[Milton-L] Paradise Lost -- Parallel Prose Edition

Fri Nov 21 11:43:16 EST 2008

Larry's argument would seem to equate "best-selling" with excellence or superiority. If the NIV is clunky or chirpy etc, then what does this say of the typical reader? And why is no attention paid any more to the New English Bible, the Phillips NT, the Moffatt? Are these also too literary for the average Joe? 

I see an implicit class war evolving out of controversy over Bible translations, and it's not nice. There are versions pitched to fundamentalists and others to the literati, and each disdains the other.  It would go a long way towards reconciliation to teach people HOW to read, in the critical way we've been discussing here in the last couple of days:  to pay attention to HOW the authors and poets and prophets render their narrative, portray their feelings, offer their praise. 

I quite agree that the NIV "should
not at all be compared to NLT or The Message in the same breath," and if I did so it was to indicate the superiority of the NIV despite its shortcomings.

And, by the way, I should have given credit to blueletterbible.org. This web site offers now 13 translations for each verse, with links to Strong's and to Thayer's and Gesenius' lexicons, and to various commentaries. Indispensable!

And for all our argufying, the KJV is still the best seller! 

Nancy Charlton

http://groups.google.com/group/paradiselostdaily

. . . Till old experience do attain

To something like prophetic strain.  (Il Penseroso)

--- On Fri, 11/21/08, Larry Isitt <isitt at cofo.edu> wrote:
From: Larry Isitt <isitt at cofo.edu>
Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Paradise Lost -- Parallel Prose Edition
To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 7:45 AM

Tin-eared or not, clunky and chirpy it may be, limping and deaf
to some, nevertheless NIV is by far the widest-selling dynamic-equivalence
translation. It was done by 125 translators and meant to be smooth-reading yet
accurate. “The New International Version is a completely new translation
of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the
best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texsts.” Preface, NIV, 1978. 
I prefer NASB for literal translation (its chain of descent is from KJV,
British Revised 1885, American Standard Version 1901, and NASB), KJV for
majesty and beauty and accuracy, and NIV as first-line commentary. It should
not at all be compared to NLT or The Message in the same breath. 

Larry Isitt 

*Bible Translation Market Share for March and April 2005  

1. NIV 

1.    
2. KJV  

2.    
3. NKJV  

3.    
4. NLT  

4.    
5. The Message  

5.    
6. NASB  

6.    
7. NCV  

7.    
8. TNIV  

8.    
9. ESV  

9.    
10. HCSB  

* Reflects cumulative Bible sales at all Mardel stores for March and
April 2005  

Source: http://www.zondervan.com/NR/exeres/38C38D2F-E0F8-45A4-9E1D-B17B711BD795.htm?FRAMELESS=false&QueryStringSite=Zondervan 

From:
milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu
[mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Nancy Charlton

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 1:37 AM

To: John Milton Discussion List

Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Paradise Lost -- Parallel Prose Edition 

  I have to agree half-way with
  Jonathan that while the NIV may clarify certain archaisms, it is tin-eared.
  It clunks; it chirps; it limps. It's deaf rather than "dumm." The
  NLT is worse, but either of them is preferable to the egregious The
  Message. 

  As to the Psalms, I'd like to cherry-pick one tiny example (well, two).

  Psalms 73, one of the most intense soliloquies in English literature, verse
  7: 

  KJV: Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more
  than heart could wish. 

  NIV: From their callous hearts comes iniquity*; the evil
  conceits of their minds know no limits. 

  * Syriac (see also Septuagint); Hebrew Their eyes bulge with fat. 

  I see nothing in the Hebrew, of which I have far
  from perfet grasp, to justify "iniquity" or "evil
  conceits", to say nothing of "minds" rather than
  "hearts."  Rather than direct and literal statements, the KJV
  employs metonymic and synechdochic metaphors, which create vivid images.
  "Their eyes stand out for fatness"  is more likely to remind
  the reader of somebody in particular than is the generalized "callous
  hearts." "They have more than heart could wish" moves forward
  one of the larger themes of the psalm: "I was envious of the
  foolish" (v. 1), and is more consistent with the speaker's
  acknowledgment of and struggle against his own envy. He goes on with his
  list, and it makes the turnaround more powerful: 

  16  When I thought to know this, it was too painful
  for me;

  17  Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. 

  The rest of the psalm, especially verses 24-26, would seem to be pat
  platitudes without the power of this realization and the speaker's candor
  about his own feelings.

  The NIV loses much of the poetry in clarifying the language: the NLT goes
  overboard in finding a "modern" expression and is like trying to
  get your singing pitch from an out-of-tune piano.

  But for Jonathan's purposes in bringing comfort to his father, this might not
  be the best choice of Psalms. The more obvious choices would include Psalm
  23. No one would dare change much about the opening line "The Lord is my
  shepherd", but what happens to "I shall not want." The NIV
  insists upon "I shall not be in want." At least that's better than
  the NLT "I have everything I need." The unqualified "I shall
  not want" covers everything in both the older sense of "want"
  as "lack" as well as the sense of "desire," just coming
  into currency in EM times. It has a shade of the categorical, the absolute,
  that transcends one little person's situation.

  Ambiguity that enlarges without confusing, concreteness and specificity while
  remaining universal: these are some earmarks of poetry that the KJV has and
  that other translations lack altogether or, worse, attain halfway--and that
  usually by borrowing the KJV verbatim.

  Lastly, the NIV often lacks fidelity to the spirit of the Hebrew, with its
  repetitions and its balances. It trudges along in linear fashion, in lines
  without meter or rhythm, without pause or caesura. It simply does not sing!
  And is that not what Milton prayed his Heavenly Muse to do?

  Dismissing the NIV as a Bible for dummies is as wrong-headed as bashing the
  KJV for its archaism. And neither critical stance has much to do with a
  stated human purpose like comforting one's father in extremis. 

  Nancy Charlton

  http://groups.google.com/group/paradiselostdaily

  . . . Till old experience do attain

  To something like prophetic strain. (Il Penseroso)

  --- On Thu, 11/20/08, jonnyangel <junkopardner at comcast.net>
  wrote: 
  From: jonnyangel
  <junkopardner at comcast.net>

  Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Paradise Lost -- Parallel Prose Edition

  To: "John Milton Discussion List"
  <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>

  Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 8:15 PM 

On 11/20/08 10:04 PM, "Matthew Stallard" <stallard at ohio.edu>

wrote:

> The NIV is a respected, scholarly modern English translation of the Bible

> that took many years to produce. I don't understand your use of

"dummies"

> in this context. Is modern English "dumb" to you?

Modern English is not dumb to me. Where Modern English gets dumb is when it

gets in its time machine and travels back through centuries and tries to

make that language "modern" and "accessible".

The NIV may make the text more accessible to modern readers, but it strips

it of its poetic beauty in the process (especially with Psalms).

The question therefore is not whether modern English is dumb, but rather can

modern English make old English "accessible" to modern readers

without

stripping it of its power, beauty and poetry.

J

_______________________________________________

Milton-L mailing list

Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu

Manage your list membership and access list archives at

http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l

Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/ 

_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
Manage your list membership and access list archives at
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l

Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20081121/4d4d00c6/attachment-0001.html