In the discussion of Job 16:18-22, comparing the NLT and CEV, I quoted from August Konkel's commentary on Job. Konkel, president and professor of Old Testament at Providence College and Seminary in Canada, is the primary translator of Job in the New Living Translation, and he also wrote the Job commentary in Tyndale's Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, also based on the NLT.

After some questions were asked about the excerpt from the CBC commentary that I included in my post, I emailed Dr. Konkel to see if he would like to respond. Here are his comments that he sent me this morning:

Regarding the corrected translation in the commentary to Job 16:20:

Why would I give a translation I disagree with? Your reader needs to be
a little more familiar with the process of the NLT and its commentaries.
Editing teams reviewed and made stylistically consistent the entire
translation. The NEB would be an example of a similar process when it
was produced. Further, the editing teams worked with two or three
original translations, as is evident if one looks at the introduction of
the NLT. The commentary did not need to agree with the editor's final
decisions. Perhaps I should have done more to explain the reasons for
their decisions.

Regarding concern over Konkel's translation of vv. 20-21:

A more literal rendering of verse 21: "So that He might judge a man in
controversy with God as fairly as he would judge between one man in a
suit with his fellow" (following the BHS footnote in the second half of
the line).

The vav on the hiphil introduces the conclusion of the plea implicit in
v. 20 b.

I did not discuss all the possible interpretations of v. 20, of which
there are many. But a reference to mockers is most disruptive (see
Clines and Gordis). In Job God is both adversary and redeemer. That is
the nature of faith as portrayed by the author. We do not understand
God; we just trust him. In v.20 Job's advocate is God, whom he knows to
be his friend, though he cannot understand how this friend is dealing
with him.

---

My thanks to Dr. Konkel for responding to these questions. He also stated in his email that he welcomes further discussion.

Tags: Konkel, NLT, Job

Pre-Fight Commentary

If you're just tuning in, quickly go read Round One first.

This post is the second in a series suggested a few weeks ago by Lingamish (a.k.a David Ker) to compare the New Living Translation (NLT) to the Contemporary English Version (CEV). Why these two versions? Well, it seems that back in February, Bible translator and blogger Wayne Leman ran some tests on 14 different English translations of the BIble. The goal was to determine which translations best represented current standard English. Only two translations scored in the top ten percentile: the NLT and CEV with scores of 90% and 94%, respectively (which is really, really good if you care to look at how some of the other translations scored).

These kinds of tests are extremely significant because how well a translation represents standard English can determine how well it connects with a reader. Now, I read from multiple translations in comparison with the original languages when I study a passage on my own. But I'm very picky about what translation I use to read aloud in public. And sometimes I will use different ones based on different audiences as well as whether I am teaching (which is more interactive with my audience) or preaching (which is more passive for my audience).

This is a big change for me because up until a couple of years ago, I used the NASB in public probably 90% of the time. Although I love the literalness of the NASB and still use it in private, I came to the conclusion that it just was no longer suitable for general public use. In fact, out of the 14 translations Wayne surveyed, the NASB (which scored a 23%) only had two translations come in lower: the KJV (11%) and the ASV (6%). But I didn't need Wayne's study to convince me of the NASB's public shortcomings, I determined that a couple of years ago when teaching a half-year long study on Romans. I found myself having to translate the NASB's wording to my audience. And generally, a person shouldn't have to translate a translation.

Now, in Round 1, David made this a virtual cage match by including two other Bible versions for reference points--the NIV and Eugene Peterson's The Message. As far as I understand, the rules of this little challenge only applies to comparing the NLT and CEV. But for my supporting translations, I'm going to include the NASB and the original 1996 edition of the NLT. I'm including the NASB because I always feel like responsible study of the Scriptures with the use of translations should employ both literal (or formal) and idiomatic (or dynamic) translations together to give the reader a sense of interpretive balance. I'm including the original edition of the NLT because I'm still sorting through the differences between the 1996 and 2004 editions of the NLT. The second edition was a MAJOR update to the NLT, although it probably wasn't played up to be that quite so much by the publisher, Tyndale. But the second edition of the NLT tends to be less paraphrastic (i.e. more literal), and I've even noticed that it tends to employ active voice more often than the earlier version. The differences between these two editions will not play such a significant role in the passage selected below. To distinguish between the two translations, I will refer to the 1996 edition as NLT1 and the 2004 edition as NLTse.

Then I'm going to throw a fifth player into the cage. Laura Bartlett of Tyndale was kind enough to send me two review copies of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: the volume on Job/Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs and the volume on Matthew & Mark. I'm in the process of trying to evaluate/get a feel for this series, so while the majority of comments will be my own, I may throw in a word or two from the CBC or in this case, August H. Konkel, the writer of the commentary on Job from which I'm taking my passage.

