| Darbelnet J., Vinay J.-P. (1958). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris – Montréal: Didier – Beauchemin. de Blois K. (1994). Functional Equivalence in the Nineties: Tendencies in the Application of Functional Equivalence principles in Different Parts of the World//B. Rebera (ed.), Current Trends in Scripture Translation. UBS Bulletin 170/171, P. 24–36. Reading: UBS. de Regt L.J. (2002). Otherness and Equivalence in Bible Translation//A. Brenner, J.W. van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty- First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and Religion, P. 50–52. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. de Vries L. (2001). Bible Translations: Forms and Functions//The Bible Translator, 52(3), P.306–319. de Vries L. (2008). Biblical Scholars, Translators and Bible Translations//Scripture and Interpretation, 2(2), P. 141–159. Dube M.W. (1999). Consuming a Colonial Cultural Bomb: Translating Badimo Into «Demons» in the Setswana Bible (Matthew 8.28–34; 15.22; 10.8)//Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 73, P. 33–59. Ellingworth P. (1982). Exegetical Presuppositions in Translation//The Bible Translator, 33, P. 317–323. Ellingworth P. (2002). Theology and Translation//The Bible Translator, 53, P. 302–307. Ellingworth P. (2007). Translation Techniques in Modern Bible Translation//P.A. Noss (ed.), A History of Bible Translation, P. 307–334. Roma: Edizioni di storia e litteratura. Fee G.D., Strauss M.L. (2007). How to Choose a Translation for all its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Floor S.J. (2007). Four Bible Translation Types and Some Criteria to Distinguish Them//Journal of Translation, 3(2), P. 1–22. Franklin K.J. (2011). Adapting the West Kewa NT to the East Kewa//The Bible Translator, 62(2), P. 123–127. Frishman J. (2002). Why a Translation of the Bible Can’t Be Authoritative: A Response to John Rogerson//A. Brenner, J.W. van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and Religion, P. 31–35. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. |
| The Amplified Bible (1954) is a literal translation with multiple expression using associated words to convey the original thought. This version is intended to supplement other translations. The Jerusalem Bible (1966) is a translation form the Hebrew Masoretic text, the Greek Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and accepted Greek and Aramaic New Testament texts. In making the New American Bible (1970), a Catholic translation, all the basic texts were consulted, and the work was 26 years in the making. The Living Bible (1971) is a popular paraphrase edition and is the work of a single translator, Kenneth L. Taylor. The New American Standard Bible (1971) was translated by an editorial board of 54 Greek and Hebrew scholars and required nearly 11 years to complete. The New King James Bible (1979–82) is a version in conformity with the thought flow of the 1611 King James Bible. It is based on the Greek text used by Greek speaking churches for many centuries, known presently as the Textus Receptus or Received Text. There are more than a dozen English Bible translations available today, each with its merits and its weaknesses. Some of them are more literal and, consequently, more difficult to understand; while others are much more readable and understandable, but less accurate. A serious Bible student might want to compare several of these translations in order to get a better understanding of the original text. The great variability among modern Bible versions testifies to the fact that translating is essentially interpreting . In other words, to do a good job, the translator must know both the original and the language being translated into quite well. The translator must understand the subject, and, what is extremely important, grasp the idea the author intended to convey and the sense in which he intended it to be conveyed. And since the ultimate author of Sacred Scripture is the Holy Spirit, the translator needs His illumination and inspiration to correctly convey His message. St. Peter pointed to this requirement when he wrote: “No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” ( 2Pet 1:20–21 ). And here lies the main problem with of some of the modern Bible translations. The scientists who did them, with all their knowledge of ancient languages and sincere efforts to do the best job, were often far from the Church and hence never understood its teaching. So at the present time, the King James Bible and its more contemporary version, the New King James Bible, although neither is perfect, seem to convey most accurately the original meaning of the Bible as it was always understood by the Church. Time of Writing |
