Observations On The New English BIBLE by Robert L. Thomas, Th.D. Professor, N ew Testament, Talbot Theological Seminary
T n r e c e n t days the Christian world has been buzzing with excitement over the publication of The New English Bible. The question upon the lips of all seems to be, “ Is it a good translation?” The question is not so easily answered as some might suppose, because there is not unanimous agreement among scholars as to just what comprises “ a good translation.” In the light of this dif ference of opinion it would seem profitable to examine the philosophy of translation which stands behind this work which has so recently come off the press. Three questions may be asked in this connection: (1) What is the philosophy of translation? (2) Has the purpose of the translation been attained? (3) Is the philosophy of the translation valid? I. WHAT IS THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRANSLATION? When one thinks of philosophy of translation, two extremes in viewpoint immediately come to mind. (1) The first ideal in the matter of translation aims at trans lating the words and phrases of the original as literally as possible provided that no violence is done to English usage. The primary consideration in this approach is faithfulness to the original. (2) the opposite approach to translation has as its aim to convey the sense of the translated passage in free and idiomatic English without consideration for the exact wording of the original. The primary concern to those who approach translation from this viewpoint is readability. From the very nature of the case it is apparent that this latter philosophy involves a greater amount of interpretation on the part of the translator than does the former. To an advocate of this position the ideas, not the words themselves, are of utmost importance.
The translators of the older versions, including the King James Version and the American Standard Version, adopted the first philosophy of translation. They felt that fidelity to the original demanded that they should re produce insofar as was possible the characteristic features of the language in which the New Testament was written. This included the preservation of the syntactical order of words, the structure and division of sentences, and a word for word correspondence wherever possible. The translators of The New English Bible, however, were instructed to replace Greek constructions and idioms with those of contemporary English. This basic difference between the two approaches means that the modem translators have adopted the second philosophy of trans lation which has as its primary concern readability and smoothness. This practice in translation lays a heavier burden upon him who is appointed to translate, because his task is to understand the original as precisely as he is able and then to say again in his own native idiom what he believed the author to be sayirtg in his. Taken as a whole, therefore, The New English Bible claims to be a free translation rather than a literal one. Yet the translators deny the accusation that it is a para phrase, defining a paraphrase as a work which introduces into a passage something which is not there. At the same time they admit that in places there has been recourse made to paraphrase. To at least a limited degree, this version also partakes of the character of a commentary although the desire is expressed not to encroach upon the field of the commentator. The Introduction to The New English Bible calls the work a free translation, but ap parently admits that it partakes at least in part of the character of a paraphrase and of a commentary or an interpretation (The New English Bible, p. x). (continued on next page)
JUNE, 1961
17
Made with FlippingBook HTML5