Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Translating the Bible is a vexed task

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 183 posts

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#61

Post by bentley »

Luker88 wrote: post #57

Where do I find a literal translation of the bible? I would like one that does not force a meaning on words that are not known. I think have read enough fiction with made up words to be able to understand something anyway. Also, maybe not based on Latin? Latin was not the original language anyway, and I got fed up with the mistranslations that we keep repeating as correct. I gave up after searching and learning the h…

Off the cuff, I would say ESV is probably the most mainstream translation that fits your requirements. The translation style attempts to be literal and the source texts are based on the original Greek and Hebrew, not Latin translations.

How literal you want to get beyond that is kind of a deep rabbit hole, that probably ends with learning ancient Hebrew and Greek.

> I would like one that does not force a meaning on words that are not known.

A study edition or commentary would help with that.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#62

Post by biorach »

mattigames wrote: post #46
bentley wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was describing these people’s motivation. It goes without saying that that’s what they believe.

No it doesn't go without saying, specially because it means the translations are extremely biased towards showing a positive view of the texts and towards translations likely to reinforce their existing believes.

> the translations are extremely biased towards showing a positive view of the texts

That's certainly not true of reputable translations - you can easily verify this by just glancing at something widely available like e.g. an annotated version of the NIV - the scholarship and scrupulous attention to detail is evident.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#63

Post by Mikeb85 »

shakna wrote: post #60
Mikeb85 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protestant commentaries are way too modern and they throw out basically anything they deem "too Catholic". They also threw out books of the Bible that everyone used for the better part of 1500 years.

The most common commentaries used across all the Protestant churches would probably be the Tyndale commentaries. You will also find the Tyndale's on many a Catholic priest's book shelf. This sounds less like a complaint on professionalism, and more like a personal beef. Not one reflected by the wider church - you'll find many leaders both in and outside the Catholic church, who communicate regularly, and coordinate t…

Tyndale eh? Like I said...

There's a massive corpus of commentary written from ~400-100 AD, nevermind 1500...

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#64

Post by edflsafoiewq »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #37
akiselev wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abraham is considered the first prophet in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam hence Abrahamic .

Technically speaking, in Judaism and Christianity Abraham is not a prophet (which is a very specific term), he’s instead a patriarch. And in terms of being the first, that’d be Adam.

Abraham is called a prophet by God ("therefore restore the man’s wife, for he is a prophet").

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#65

Post by jkepler »

sofixa wrote: post #38
MonkeyClub wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep it’s a very narrow focus on one person, and disregards the millennium of Judaic and Christian traditions that followed on from Abraham. In general, to my ears “Abrahamic religions” is a forced academic classification, and doesn’t point to any actual spiritual kinship shared between the religions thus classified.

> In general, to my ears “Abrahamic religions” is a forced academic classification, and doesn’t point to any actual spiritual kinship shared between the religions thus classified. They all share the same god and the same origin story, and even share religious sites. Compare them to any other religion, and they are quite close.

> They all share the same god ...

Except that they don't share the same god.

The Christian God is triune, one God existing in the three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Spirit, which the Jews and Muslims both reject.

Further, though Judaism and Christianity agree that the only true creator God, YHWH (or Yahweh/Jehovah according to Christianity), has revealed himself in deeds and words, Islam says that his name is Allah.

And of course, fundamental to Christianity is the acknowledgement of the full humanity /and/ full divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and resurrected. Judaism and Islam both reject those beliefs, thus we again see a difference on who God is.

These three monotheistic religions each have separate conceptions of God.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#66

Post by sofixa »

jkepler wrote: post #65
sofixa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general, to my ears “Abrahamic religions” is a forced academic classification, and doesn’t point to any actual spiritual kinship shared between the religions thus classified. They all share the same god and the same origin story, and even share religious sites. Compare them to any other religion, and they are quite close.

> They all share the same god ... Except that they don't share the same god. The Christian God is triune, one God existing in the three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Spirit, which the Jews and Muslims both reject. Further, though Judaism and Christianity agree that the only true creator God, YHWH (or Yahweh/Jehovah according to Christianity), has revealed himself in deeds and words, Islam says that his name is…

> The Christian God is triune, one God existing in the three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Spirit, which the Jews and Muslims both reject.

The Protestant* god. Catholic and Orthodox disagree on that specific phrasing.

https://christianityfaq.com/catholic-protestant-christianity...

As a non-religious person, the differences between the Catholic, Orthodox and various Protestant faiths aren't dissimilar to the differences between them all and Islam and Judaism.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#67

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

Luker88 wrote: post #57

Where do I find a literal translation of the bible? I would like one that does not force a meaning on words that are not known. I think have read enough fiction with made up words to be able to understand something anyway. Also, maybe not based on Latin? Latin was not the original language anyway, and I got fed up with the mistranslations that we keep repeating as correct. I gave up after searching and learning the h…

I've become fond of https://ebible.org/t4t/

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#68

Post by blendergeek »

bentley wrote: post #61
Luker88 wrote: post #57

Where do I find a literal translation of the bible? I would like one that does not force a meaning on words that are not known. I think have read enough fiction with made up words to be able to understand something anyway. Also, maybe not based on Latin? Latin was not the original language anyway, and I got fed up with the mistranslations that we keep repeating as correct. I gave up after searching and learning the h…

Off the cuff, I would say ESV is probably the most mainstream translation that fits your requirements. The translation style attempts to be literal and the source texts are based on the original Greek and Hebrew, not Latin translations. How literal you want to get beyond that is kind of a deep rabbit hole, that probably ends with learning ancient Hebrew and Greek. > I would like one that does not force a meaning on w…

> I would like one that does not force a meaning on words that are not known.

The Amplified Bible offers several alternative meanings for a lot of words to try to get some more nuance across. This does make for harder reading.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#69

Post by getoffmyyawn »

A big challenge in translating "The Bible" is that it is an anthology collected over 100s or 1000s of years in many different and divergent forms. Thus there is no authoritative original version. All available versions were compiled, curated, and edited by their respective authors.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#70

Post by err4nt »

bentley wrote: post #16

Since the article is kind of shallow, here are a few atypical approaches to Biblical translation I’ve found interesting over the years: • The Five Books of Moses, by Everett Fox, who attempts to retain in English the underlying poetry of the Hebrew like alliteration, meter, wordplay, and so on. ( https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/55160/the-five-book... ) • The Books of the Bible: not a new translation (it’s ju…

If you like Everett Fox, you may like Robert Alter's translations of the tanakh. He has translated the entire hebrew bible and given plenty of notes along the way. If you don't read hebrew, by the time you are done reading the translation and notes you will have seen or heard the hebrew language wordplay, and the english translation by itself is nice to read!
Post reply on HN