GW: Let everyone know how considerate you are.
I am sure the GW translators did not intend for us to think that we should boast about how considerate we are. But that is how these words sound, at least to my ears. What is the lesson for translators here? One is that we should read our translations carefully before we publish them. We should test them with a wide range of speakers of the language to see if wording glitches, like that of the GW translation, have slipped through unawares. It is often helpful to read our translations aloud. This can help us avoid unfortunate combinations of sounds or words, some of which can trigger unintended meanings in the minds of hearers, including, sometimes, vulgar word associations, such as occurs today with the word "pricks" when KJV Acts 9.5 is read.
In Phil. 4.5 when the Greek original says gnosthe:to pasin anthropois "let it (our gentleness) be known to all men," it is not referring to a verbal telling so that others will know how kind we are, but, rather, to demonstrating our kindness by our actions. The Greek uses a periphrastic construction with the verb "know" to simply tell us to be kind to others. A number of English versions translate this original meaning accurately while using more natural forms of English language structure:
TEV: Show a gentle attitude toward everyone.
CEV: Always be gentle with others.
Other versions do not have the unfortunate wording of the GW, but they still do not make the original meaning as clear and crisp and natural as it could be in English, because they attempt to keep as much of the periphrastic form of the Greek as possible:
KJV: Let your moderation be known unto all men.
RSV: Let all men know your forbearance.
NKJV: Let your gentleness be known to all men.
JBP: Have a reputation for gentleness
Wms: Let your forbearing spirit be known to everybody.
NASB: Let your forbearing spirit be known to all men.
REB: Be known to everyone for your consideration of others.
NIV: Let your gentleness be evident to all.
NRSV: Let your gentleness be known to everyone.
NCV: Let everyone see that you are gentle and kind.
LB: Let everyone see that you are unselfish and considerate in all you do.
NLT: Let everyone see that you are considerate in all you do.
ISV: Let your gentleness be known to all people.
LB: Christ's love controls us now
NLT: Christ's love controls us
NIV: For Christ's love compels us
GW: Clearly, Christ's love guides us.
CEV: We are ruled by Christ's love for us.
Versions which leave the form of the original but do not completely translate its intended genitive meaning are:
RSV: For the love of Christ controls us
NASB: For the love of Christ controls us
NRSV: For the love of Christ urges us on
REB: For the love of Christ controls us
TEV: We are ruled by the love of Christ
NCV: The love of Christ controls us
ISV: The love of Christ controls us
It is true that the phrase "love of Christ" in English is more likely to indicate a subjective genitive here, that is, Christ's love for us, than an objective genitive, but it is not certain from the form. It is more natural and almost assuredly more accurate to translate the Greek genitive here as "Christ's love."
The lesson here is that a literal translation is sometimes not the most accurate translation. There are many other examples from Bible translation where this is also shown. We will discuss some of them at this website as we add to these critiques.
Versions which translate the sequence of events properly are:
LB: Kneeling beside him the Samaritan soothed his wounds with medicine and bandaged them.
NLT: Kneeling beside him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with medicine and bandaged them.
TEV: He went over to him, poured oil and wine on his wounds and bandaged them
CEV: and went over to him. He treated his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them.
GW: went to him, and cleaned and bandaged his wounds.
NRSV: He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them.
Versions which give the wrong idea of the sequence of events are:
NASB: and came to him, and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them
NIV: He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.
REB: He went up and bandaged his wounds, bathing them with oil and wine.
NCV: The Samaritan went to him, poured olive oil and wine ‡ on his wounds, and bandaged them.
ISV: He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them.
NASB: Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.
NIV: Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David.
NJB: So David fell asleep with his ancestors and was buried in the City of David.
NRSV: Then David slept with his ancestors, and was buried in the city of David.
Versions which translate the euphemism accurately to English are:
LB: Then David died and was buried in Jerusalem.
NLT: Then David died and was buried in the City of David.
NCV: Then David died and was buried with his ancestors in Jerusalem.
TEV: David died and was buried in David's City.
CEV: Then he died and was buried in Jerusalem.
To say "David died" is NOT a paraphrase translation of 1 Kings 2.10; it is precisely accurate. It indicates in English exactly what the meaning of the original euphemism was. The literal translations of the euphemism do not communicate the original meaning to English speakers.
Interestingly, God's Word tries to have its cake and eat it too (so to speak, of course!): It keeps the form of the euphemism but includes its meaning:
GW: David lay down in death with his ancestors and was buried in the City of David.
Field testing is needed to determine if "lay down in death" is a natural English phrase. My own intuitions tell me it is not, but perhaps it is natural for other English speakers.