| Reading the Bible, we can judge the scope and character of its authors’ knowledge, their literary abilities, cultural level, education, and even their temperament. These ancient authors might have been poets, presenting religious truths in wonderful artistic form, in the language of immortal poetic images. Others were prose writers, who tried with all possible accuracy and completeness to relate the events they experienced. In other words, the physical authors of the Bible were people with their virtues and imperfections, which means that their works might not lack certain external contradictions natural to human nature in general, and to every human work in particular. But the Bible would not be the Book of books, the Word of God, if it were only written by people. The author of this book is God Himself Who, acting on the hearts and minds of the ancient authors, infused His thoughts in them. And this Divine infusion is what is called Divine inspiration. Both God and men are the authors of the Bible. God revealed about Himself that which was necessary for human salvation. The historical authors of the Bible perceived the Word of God, clothing it in a given literary form particular to the cultural and historical context of their times. However, it is this human factor in Biblical authorship that can be potentially fallible. Here involuntary errors or omissions can show. At this level, the Bible can be studied and researched by applying to it the methods of historical and literary criticism, systemic and even mathematical analysis, which theologians and scholars do. But human criteria are inapplicable to the Divine side of the Bible. At this higher level the Bible is inerrant. Everything that God told people about Himself is infallible, Divine, and true. To read the Bible properly means to be able to distinguish between the Divine and human in it. All the attacks on the Bible – be they atheistic or so-called historical-critical – came about because people did not know how to read the Bible, mixing up the human, fallible, and variable factors with the Divine presence, which is above all human criticism. |
| Alexander P.S. (1988). Jewish Aramic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures//M.J.Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, P. 217–253. Assen – Philadelphia: Van Gorkum – Fortress Press. Allert C. (1999). Is a Translation Inspered? The Problems of Verbal Inspiration for Translation//S.E. Porter, R.S. Hess (eds.). Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects. Sheffield Academic Press. Andiñach P.R. (2009). Latin American Approaches: A Liberationist Reading of the «Day of the Lord» Tradition in Joel//J.M.LeMon, K.H.Richards (eds.), Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David L.Petersen, P/311–332. Winona Lake: SBL. Arichea D.C. (1982). Taking Theology Seriously in the Translation Task//The Bible Translator, 33, P.309–316. Ashcroft B., Griffiths G., Tiffin H. (eds.). (1994). The Post-Colonial Study Reader. London: Routledge. Barr J. (1979). The Typology of Literalism in ancient biblical translations//Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Barrick W.D. (2001). The Intergration of OT Theology with Bible Translation//The Master’s Seminary Journal, 12(1), P.15–31. Bascom R. (2003). The Role Of Culture Barr J. (1979). The Typology of Literalism in ancient biblical translations 11 Mitteilun- gen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens. Gottingen: Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. Bascom R. (2003). The Role of Culture in Translation//T. Wilt (ed.), Bible Translation: Frames of Reference, P. 81–111. Manchester: St. Jerome. Bassnett S. (2002). Translation Studies, 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Batalden S.K. (2013). Russian Bible Wars: Modern Scriptural Translation and Cultural Authority. New York: Cambridge University Press. Batnitzky L. (1997). Translation as Transcendence: A Glimpse into the Workshop on Buber-Rosenzweig Bible translation//New German Critique, 76, P. 87–116. Berlin A. (2002). On Bible Translations and Commentaries//A. Brenner, J.W. van Henten (eds.), The Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and Religion, P. 175–192. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. |
| Mundhenk N. (2010). Jesus is Lord: The Tetragrammaton in Bible Translation//The Bible Translator, 61(2), P. 55–63. Mundhenk N. (2011). The Limits of Textual Criticism in Bible Translation//The Bible Translator, 62(1), P. 30–36. Nadella R. (2012). Postcolonialism, Translation and Colonial Mimicry//S.S. Elliott, R. Boer (eds.), Ideology, Culture and Translation, P. 49–57. Atlanta: SBL. Nichols A.H. (1996). Translating the Bible: A Critical Analysis of E. A. Nida’s Theory of Dynamic Equivalence and its Impact upon Recent Bible Translations. University of Sheffield. Nida E. (1954). Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions. New York: Harper. Nida E. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill. Nida E. (1975). Language Structure and Translation: Essays. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Nida E. (1976). A Framework for the Analysis and the Evaluation of Theories of Translation//R. E. Brislin (ed.), Translation: Application and Research, P. 47–91. New York: Gardner Press. Nida E. (1988). Intelligibility and Acceptability in Bible Translating//The Bible Translator, 39, P. 301–308. Nida E. (1994). The Sociolinguistics of Translating Canonical Religious Texts//Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction: Etudes sur le texte et ses transformations, 7, P. 191–217. Nida E. (2001). Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Nida E. (2003). A Contextual Approach to Biblical Interpretation//K. Feyaerts (ed.), The Bible through Metaphor and Translation: A Cognitive Semantic Perspective, P. 289–298. Oxford etc.: Peter Lang. Nida E., Taber C.R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. NirañjanaT. (1992). Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nord C. (1997). Translation as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome. Nord C. (2003). Function and Loyalty in Bible Translation//M.C. Pérez (ed.), Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on Ideology – Ideologies in Translation Studies, P. 89–112. Manchester, Northampton: St. Jerome. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Bible THEODORE G. STYLIANOPOULOS The Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments, is a rich and diverse library of sacred writings or scriptures derived from the Jewish and Christian traditions. “Bible” (from the Greek biblos meaning “document” or “book”) points to the authority of the Bible as the book of divine revelation. “Scripture” (Greek graphe, meaning “what is written”) signifies the actual content of the books proclaiming the authoritative message of salvation – the word of God. In a process lasting nearly four centuries, the ancient church preserved, selected, and gradually formed these sacred texts into two official lists or canons of the Old and New Testaments, respectively, a significant achievement that along with the shaping of the episcopacy and creed contributed to the growth and unity of the church. In Orthodox perspective, the Bible or Holy Scripture is the supreme record of God’s revelation and therefore the standard of the church for worship, theology, spirituality, ethics, and practice. The Bible is above all a book of God and about God – God himself being the primary author and the subject matter of the scriptures. The Bible bears testimony to who God is, what great acts of salvation God has accomplished, and what God’s revealed will for humanity is, communicated through inspired men and women “in many and various ways” (Heb. 1.1). These “ways” include words, deeds, rites, laws, visions, symbols, parables, wisdom, ethical teachings, and commandments. The overall message of the Bible is the narrative of salvation about creation, fall, covenant, prophecy, exile, redemption, and hope of final world renewal. The supreme revelation of the mystery of God is through the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, “the Lord of glory” ( 1Cor. 2.8 ), who constitutes the center of biblical revelation and marks the unity of the Old and New Testaments. However, insofar as divine revelation occurred not in a vacuum but in relationship to free, willing, thinking, and acting human beings, the Bible also reflects a human and historical side which accounts for the variety of books, authors, language, style, customs, ideas, theological perspectives, numerous discrepancies in historical details, and sometimes substantial differences in teaching, especially between the Old and New Testaments. |
| Cheung A. (2011). Functionalism and Foreignisation: Applying Skopos Theory to Bible Translation. University of Birmingham. Childs B.S. (1984). The New Testament as Canon: an Introduction II The New Testament as Canon: an Introduction. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International. Cho J.-Y. (2011). A Feminist Approach to Bible Translation: Translating John 4 .7b–26 into Korean Addressee Honorofics, 62(4), P. 216–225. Clarke K.D. (1999). Original Text or Canonical Text? Questionning the Shape of the New Testament Text we Translate//S.E. Porter, R.S. Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects, P. 281–322. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Collins C.J. (2005). What the Reader Wants and the Translator Can Give: First John as a Test Case//J.I. Packer (ed.), Translating Truth. The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation, P. 77–111. Wheaton: Crossway Books. Conac E. (2011). Dilemele fidelitii: Condiionri culturale i teologice in traducerea Bibliei. Cluj-Napoca: Logos. Cosgrove C.H. (2003). English Bible Translation in Postmodern Perspective: Reflections on a Critical Theory of Holistic Translation//G.S. Scorgie, M.L. Strauss, S.M. Voth (eds.), Challenge of Bible translation, P. 159–174. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Crisp S. (2002). Icon of the Ineffable? An Orthodox View of Language and its Implications for BibleTransaltion//A. Brenner, J.W. Van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority; Reception, Culture and Religion, P. 36–49. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Crisp S. (2004). Does a Literary Transaltion Have To Be Literal?//S. Crisp, M. Jinbachian (eds.), Text, Theology and Translation: Essays in Honour of Ian de Waard, P. 43–51. Swindon: UBS. Crisp S. (2008). Sacrality, Authority and Communality as Essential Criteria for an Orthodox Bible translation//The Messenger, 6, P. 3–12. Cronin M. (1996). Translating Ireland: Translation, Languages, Cultures. Cork: Cork University Press. Crystal D. (2010). Begat: The King lames Bible and the English Language. New York: Oxford University Press. |
