Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA

From: Don Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:49:34 -0800

It is my privilege to do translation and research for the NASB, and I
normally handle suggestions for changes to the text, so I'd like to thank
Jimmy for his comments and offer a response. I should note at the outset
that he addressed passages in the original NASB, and the Lockman Foundation
published an updated edition in '95 which should be considered in
discussions of the NASB.

At 01:10 AM 2/16/99 -0500, James R. Adair wrote:
[snip]
>Similarly, modern translations may be literal in some ways and free in
>others.  The NASB generally uses a single vocabulary item to render the
>same Hebrew or Greek word (at least in a given context), but should the
>Hebrew text of Psalms imply something other than strict monotheistic
>beliefs on the part of the authors, the translators of NASB resort to
>"scribal corrections"(!); for the literal rendering, see the Revised
>English Bible!

That is a relatively fair, tongue-in-cheek appraisal, but it oversimplifies
the process of translation for the public. In the first place, Jimmy opens a
can of worms in mentioning the "strict monotheistic
beliefs," because there are theolgico/historical issues from both the Jewish
and Christian viewpoints which cannot be ignored for translation purposes.
Unfortunately this list is not the place for such discussion (although I
would be happy to participate if some latitude were desired and permitted).
It will have to suffice to say for the moment that orthodox Jewish tradition
(as seen both in Torah and Talmud, etc.) strongly favors a strict monotheism
as does the Christian tradition. A dilemma for the translator occurs
whenever s/he is forced to take a theological position (as perceived by the
average reader) no matter what the choice of rendering, and that is not a
simple matter, as I note below.

>Ps 82:1b
>
>[God] judges in the midst of the rulers (NASB).
>
>[God will] pronounce judgement among the gods (REB).

Note first that the '95 updated NASB has notes on the literal Hebrew both
for "His" and "rulers". The REB version will inevitably be interpreted by
many readers as lending support to a polytheistic Weltanshauung. On the
other hand, the context indicates that it is the rulers of Israel whom the
Psalmist has in mind, as seen especially in v. 6. Neither I nor the other
translators are ever happy about using something in the text other than the
literal translation, but past experience has taught us that we have to take
the needs of the average reader into account, and sometimes it is best to
put the literal rendering in the margin.

>Ps 8:5a
>
>Thou hast made him [humankind] a little lower than God [footnote: or "the
>angels"] (NASB).
>
>Yet you have made him little less than a god (REB).

>NASB is in good company here, following a scribal tradition that lies
>behind the MT of Deut 32:8: "Elyon ... set the boundaries of the peoples
>accoring to the number of the sons of Israel"--4QDeut-j [thanks to Dave
>Washburn for the reference] reads "... sons of Elohim" (also LXX-848 Arm).
>As I noted in an earlier post, the change was apparently effected to
>strengthen the monotheism of the verse.

I missed Jimmy's earlier post, and perhaps I am missing even more than that
in his line of reasoning. Keeping in mind the needs of the reader, the REB
of Ps 8:5 should either render ELOHIM as "gods" if a small 'g' is preferred,
or "God" if the singular is preferred, referring to the God of Israel. We
(NASB translators) on the other hand see the options either as "God" or
angels, and we include a note which both gives the "angels" alternative
and--more importantly perhaps--gives ELOHIM in transliteration as the Hebrew
original. The point is that we are giving the most acceptable translation
for the average reader, but providing sufficient information for the
advanced reader to consider other possibilities. As to Deut 32:8, since I
missed the earlier discussion, I will limit myself to saying that we put a
high value on the lectio difficilior, which is sometimes in the eye of the
beholder and can be a strong argument against an LXX or Qumran ms. I see
"sons of Israel" as more difficult, but that is a debatable point and I
appreciate Jimmy's argument to the contrary.

Don Wilkins

---

From: "Prof. Ron Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:56:52 -0600 (Central Standard Time)

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Don Wilkins wrote:
> normally handle suggestions for changes to the text,...

Don or anyone, I have heard that the NASB NT was based on NA22 (please
correct this if incorrect).

Also, the previous double column edition included some 20 verses that were
not in the earlier editions, and the 95 edition also retains those verses.
Please tell if this is accurate and give a basic explanation of the
textual basis for the NASB NT.  Thanks ahead of time.

Ron Minton
5379 North Farm Road 179
Springfield, MO 65803
(417)833-9581