Finally, I've been looking forward to this little series, because in all honesty, I've never used the CEV that much, and I'm glad for the opportunity to better familiarize myself with it.

The Main Event: Job 16:18-22

For my first contribution to these rounds, I followed David's lead and chose an Old Testament poetic passage. Hebrew poetry, rich in idioms and imagery can often be very difficult to translate into another language. A common idiom in one language and culture may be totally lost in a different one. Often an overly literal translation can totally obscure the meaning of a poetic passage, while going to the other extreme can lose the the spirit of the original. To see this played out in another passage in Job, see my post from a while back, "Grinding Another Man's Grain."

Since there are only five verses in this selection, we will look at each one individually with the exception of vv. 20-21.

JOB 16:18
NLTse	CEV
O earth, do not conceal my blood. Let it cry out on my behalf.	If I should die, I beg the earth not to cover my cry for justice.
NLT1	NASB
O earth, do not conceal my blood. Let it cry out on my behalf.	O earth, do not cover my blood, And let there be no resting place for my cry.

Job can be particularly difficult to translate in places, and elements of this passage are no exception. Although I have looked at the Hebrew for these verses, David and I decided to make this series of a non-technical nature, and I won't go into any great detail regarding the original languages. However, this verse is as good as any for demonstrating a peculiarity in the CEV, and that is the lack of parallelism in poetic passages. Old Testament poetic passages don't rhyme words as some English poetry does, but rather it rhymes "thoughts." This is known broadly as parallelism, and the verse numbers given to poetic passages in the Bible usually do an adequate job of keeping these parallel ideas together (as we go, I will refer to lines 1 and 2 as A and B, respectively). But the translators of the CEV made a conscious decision to eliminate the parallelism since this style is fairly foreign in our culture. This makes for paraphrasing in the CEV on a much greater scale in poetic passages than in other places because the translators have to determine the main idea of the parallel thoughts and condense them to one thought. Certainly this makes for renderings that are easier to understand by 21st century readers of English, but many will feel that something of the core of Hebrew poetry is lost.

Having said all that, the CEV does a fairly adequate job of reflecting the ideas of both lines in v. 18. In the original structure, line A is a plea to the earth itself--not just the planet, but the very dirt from which we all came and to which we all return. Job feels that he has been served an injustice, not only in the incredible loss he has experienced, but also in the accusations from his so-called friends. Such injustice should not go unnoticed or forgotten, so he cries out to the very earth itself, which will one day cover his body, that his "blood"--that is, his life (or the loss of it) because he assumes that his own death may actually be the next step in his tragic events--will be remembered. The NLT renders line A fairly literally. Line B is not so easily understood. The NASB provides the word "resting" to create a connection to line A, but this may or may not be accurate. What's key here is Job's cry--that the very earth will cry out on his behalf as the NLT somewhat puts it. Although not in parallel form, the CEV quite accurately captures the ultimate idea found in the verse with "If I should die, I beg the earth not to cover my cry for justice," although again, this is somewhat paraphrased as justice is not specifically mentioned but assumed.

JOB 16:19
NLTse	CEV
Even now my witness is in heaven. My advocate is there on high.	Even now, God in heaven is both my witness and my protector.
NLT1	NASB
Even now my witness is in heaven. My advocate is there on high.	Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, And my advocate is on high.

Verse 19 moves the reader to the court in heaven where the Satan of the first two chapters of Job acted in the role of the individual bringing the charge against Job. Although the story of Job never gives any indication that Job was privy to the non-earthly events of chs. 1-2, Job nevertheless acknowledges that he has a defense attorney (to use the modern title) appearing in that same court of heaven on his behalf. We would think of a witness and an advocate (two very closely related words in the Hebrew) as two separate roles in a court of law today, but for Job, these are one and the same person.

Again, here the NLT is fairly literal--this time in both lines. Witness parallels advocate and heaven parallels on high. The CEV inserts the idea that it is God himself who is Job's known defender. God in his omniscience knows the truth about Job's circumstances contrary to the claims of his earthly accusers. This is not necessarily a wrong assertion, but leaves less room for a specifically Christian interpretation of Jesus as mediator such as that found in 1 Tim 2:5, "For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus" (NLT) or 1 John 2:1, "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous" (NLT). Nevertheless, the CEV's insertion of God is in keeping with Konkel's correction (CBC) to the NLT translation in v. 20 (see quote below).

As mentioned above, the NLT's rendering of witness and advocate come from two words that are only slightly different and both of which essentially mean "witness," although many translations will use a word such as advocate for the second word for stylistic purposes in English. The CEV's use of protector for the second word may be a bit of an overstatement. If the idea of a protector may be reflected in some inherent meaning, I could not find reference to such in two lexicons I referenced.

