NASB No 1
I think it is because people have been told that the NASB is literal and that that is a good thing.
However, I think that upon examination, both of those assertions are suspect.
As a Papist, I prefer translations that include the Apocrypha/ Deutero-canonical books. Even if they are not part of your canon, they are essential for any OT or NT scholar. To my knowledge NIV and others have never translated them.
Dept. of Religious Studies
Loudonville, NY 12211
Not being part of the Bible, though, they shouldn't be part of a Bible translation, any more than the Didache or Justin Martyr.
Deuterocanonicals and Apocrypha
Included in online NET Bible at www.bible.org and in some Good News Bibles, NRSV, etc though.
Happily bundled with the KJV for well over a hundred years, too.
Not to be sectarian but...., it is uninformed to say the apocrypha like the didache are not part of the Bible. They are maybe not part of YOUR Bible but they are as much the Word of God to billions of Christians as say Mark's Gospel or Psalms. In fact Mark and Tobit were accepted into the Christian canon by the very same councils of early Christians in the 4th century. The Didache was not so included. The point is any ecumenical (and not sectarian) Bible will include them, even if in a separate section.
Professor of Hebrew Bible
Loudonville, NY 12211
Apocrypha / deuterocanonical books
I like to regard myself and an evangelical, I'm sure some would even go as far as to say I'm bordering fundamentalist...but I also agree in the value of the Apocryphal texts.
Whilst nowhere in the N.T. are Apocryphal passages quoted directly - there is some evidence that passages may have been alluded to by Paul, James and even Jesus!
Take a look at 'Introducing the Apocrypha' by David A deSilva
Besides, reading the Apocryphal books gives us a much clearer insight into the history, culture and mindset of those living in 1st century Palestine
Last edited by Kevin Ahronson; 06-25-2005 at 06:05 AM.
People have been told?
Originally Posted by Gontroppo
The NASB is not widely used by the "people." It's being used by those who purchase BibleWorks (i.e. those who are more informed, likely those with some basic knowledge of Greek and Hebrew). We have not been "told" this, we have experienced this, and we find it helpful. As to your assertion that dynamic equivalent paraphrases are more literal and should really be called translations, that too may be suspect.
I doubt that any business making legally binding contracts with companies overseas would be willing to settle with a dynamic equivalent paraphrase of their contracts. Words matter, precise wording matters. Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm all for publishing commentaries on these contracts, but they are no substitute, interpretations of the law often disagree.
I am waiting for the day when Christians come to realize again that the Bible is actually a legally binding contract. It is the rule that holds us in relationship to God. He wrote every Greek and Hebrew word of the contract and I believe the "people" would do well to get as close to that original contract as possible.
Last edited by cmyktaylor; 06-25-2005 at 11:10 AM.
If you are able to read 2 or more languages, you will realise immediately how the best translations are sometimes highly idiomatic and not at all "literal."
I have a little understanding of French and German, and I sometimes look at the French and German translations in CD booklets of articles and texts of songs used. It is obvious that the translations are not word for word the same and not what most people would understand as literal. This is especially the case in translations of poetry.
My problem is that I am not able to judge if they are accurate, but I assume that they are.
Sometimes the best bible translation is not one which follows the form of the original slavishly, but which brings out the meaning.
But we need both! There is a place for a formally equivalent translation, but also a place for one which is functionally equivalent.
And one of my gripes is that the idea that, for example, the NIV is "dynamic" whereas the NASB is "literal" is a myth. In some places the NIV translation is quite literal and there are also places where the NASB is quite free.
My original point was that a good English translation must be in good English. A translation in awkward English can't be superior to one in natural English. I think that exposure to biblical languages makes too many people think a version that comes out sounding like the Greek original is better than one that comes out in the English we speak and write.
But I do value access to "literal" versions in programs like BibleWorks, though those versions would not be the ones I choose to read daily.
I'm not sure who you mean to be responding to. Perhaps I missed a post denying that there is any value in the Apocrypha, and you're making the point that there is some value in them.
Originally Posted by Kevin Ahronson
While I wouldn't disagree with that opinion, I'd like to stay focused on my point, however. They aren't "Bible." Hence, they shouldn't be in a book titled "Bible."
Other religions, who add books to the Bible, of course are free to put out their own publications. I would hope they'd clearly mark those publications, to avoid confusion.
But I was responding to the thought that the NIV should have included the Apocrypha. My point was that, since it is (ostensibly) an evangelical transation, it should no more have included the Deutero's than any other unevenly-valuable ancient document.
Quick question then
Two quick questions about how literal you think one should be?
1. Since Gen. 1:1 lacks a definite article should one translate it "in a beginning" and
2. How should one handle articles on personal names (e.g. "the" Jesus, or however you conceive of the definite article in Greek)? By the way, I've seen several Asian students translate passages this way.
In other words, your argument needs refining.
Originally Posted by cmyktaylor