So was David buried alive? Of course not. He wasn't sleeping in 1 Kings 2.10; instead, he died. That's what is meant by the Hebrew phrase "to sleep with his fathers." Once again, we see that simply translating the literal form of the original can result in inaccuracy. Correct transfer of meaning from the source language to the target language is necessary for a translation to be accurate. If we want to tell readers what the form of an original literal euphemism was, we need to place that information somewhere other than in the translation itself. It is background information, not part of the meaning itself, so it can go into a footnote, or a glossary, or a commentary on the verse. Languages differ as to what meanings are encoded with particular euphemisms. Each translation must respect the forms of each individual language, not try to teach new forms to the speakers of a target language unless they want to do the special background study of the particular forms used in the translation source text. Form is always important; it is the conduit through which meaning is communicated. When form is changed, meaning changes. But form is always relative to a specific language. It was the meanings that the Holy Spirit inspired in the original texts. He chose to express those meanings in the forms of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages. But there was nothing sacred about those forms. Only the message communicated by the forms was sacred. Language forms can be used for good or evil, depending on the motives of the speaker and his message. It is God's message that is special, not the particular linguistic conduit through which the message came. God's words to us would have been just as special and just as inspired if they had originally come to us in Zulu or Cherokee or Nepali, instead of coming to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Let us take that message, accurately, precisely, and naturally, to all people of the world, no matter what their native language is. Each person is "previous in his sight," valuable enough to hear the message of revelation, God's word to us.1 Kings 2.10 Was David buried alive?
In 1 Kings 2.10 the original Hebrew uses a euphemism for what happened to David at the end of his life. But its euphemistic meaning is not translated in several versions:Mark 2.19 Are children allowed on the honeymoon?
If the original Hebraic idiom, "children of the bridechamber" is translated literally to English, English speakers can reasonably assume that there were some kind of children in the bridechamber, perhaps children produced by the wedding couple before their marriage:
KJV Mark 2.19 Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?
Wuest Mark 2.19 The sons of the bridechamber are not able to be fasting while the bridegroom is with them, are they?
The original word "children" (Greek huioi, most literally "sons") does not refer to literal children in this context. Instead, it refers to those who came to celebrate with the bridegroom. If the intended meaning of the original is translated to English then the correct understanding of the idiom is reached. The following renderings are clear, accurate, idiomatic translation of the original "children of the bridechamber":
attendants of the bridegroom (NASB)
guests of the bridegroom (NIV)
bridegroom's friends (NEB)
bridegroom's attendants (NJB)
friends of the bridegroom (LB, NKJV)
wedding guests (Wms, JBP, NAB, NRSV, GW, NLT, NET, ISV)
guests at a wedding party (TEV)
friends of the bridegroom (NCV)
friends of a bridegroom (CEV)
KJV 1 Peter 3.4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit.
KJV "the hidden man of the heart" translates the Greek ho kruptos te:s kardias anthropos (the hidden of the heart man) literally, retaining the base lexical sense of anthropos, "man," rather than using any of its secondary senses.
Carson quotes Kohlenberger who says of this rendering, "I don't want my wife to have a 'hidden man of the heart.' It might be the premise for a modern sitcom, but it's not a mandate for biblical femininity."
The KJV wording sounds humorous to us today. It probably didn't sound humorous when it was released in 1611 A.D. Most other translations since then use a more appropriate English word to translate the secondary (figurative) sense of the original word anthropos. But the NASB, always trying to be as literal as possible, doesn't improve on "hidden man of the heart" very much. In fact, if we continue humorously, we might say that the NASB simply opens the door here to an inappropriate affair of the heart with either a man or a woman:
NASB 1 Peter 3.4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
Accurate, as well as natural and innocuous sounding, translations of "hidden man of the heart" are:
the inmost self (REB)
the inner self (NRSV)
your inner self (NIV)
your true inner self (TEV)
inner disposition of the heart (ISV)
The ISV use of "disposition" sounds labored, heavy, to my ears. I don't think their target reading audience of 9th grade would understand it very well.
Some versions restructure this verse even more extensively, resulting in a wording for "hidden man of the heart" which is a step up in naturalness, while still true to the meaning of the original:
NCV 1 Peter 3.4 No, your beauty should come from within you—the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit that will never be destroyed and is very precious to God.
GW 1 Peter 3.4 Rather, beauty is something internal that can't be destroyed. Beauty expresses itself in a gentle and quiet attitude which God considers precious.
CEV 1 Peter 3.4 Be beautiful in your heart by being gentle and quiet. This kind of beauty will last, and God considers it very special.
NLT 1 Peter 3.4 You should be known for the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God.
My favorite is from The Message:
TM 1 Peter 3.4 Cultivate inner beauty, the gentle, gracious kind that God delights in.
"Inner beauty" nicely captures the original meaning here with lovely English. The word "cultivate" is active, vibrant, stylistically strong. There is a nice rhythm to this sentence. All the words collocate well, that is, they sound good together in English. This is stylish, yet straightforward, easily understood, translation.
One important lesson here is that every translator should listen to how a translation sounds before releasing it publicly. We do not want there to be unfortunate, humorous sounding wordings like some of those for 1 Peter 3.4. Many translators, I am afraid, have not paid much attention to how their translations will sound when read. The CEV team, on the other hand, points out in their Introduction that
Today more people hear the Bible read aloud than read it for themselves! And statistics released by the National Center for Education indicate that "almost half of U.S. adults have very limited reading and writing skills." If this is the case, a contemporary translatin must be a text that an inexperienced reader can read aloud without stumbling, that someone unfamiliar with traditional biblical terminology can hear without misunderstanding, and that everyone can listen to with enjoyment because the style is lucid and lyrical.