JOB 16:20-21
NLTse	CEV
My friends scorn me, but I pour out my tears to God. I need someone to mediate between God and me, as a person mediates between friends.	My friends have rejected me, but God is the one I beg to show that I am right, just as a friend should.
NLT1	NASB
My friends scorn me, but I pour out my tears to God. Oh, that someone would mediate between God and me, as a person mediates between friends.	My friends are my scoffers; My eye weeps to God. O that a man might plead with God As a man with his neighbor!

I am treating vv. 20-21 together because the CEV condenses the two verses to one sentence as seen in the table above. The CEV translators may have taken this route because v. 20 is one of those notoriously difficult verses to translate that I've already mentioned. August Konkel, in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Job, makes these remarks which will no doubt be of interest to some of my readers:

The uncertainties of the flow of thought and the ambiguity of the vocabulary of this verse have led to various translations. The older English versions (KJV, RSV) are followed by some more recent versions (NRSV, NLT) in moving the thought back to mocking friends in contrast to the advocate before God in heaven. This, however seems to be an unwarranted disruption of thought. Job has declared that his advocate is in heaven (16:19), and his weeping eyes look to this advocate to defend his case with God (16:20b-21). It is unlikely the intervening line refers to mocking (assuming that melitsay is a participial form of the verb lits... . It is more probably the verse continues the thought of an advocate (melits), the same sense of the word used by Elihu (33:23). The problem then is the identity of the advocate. Rather than meaning "friend," rea'...may be an Aramaic loan word meaning "thought" or "intention" (Koehler and Baumgartner 4:1171). The latter word is assumed in the Gr. translation and various modern versions (REB, NJB): the argument (or prayer) of Job will act as an advocate for him. This would be the same thought Job expressed earlier (13:15-16): his salvation would be that he could make his case before God so that truth might prevail. However, Job was advancing that thought in his speech. If truth is to prevail, there must be a witness to the truth. That witness is in heaven (16:19), and that witness can be none other than God, for he alone knows the whole truth. In tears Job looks to God (16:20), for God is the advocate in heaven who must plead his case. Rather than "my friends mock me," we must translate "my advocate is my Friend." Though God has treated Job as an enemy, Job declares that God is yet his friend and will defend his case (16:21). Job's faith advances as the dialogue progresses [p. 118].

A comment about 20b: the NLT is fairly literal in a number of points in this passage, but the translators chose not to be quite so literal here as the NASB's "My eye weeps to God." While this image might work fine in Hebrew thinking, in Western thought eyes don't weep. Eyes shed tears; people weep. Perhaps one might think I'm splitting hairs or that the Hebrew writer was creating a personification of the eye representing the whole person. Nevertheless, even the KJV opts to avoid over-literalness here with "but mine eye poureth out tears unto God" (the reader will remember that italicized words in the KJV represent those words added to the text for clarity." The NLT's "but I pour out my tears to God" probably communicates the idea best to today's readers, but admittedly lacks some of the rhythm found in the KJV.

Verse 21 is the only place in this passage where the NLT1 differs from the NLTse. The NLT1's exclamation beginning with "Oh" follows the Tyndale tradition, but probably doesn't reflect the Hebrew best. The matter of fact rendering of the NLTse probably best represents the spirit of the original. Job simply states that he needs a mediator! Interesting side point: the original uses son of man (ben-’adam) in line B as a parallel, but very few translations (cf. ASV) have ever translated it as such.

JOB 16:22
NLTse	CEV
For soon I must go down that road from which I will never return.	Because in only a few years, I will be dead and gone.
NLT1	NASB
For soon I must go down that road from which I will never return.	For when a few years are past, I shall go the way of no return.

If there was any doubt as to whether Job feared death was approaching, v. 22 makes it clear that he feared his life was the only thing he had yet to give. The NLT is not overly literal here, and in fact, borrows road from line B and moves it to line A. Nevertheless, the Hebrew idiom of a "road of no return" is well retained. The CEV, on the other hand, seems a bit too unpoetic with it's plain "Because in only a few years, I will be dead and gone."

And the winner is...

Both the NLT and the CEV faithfully deliver the essence of the message of Job 16:18-22 in their versions. The CEV's attempt at combining vv. 20-21 is somewhat understandable considering the difficulty of v. 20, for which even Tyndale's Cornerstone Biblical Commentary makes a correction to the NLT text. Nevertheless, if I'm reffing this cage match, I'm going to proclaim the NLT the winner for not only presenting the text in a very readable style by today's standards (as does the CEV) but also for holding a bit closer to the style, form, and idiom of the original more often.

Tags: NLT, CEV, Job

Collecting translations of the Bible is an old hobby of mine, and I often write about the differences between them on THIS LAMP [yes, my series on my favorite translations will resume soon--next week, in fact, for the GNB). Different versions of the Bible use different translation philosophies and attempt to meet specific goals. One decision that any translation committee must make relates to how literal vs. how free to render a passage. As I suggested in my blog entry from earlier in the week, "This Is Why," often very literal translations have difficulty communicating metaphors, imagery and idioms because in these types of literary constructions, meaning is not always deducible merely from the individual words.

