|
 Preface
to the Revised Standard Version (NT, 1946) says, "We cannot
be content with the Versions of 1881 and 1901 for two main
reasons. One is that these are mechanically exact, literal,
word-for-word translations, which follow the order of the Greek
words, so far as this is possible..".
"Introduction" to the New English Bible follows suit:
"The older translators, on the whole, considered that
fidelity to the original demanded that they should reproduce, as
far as possible, characteristic features of the language in
which it was written...". This is bad???
Are
we to understand that the K.J. and A.S. translators did not know
how sentence structure differs in various languages,
necessitating a restructure of the Greek sentence in order to
"make sense" in English? A casual comparison with an
interlinear text will show they knew and practiced this.
Then
what is this "different theory and practice of
translation" which makes these modern versions so superior
(?) to others? While discussing the problem of translating
idioms of speech, Dr. James Moffatt (one of the RSV translators)
"tells it like it is". He says, "But once the
translator of the New Testament is freed from the influence of
the theory of verbal inspiration, these difficulties cease to be
so formidable" (Revision or New Translation, by Allis.).
N.E.B.
"Introduction" says "But if paraphrase means
taking the liberty of introducing into a passage something which
is not there, to elucidate the meaning which is there, it can be
said that we have taken
|
|
this liberty only with extreme caution,
and in a very few passages.." (I counted nine changes in 12
verses. rt).
Frenstence
(sic) — 1CO.7:14 literally: "has been sanctified
for the husband unbelieving by the wife." (Marshall). The
K.J. restructures this to read: "For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified by the wife,- " but the N.E.B.
translates (?): "For the heathen husband now belongs to God
through his Christian wife, —." The Greek clearly says
"a-pistos" not-faith, or unbelieving; why say
"heathen" (for which the Greeks used a different
word). We readily agree that the wife under consideration is a
"Christian" but this is a contextual comment, not
translation of something inspired of God. As for "belongs
to God" — the N.E.B. has supplied an object for "set
apart", and misleads the reader. The marriage is the thing
"sanctified" "else were your children unclean;
but now are they holy."
It
is my contention that neither I nor the N.E.B. translators (?)
have the right to place our comment in the text of God's words.
If and when we do so, the result is a paraphrase — a type of
commentary — and should be labeled as such. The R.S.V., N.E.B.,
and the American Bible Society's "Today's English
Version" are examples of so-called translations by men who
are "freed from the influence of the theory of verbal
inspiration". We deny the demands of verbal inspiration,
and endanger the faith of the unsuspecting, when we encourage
people to treat these works as "God's words".
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
