Re: Latin, Shakespeare, Ecclesiastes and other irrelevant topics

["Mark Lundquist" <mark@rational.com>]

<kopilovitch@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:954svq$mt1$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>   By the way, Robert, maybe you will help me in one problem of that
> sort:
> I decided to reread Ecclesiastes, and this time to read it in English
> (a long
> ago I read it in Russian). But when I went to www.gospelcom.net/bible,
> I saw
> there 7 (!) different translations of Ecclesiastes:
>
>   New International Version
>   King James Version
>   New American Standard Bible
>   Revised Standard Version
>   Darby Translation
>   Young's Literal Translation
>   New King James Version
>
> Which version do you recommend?

I can't speak for Robert, and I hope neither of you mind if I interject...

I just reread Ecclesiastes myself, toward the end of last year (and you know
what, there's still nothing new under the sun... :-)

I'd recommend you read all the translations!  Ecclesiastes is not that long
of a book.  If I had to choose just one, I would probably not choose the KVJ
(the original 1611 translation) or the Darby, but I'd be happy with probably
any of the others (except that I've never seen the Young's, so I can't
comment on it).  However, if I had to pick *two*, the KJV would probably be
my first choice for the second pick!

Certainly the style of language in the KJV is far from current, and that
makes it
awkward for some people, and others (who are in a position to know) consider
that it contains some translational inaccuracies.  It of course has the
"thee/thou/ye" forms, which even in 1611 were obsolete, having dropped from
usage some 200-300 years before, but were employed by the translators to
preserve the singular/plural distinction.  And it has the obsolete
conjugational suffixes ("est/eth").  But if you can get past all that,
theKJV has in places a singular literary grace.

The NKJV is a translation from the original languages that uses the 1611 KJV
as a template (not a source).

Darby would probably interesting for a student of systematic theology
and comparative doctrine.  John Nelson Darby was the founder of the
Plymouth Brethren and the father of premillenial dispensationalism.  I've
never read his translation of the Bible, but I have studied his
commentaries, and  I find his hermeneutics to be somewhat stretched at
times.  I wouldn't use his as a "main" translation.

Now then... the NASB is great.  It takes the "direct" side of the direct vs.
intent tradeoff in translation, which results in some wording and sentence
structures which are not very idiomatic English.  The NIV takes the
other side of the tradeoff, and as such it reads well for a modern reader.
It has a feel that is consistent, but a little "safe".  Also, if you study
theology you start to discern some doctrinal "coloration" in the
translation -- nowhere near being fraudulent or anything, just enough to
make you want to have some other translations on hand.  I say this speaking
for myself as one who is solidly evangelical in doctrine (and the NIV
definitely comes out of the evangelical tradition).  I also think that some
of the translation decisions were dubious.  I don't know the original
languages, so my statement is based on the study of commentaries that
discuss meanings in the original languages.  Nevertheless,my "main" Bible is
an NIV (mostly because my wife gave me one years ago, and now it has all my
underlinings and notes scrawled in the margins, etc.).  I also like the RSV,
although I don't know very much about it.  Another favorite is the Berklee
translation if you can lay your hands on one.  I grew up with that (for some
reason) and just recently reread the gospel of John in the Berklee -- just
great.

And you ought to read from the Living Bible as well.  It's a paraphrase, not
a translation.  But it can be quite refreshing to read it along with a
translated text.

Bottom line, there can be no single "best" translation and it is a good
thing that there are so many.

Have fun!

Mark Lundquist

P.S.  The whole issue of translation in general is really fascinating.  I
remember when I first got hooked on the works of Stanislaw Lem.  Then I read
some more of his stuff that seemed flat and pedestrian.  It just kind of
went "thud" -- all the sparkle and depth were missing.  Then I realized that
the pieces that worked were translated by Michael Kandel, and none of the
ones that went "thud" were translated by him.  Considering all that there is
in Lem -- the thought structures, multiple layers of meaning, and
self-referential pardoxes ("A Perfect Vacuum", "Memoirs Found in a Bathtub"
etc.) and the whimsical word-play of his short stories, it's just amazing
that the stuff can be translated at all.  (Maybe Lem himself is a dullard,
and Kandell is some kind of James Joyce of translation! :-).

If there are any other SL fans out there... does anyone know if there's an
immediate translation of "Solaris" from Polish to English?  For a long time
the only English version available was itself translated from a French
version (I think something like that might have been the problem with some
of the things that went "thud"...)