Consider, for example, a passage I came across today while preparing a talk I'll be giving tomorrow morning to the men at my church. Since we won't be in mixed company, I'm going to address the growing issue of internet pornography. I'm using Job 31:1-4 as my opening text. But in looking at that passage in the context of the whole chapter, I was struck by the way various translations handle Job 31:9-10:

Job 31:9-10
NASB	TNIV	NLT
If my heart has been enticed by a woman, Or I have lurked at my neighbor’s doorway, May my wife grind for another, And let others kneel down over her.	If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, then may my wife grind another man’s grain, and may other men sleep with her.	If my heart has been seduced by a woman, or if I have lusted for my neighbor’s wife, then let my wife belong to another man; let other men sleep with her.

The three translations shown above represent the translational scale from fairly literal on the left to fairly free on the right with the TNIV right in the middle. Notice that in the second line of v. 9, the metaphor is not only retained quite well in the NASB, but also in the TNIV which renders it almost identically. In regard to faithfulness to one's wife, what would it mean to "lurk at my neighbor's doorway"? The imagery is very specific because it's not the same as "entering my neighbor's house" which would imply something far more. The NLT, therefore, spells it out for the reader: "I have lusted for my neighbor's wife." This translation is not unfaithful to the meaning of the idiom, but the idiom itself has been lost.

Verse 10 is even more remarkable and also relates to my post from last Sunday. Job is essentially saying, "If I have even looked lustfully at another woman besides my wife..." (remember the context of Job 31:1), "may she be given to other men in turn." But would one get that meaning from the NASB's rendering, "May my wife grind for another / And let others kneel down over her"? The wording in the NASB is technically correct, but the over-literalness of the rendering may not communicate the meaning to the average reader. In fact, "May my wife grind for another," might even be inferred as lust, although the actual meaning is much stronger. "And let others kneel down over her" is certainly a very graphic idiom depicting the sexual act, but how clear is that to the modern reader? In fact, to utilize one our modern idioms, you would almost have to have your mind in the gutter to understand 10b at all in the NASB.

On the other extreme is the NLT's removal of the idiom altogether with "then let my wife belong to another man; let other men sleep with her." Again, this rendering is not incorrect, but it loses the cleverness of the phrase so skillfully captured in the TNIV's "then let my wife grind another man's grain." The way this is worded in the TNIV the reader can read it, perhaps read it a second time, and after raising an eyebrow or two, really get the picture of what Job was saying. Even though the idea of "grinding another man's grain" is not an idiom contemporary to our culture, it should still be understandable to the average reader today because of the way the TNIV words it. The NASB's "May my wife grind for another" is too obscure in its literalness.

Essentially, each line in 31:9-10 contains its own idiom--even v. 9a, but we use heart in connection with affection even today, so even the NLT essentially retains the original wording here and rightly so. The idiom in 9b is retained in the NASB and the TNIV, but not in the NLT. The idiom in 10a is kept in the NASB, TNIV, but not in the NLT, but is only clearly intelligible in the TNIV because the NASB is overly literal. 10b's idiom is only retained in the NASB, but because it is not an idiom used in our culture and because of the NASB's over-literalness, it's meaning is mostly lost.

Personally, I like the cleverness of idioms when I can use them in a Bible study setting. I can't fault the NLT for inaccuracy in these two verses, but I feel like something from the text's literary power is lost in making everything so plain to us. For Job to state the words about his wife seem harsh enough as it is (they didn't seem to have a lot of affection for each other throughout the whole story), but it's even colder in the NLT. The TNIV seems to find the best happy medium for this passage by leaving three of the four idioms intact and not translating them too literally.

Side note: to be fair to the NLT, the translators do not always flatten out the meaning of idioms. For instance, Judges 14:18, "If you hadn't plowed with my heifer, you wouldn't have solved my riddle!" will be understandable to most regardless of one's agricultural background!

Tags: Job, TNIV, NLT, NASB

Our Bible study at church this morning is taken from Job 28. As I was going back over the passage, the last four verses stood out:

            When God fixed the weight of the wind
            and limited the water by measure,
            when He established a limit for the rain
            and a path for the lightning,
            He considered wisdom and evaluated it;
            He established it and examined it.
            He said to mankind,
            “Look! The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
            and to turn from evil is understanding."
           
            (Job 28:25-28, HCSB)

The last two lines are particularly striking. The choice for humanity was set at the beginning of creation. This same choice was echoed by Moses in Deut 30:19-20.

And I remember another wise person once saying, "In life some people get it; some don't." Me? I want to be one of the ones who gets it.

Tags: Job, HCSB