cadence of The American Peoples but with the Literalness that Adheres to the Structure of the Original Languages. (NASB)

 

God's Bible: With the Sensibility of King's James' Authorized Version But With The Benefit of The Scholarship and Manuscripts that Have been Discovered up until the Mid 90s. (ESV)

[Marv]

Well "King James" is not a real part of its official name.

Not so with NKJV or KVJ2000.

I think you need to go a bit more to the pithy with your suggested titles...