The importance of words

[swampboy]

It is often noted when speaking of which bible translations are the “best” or most accurate that one should not get hung up on words or phrases and that one should read whatever translation they like best regardless of claimed or inherent accuracy. Now I tend agree with that statement to a point, as I enjoy reading various translations that are not known for their accuracy, particularly the New/ Jerusalem Bibles, that I like for their wealth of notes and cross-references and easy to understand style. However, I am beginning to see the importance of using a more literal translation for reasons noted in various threads on this site, as well as information I have heard on EWTN by Fr. Pacwa and others. Specifically, I have come across a situation where the choice of words (i.e. translation) used in the NJB is much different than the RSV-CE which has an interesting impact on interpretation and revelation. Now I have not compared other translations, but those that I use quite frequently. My comparision was the result of my reading “Theology of the Body” by JP2. In this book he does an entire discourse on the word “know” and its importance in the revelation of the body. So I did a little research in the bible I read most–the NJB–and found that out of all the verses JP2 referenced this word was only used in the NJB in Ps 139:1 and Jn 14:7-9. So I went a little further and looked at the hebrew-english translation and found that “to know” and its variations (e.g., he-know, she-know, i am knowing, etc.) appear to be the best way to translate the hebrew. Now I am not an expert in Hebrew at all-I just have a decent computer program that shows me the words and translation-so I am wondering if “know” is the best fit for the Hebrew. I assume that since the Pope gave a lengthy discourse on it being so that it is. I just find it interesting that there is such inconsistency within the NJB–and this is only one instance I know of!! I mean to vary from “she had never known a man” to “she had remained a virgin” (Jgs 11:39) is striking as far as impact goes…the meaning is similar and the point of the phrase is gotten across…but the importance of that word “know” is great as explained by JP2. Now I guess I might never interpret the meaning or grasp the importance on my own without having it pointed out so it might not matter, but it seems as if there are several instances where important words like shall have been replaced by words having much less impact. Just makes one think…

 

[Verbum]

Hi Swampboy,

A translation is always a compromise. KNOW in English and KNOW in Hebrew have some meanings in common and others not. If KNOW in Hebrew were always translated by KNOW in English, many passages would not make sense at all. Even KNOW in the sense of “having sex with” is not English. If you’re going to use it with that meaning, then you have to use a footnote.

So it is impossible, in a translation, to replicate all the cross-references, where the original uses the same term, but the translation does not. Most of us read the bible for edification. These things don’t matter that much. As for the specialists, they know Hebrew anyway.

Some translations are more “litteral” than others, but harder to read. The French* Bible de Jérusalem* is generally regarded as having achieved the best compromise while maintainintg a high literary quality. It is a model of the genre, And it is the bible I use. The original Jerusalem Bible in English, while being translated from the Hebrew, followed the French very closely, and it was criticized for that, hence the New Jerusalem Bible, which is criticized for being too interpretative.

In English, I prefer the New Revised Standard Version - Catholic edition.

Bottom line, you may want to learn Hebrew… or French.

Verbum

 

[swampboy]

Verbum,
Thank you for your reply. I use both the JB and NJB, and find that they both have their quirks, although I gravitate more towards the NJB because it is more accurate in places than the JB, but less so in others–plus it has inclusive language which bothers some folks–but I like it. However, my observation based upon the discourse presented by Pope JP2 is that there are apparently key indicator words or phrases that show up in the RSV–which is obvious since the “Theology of the Body” and its numerous discourses pertaining to biblical phrases and/or words revolve around the RSV translation. I assume that the RSV is similar to or is the actual translation that the Pope is using as the basis for his study, hence its use in the book. I know that the RSV is a literal translation rather than a dynamic translation like the NJB, and that the two can’t be compared. But it is a concern that there seem to be these hidden “messages” revealed in words or properly translated “senses” of the original languages that could be missed if a less accurate translation is used. Maybe I am wrong and it is not all that important…all I know is that the Pope wrote quite a lengthy reflection on the word “know” that he would not have been able to write if he used the NJB since it is not used in that translation for those passages to which he is referring.

 

[bullfrog654]

thats too me like a power struggle!

you dont even come close to our power or strength or vurtue

and the famous saying you dont even come close to our style of being warriors of god

watch for my warrior of peace poem and mr philosopher poem