For this introductory post, I'll limit myself to discussing some of the criteria I used in judging these translations.
Main Criteria
(1) Fidelity to the source text combined with readability (which I distinguish from what translation theorists refer to as transparency).
There's an old Italian saying that translators often like to quote in their prefaces: traduttore, traditore or "the translator is a traitor" (or more literally and thus less treacherously, "translator, traitor"). If this is true, and anyone who knows more than one language knows that there's a great deal of truth in this saying even if it may be an exaggeration, then every bible translation is the fruit of treachery.
My general preference in a translation is to be as literal as possible while still maintaining as much readability as possible within this framework.
More than anything, since I can read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and have spent almost all of my adult life studying the bible, I don't really need or want a translator telling me what a Hebrew or Greek idiom "really" means by couching it in a contemporary equivalent.
(2) Audience
In Albert Pietersma's introduction to NETS (p. xiv), he cites Nida and Taber on the three main audiences for any translation of the bible:
It is usually necessary to have three types of Scriptures: (1) a translation which will reflect the traditional usage and be used in the churches, largely for liturgical purposes (this may be called an "ecclesiastical translation"), (2) a translation in the present-day literary language, so as to communicate to the well-educated constituency, and (3) a translation in the "common" or "popular" language, which is known to and used by the common people, and which is at the same time acceptable as a standard for published materials.I like the emphasis on audience since it acknowledges the need for different types of translations for different people/purposes, so I'll address this matter with each of my favorite translations since I often use different translations for different purposes.
(3) Availability in a nice reader-friendly format
Also a big factor in this list is the wide availability of nice editions for any given translation. Features I look for include black letter, single column, paragraph format, on paper that has minimal bleed-through, with sewn bindings that lay flat and accompanied by an affordable price tag (i.e., under $50 including taxes and shipping).
I am realistic however, and understand that I won't get everything I want in a bible for a cheap price. None of the editions I own is ideal.
I include this because translations are meant to be used, not simply admired in isolation from the form in which it will come packaged. What use is good content (a fine translation) if it doesn't come in a correspondingly good form (a nice edition)? Not much if you ask me.
I simply won't use a translation that I can't find published in an attractive format that doesn't include most of the features I listed above. I don't find that the quality of the translations differs all that much on the top end. They all have their own peculiar flaws as well as their own peculiar strengths. Therefore, format often makes the difference for me.
This list is highly personal. I'm not making any grandiose claims for any of these translations as far as which is better or worse, except as it pertains to me (see criteria #2). All of the translations on my list have their problems. While I will often engage in some mild hyperbole in the posts to come, I actually do appreciate how tough it is to produce a good translation.
In the posts to come, I've not only ranked my favorite bible translations but have included the date of publication of the version of the text that I use in brackets.
My Top Five Bible Translations: #5 TNIV (2004)
My Top Five Bible Translations: #4
My Top Five Bible Translations: #3
My Top Five Bible Translations: #2
My Top Five Bible Translations: #1
No comments:
Post a Comment