Lovers of obscure 80’s movies may recognize the title of this post from Real Genius; it’s a line spoken by a young Val Kilmer. This line comes to my mind most often not when I’m thinking of random movie quotes (though I do that frequently), but when I’m reading an English translation and find it to be, well, awkward. I find myself asking, “who talks like that?”
Truth be told, I find myself asking this question a lot when I’m reading the ESV. Sure, it’s a fine translation, and it sticks closely to its translation philosophy, which is a fairly literal one. But almost on every page I read something and ask, “who talks like that?”
So, I’ve been following a paper presented by Mark Strauss at last week’s Evangelical Theological Society meeting. This paper critiques the ESV and shows how it often translates the original languages into English that hardly anyone actually uses. The paper is being posted by Wayne Leman over at Better Bibles Blog (my proposed subtitle: Making Good Translations Even Gooder) in a series of posts, which I will link to below. There’s also a mini-response at Koinonia by William Mounce, NT editor for the ESV, which I will also link to (he promises a full response in next year’s ETS meeting). Strauss gives numerous examples of where the ESV can be improved, many of which I’ve noticed and many that were new to me (largely because I don’t use the ESV as my every day translation).
For instance, I was recently reading 2 Samuel in the ESV and ran across 2 Samuel 18:25 (which is also noted in Strauss’ paper): “If he is alone, there is news in his mouth.” So, I ask, “who talks like that?” Seriously, I can’t even imagine saying such a thing, unless I was intentionally trying to sound like an overly wooden Bible translation (which I’ve been known to do on occasion for comic effect, see my use of “with child” in a previous post). I don’t even see what you gain from such a translation. It’s just odd, plain and simple.
So, here are the links for the paper. But I want to make some preliminary comments for my readers:
1. I am a whole-hearted believer that for in-depth study of the Bible, you are better off using translations from multiple translation philosophies, simply for the fact that no translation gets it entirely right. We even mention this in our Learning the Bible article (where we recommend the ESV under the “literal” category). So, I’m not arguing that the ESV isn’t worth using. I’m just saying that it’s far enough from normal English that it’s hard to use it on an every day basis when other translations are available.
2. I don’t think this is a matter of using a more formal or educated form of English. “There is news in his mouth” is not formal English. It does not sound educated. For the record, I believe that we ought to teach and use proper English grammar. That isn’t to say that mine is always perfect (in fact, I’ve noticed grammatical problems in this post, which I’ll leave as is out of sheer laziness), though I’ll point out that I’m one of about 5 people on the planet who still make a strong effort to avoid split infinitives.
3. I think Mounce brings up a good point. Sometimes Strauss’ language is a bit inflammatory, specifically when he says that the ESV translators didn’t “consider” a possible translation. I’m not sure how Strauss could have such knowledge, unless he was there when they were making decisions (and he wasn’t) or got a play-by-play breakdown from someone who was present (highly doubtful). He’s better off not pretending to know what they did or did not consider and stick with what’s actually on the page in front of him. With that said, it doesn’t negate his many valid points.
4. It’s helpful to remember that Strauss’ paper is entitled: Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version. It isn’t Why the ESV is an Imperfect Translation, because any translation could have been critiqued. The question is whether or not the ESV should be the standard translation. I’m amazed at how many people argue that very thing- that the ESV is the best translation around and should be the most widely used English translation. The thought of a translation that causes me to say “who talks like that?” becoming the standard translation is a baffling one to me. It’s good for what it is, but it’s hardly “standard.”
5. I learned my lesson back in seminary from Dr Roy Ciampa, who blasted me on a paper for an overly wooden translation. In our exegesis papers, we were to provide a translation at the beginning that reflected our exegetical decisions, providing the defense of those decisions in the body of the paper. I won’t give my actual translation (sorry, it’s embarassing), but I translated a phrase awkwardly, then said in the body of the paper, “this means _____.” Ciampa’s comment in the margin was telling: “if it means that, then why don’t you translate it that way?” Ouch. Point taken.
Anyway, here are the posts, in order with the titles. I’ll warn you, the formatting is a little weird, but you’ll figure it out. Thanks to Wayne Leman for taking the time to put these up, to Mark Strauss for making his paper available, and to William Mounce for his response.
Mark Strauss’ Paper
Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version
Oops Translations in the ESV (this one made me laugh out loud at points)
ESV Lexical Errors and Problems
Collocational Clashes in the ESV
Inconsistent Gender-Language in the ESV
Awkward and Unnatural Style in the ESV
Run-on Sentences and Tortured English
Conclusion (at the end of this post is a link to download the entire paper in a pdf format)
William Mounce’s Response
Go here. It’s a little ways down in the post.
danny
bmarchio
[...] “Rue the Day?” Who Talks Like That? [...]
You should probably consider the fact that, contrary to the evangelical idol that says otherwise (and note, I’m evangelical, though more paleo-evangelical) even the NT isn’t written in common speech: it’s semitic, and it’s written with initiates (people familiar with the OT, and even perhaps 1st century Jewish thought) in mind; the words may be koine (with exceptions), but they’re not used ordinarily. Plus, English writing just isn’t the same as oral English, hasn’t been for centuries.
Hi John,
Thanks for commenting. Does the semitic background of the NT factor into the ESV translation? I’m having trouble seeing the connection with my post.
I agree that written and oral English are different. So how does that factor into how we should feel about the ESV?
I have to disagree with John. The NT was very much written in the common speech of that area of the Roman empire. The voluminous amounts of Egyptian papyri show that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To be clear, some — but not all — of it was written to an audience with a presumed intimate knowledge of the LXX. Most of Paul alludes to the LXX but most emphatically does not assume an intimate knowledge of it. He was writing to Gentiles and the differences between his letters and Hebrews are dramatic.
Is the thinking Semitic? Sure. Does that obscure it to the Indo-European mind? Not at all.
As for the differences between oral and written language, I have often marveled in my 40 year experience as a professional linguist that so much is made over that difference. In fact I think it is mostly wrong-headed.
Are there two poles in language usage? Yes.
Does it have to do with writing? No.
The proof of that is in an obscure article written by the American structuralist Leonard Bloomfield “Literate and illiterate speech”. in: American Speech 2: 432-441 (1927) where he argues that there are significant differences between speakers of unwritten languages in terms of how “literate” they are. Writing is only incidental. Written language tends to be well-edited and tight. Spoken language is often loose, imprecise, and error-laden. But there’s always Homer — oral for centuries, but carefully crafted as if written, and email, mostly sloppy and full of errors, but written.
Where is the NT in all this? It’s more toward the tight and well-edited end, but there are incomplete constructions in Paul, where he looses his way syntactically, as if he were dictating.
In short the NT should, for the most part, sound like ordinary English in English, because it was ordinary Greek in Palestine and Anatolia at the time.
The implication is that the ESV misses the boat badly.