As I’ve mentioned before, during my college years I fell away from the faith, and returned about 4 years ago. In that time, I’ve devoted considerable time and energy to making up the lack of adult education in the faith, for my prior education was “when I thought as a child” … which I do not do so much anymore. In the last few years, one source of wider connection with the greater Christian community outside my parish has been the active and lively Christian blogging community. One of the topics of discussion has been Bibles and various translations.
Translation is important. The Jehova Witnesses for example, are well aware of this and restrict their community to a paritularly, errant in my view, revision which supports their particular doctrinal non (small “o”) orthodox version of their faith. The evangelical community it seems, from reading the blogs, has recently jumped aboard the ESV translation, with Adrian Warnock and others praising and touting it for clarity and … (?) doctrinal orthodoxy. Henry Neufeld has from the “moderate” viewpoint has commented critically on the ESV and also on occaision blogged on KJV, NKJV and other translations and their benefits.
Here’s the particular point at which I’m just a little irked. It’s been 4 long years since I’ve been reading blogs (talking locally to Christians in the two parishes I’ve been a member of in that time) and at no time has anyone mentioned or even discussed a particularly interesting translation which offhand I noticed in a friends backpack two weeks ago at our parish. I bought a copy and it’s, frankly, in my opinion wonderful. It’s readable, accurate, and for dozens of reasons very good.
Translation, unless you take the trouble to get fluent in 1st century Greek is very important in a study of a tradition which is based on personal experience and revelation. Hermeneutic and translation are building blocks on which faith is constructed. Which is one reason there are so many translations available.
There is one translation which I discovered, which … has never been mentioned on any of the Christian blogs I’ve read. And, on that point, I have a “bone to pick” with y’all.
The translation I’m talking about is by Richmond Lattimore, and is a translation of just the New Testament. Richmond Lattimore, co-authored a series of the “complete” set of Greek tragedies. He is, essentially, a professional translator of Attic Greek. The translation “feels” right. It’s rough English where the Greek is rough (apparently) and transfers the feeling of the original well, as befits a practiced translator. I’ve spent an hour or so reading it and a little time comparing it to other translations. In some places it has a very different feel, and perhaps emphasis, but it isn’t obviously wrong.
My question to the community at large is, why are y’all hiding this treasure under a basket. The “other” trreasure I found under a basket, so to speak, was the english translation of St. Theophan’s compilation of the Spiritual Psalter by St. Ephraim the Syrian. In the Western world, part of the reason of that “hiding” under a basket might have been the relatively understandable, in that Orthodoxy is such a small fraction of the Christian population in the English speaking world.
My question (or bone to pick) is that this translation seems to be likely accurate, readable, and have all the “good points” of a fine translation. Why is it ignored? I’ve never ever heard Mr Warnock, Mr Neufeld, Mr Pierce, or any other Christian bloggers ever mention this translation. Why not! What’s your excuse? Most readers of this essay (and hopefully, in the carnival there will be not a few) it will be read by those with far more than 4 years Christian background.
On your say so, I’ll have a crack.
I’ve never read that one through myself, though I’ve read selections. I’ll put it on the list and try to pick up a copy, though I rarely do so for NT only.
Without even looking at the translation (which does sound very good), I can tell you why it isn’t going to become a major contender any time soon.
1. Most Christians want a translation that covers both testaments. As long as it is only a single testament, it stays in the category of a sport – one of the many in a stack of “other interesting translations,” which means that the only people who read it will be people who are of a more scholarly set than others, and thus are inclined to have more than one Bible.
2. The trend, for some reason, seems to be to give preferences to translations done by committee. I have no idea why this is. I suspect it has to do with a protestant predjudice that the key in translating is having erudite understanding of the original language, and having done in depth study into the interpretation of the particular text, at the expense of a solid grasp of the English language. This is my personal pet peeve – how many bible translators have any background at all in English Literature?
A good marketer might be able to get around problem 1 by mating Lattimore’s translation with an equivalently good Old Testament translation. Good marketing might be able to overcome the second problem as well, but I have my doubts.
Kyle,
My guess is the reason is territorial. Academics “proper” and theologians run in (largely) different circles and there is some competition and perhaps little love lost occasionally between them. That no “theological consortium” or group authored the text it looses that automatic audience consisting of those who respect said “consortium.”
The “Good News” bibles in the 70s did good sales, and it was NT only.
You’ve got me curious! I need to find this translation.
Thank you for this great post! This is included in the Christian Carnival, up tomorrow at Diary of 1.
Hi,
Here are some blogs or people that have mentioned it.
Selections from Richmond Lattimore’s NT Translation – Scripture Zealot (search for Lattimore to find more)
He Is Sufficient
Suzanne McCarthy (at Better Bibles Blog among others)
J.K. Gayle
Sorry I don’t have links for the last two and I’m not sure I got the spelling correct. One or both of them is how we learned of it.
It’s a great literary translation.
Jeff
Why the neglect?
1) It’s kinda under the radar — unusual translation, not from a traditional Bible publisher.
2) As someone already said, NT only is a problem for many.
3) An individual author vs committee — committees are prefered to provide more checks against weird translations or theologies creeping in. Where individual authors have made it big has been in paraphrases, where you want the “translator” to be a commentator. A literal translation by an individual is suspect to many.
4) He’s going to turn a lot of people off by putting Mark first. They’ll see that and assume he’s got an agenda.
5) There was no bandwagon for people to jump on.
I’ll have to check that out sometime.
Of course, I’m still left way back when the NIV was the big thing. I don’t know when I got left behind in favor of the ESV.
good good good good !