| Pym A. (1997). Pour une éthique de traducteur. Arras: Artois Presses Université. Pym A. (1998). Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome. Pym A. (2004). The Moving Text. Translation, Localization and Distribution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Pym A. (2010). Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge. Rashkow I.N. (1990). Hebrew Bible Translation and the Fear of Judaization//Sixteenth Century Journal, 21(2), P. 217–233. Reiß K. (1968). Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der Übersetzungskritik//Linguistica Antverpiensia, 2, P. 369–383. Reiß K., Vermeer H.J. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Übersetzungstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rhoads D. (2004). Reading Mark: Engaging the Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Rogerson J. (2002). Can a Translation of the Bible Be Authoritative?//A. Brenner, J.W. van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and Religion, P. 17–30. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Rogerson J.W. (1999). The Old Testament Translator’s Translation – A Personal Reflection//S.E. Porter, R.S. Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects, P. 116–124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Rohrbaugh R.L. (2008). Foreignizing Translation//D. Neufeld (ed.), The Social Sciences and Biblical Translation, P. 11–24. Atlanta: SBL. Ross R.L. (2003). Advances in Linguistic Theory and their Relevance to Translation//T. Wilt (ed.), Bible Translation: Frames of Reference, P. 113–151. Manchester: St. Jerome. Rubin M. (1998). The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity//Journal of Jewish Studies, 49, P. 306–333. Ryken L. (2002). The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation//J.I. Packer (ed.), Translating Truth. The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation, P. 57–76. Wheaton: Crossway Books. Ryken L. (2005). Five Myths About Essentially Literal Bible Translation//J.I. Packer (ed.), Translating Truth. The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation, P. 57–76. Wheaton: Crossway Books. |
| Gouadec D. (2007). Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gross C. (2011). The Democratisation of Translation: Tentative Steps to «New Transaltion»//The Bible Translator, 62(2), P. 61–68. Gross C. (2012). Embarassed by the Bible: What’s a Translator to Do?//The Bible Translator, 63(2), P. 87–94. Grudem W. (2005). Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God? Why Plenary Inspiration Favors «Essentially Literal» Bible Translation//J.I. Packer (ed.), Translating Truth. The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation, P. 19–56. Wheaton: Crossway Books. Guldin R. (2010). Metaphor as a Metaphor for Translation//J.St. André (ed.), Thinking through Translation with Metaphors, P. 160–191. Manchester, Kinderhook: St. Jerome. Gutt E.-A. (1992). Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation. Dallas: SIL. Gutt E.-A. (2000). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Manchester, Boston: St. Jerome. Hatim B., Mason I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator, P. 258. London: Longman. Hatim B., Mason I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge. Hill H. (2012). Are Vernacular Scriptures Being Used? Kabiye Research Results//The Bible Translator, 63(2), P. 63–80. Hill H., Gutt E.-A., Hill M., Unger C., Floyd R. (2011). Bible Translation Basics: Communicating Scripture in a Relevant Way. Dallas: SIL. Hill H.S. (2006). The Bible at Cultural Crossroads: From Translation to Communication. Manchester: St. Jerome. Holmes J.S. (1972). Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Horrell J.S. (2010). Cautions Regarding of God» in Muslim-idiom Transla¬tions of the Bible: Seeking Sensible Balance//St. Francis Magazine, 6, P. 638–676. House J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr. Hoyle R.A. (2008). Scenarios, Discourse and Translation. The scenario theory of Cognitive Linguistics, its relevance for analysing New Testament Greek and modern Parkari texts, and its implications for translation theory. SIL e-books. |
| Tymoczko M. (1999). Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St. Jerome. Tyulenev S. (2010). Translation as Smuggling//J. St. André (ed.), Thinking through Translation with Metaphors, P. 241–274. Manchester, Kinderhook (USA): St. Jerome. Van der Merwe C.H.J. (2003). A new translation of the Bible in Afrikaans: a theoretical and practical orientation//Dutch Reformed Theological Journal, 44, P. 550–567. Van der Merwe C.H.J. (2006). Translating metaphors into Afrikaans in a source language-oriented translation of the Hebrew Bible//Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics PLUS, 33, P. 43–68. Van Leeuwen R.C. (2001). On Bible Translation and Hermeneutics//C.G. Bartholomew, C.J.D. Greene, K. Möller (eds.), After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation, P. 384–411. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Venuti L. (1995). The Translators Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge. Venuti L. (1998). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London, New York: Routledge. Vermeer H.J. (1982). Translation als «Informationsangebot»//Lebende Sprachen, 27(2), P.97–101. Vermeer H.J. (1989). Skopos and Commission in Translational Action//A. Chesterman (ed.), Readings in Translation Theory, P. 173–187. Helsinki: Oy/Finn Lectura. Vermes G. (1961). Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Leiden: Brill. Voinov V. (2012). Troublesome Transliteration//The Bible Translator, 63(1), P. 17–27. Wade M. (2012). Translations That Cannot Be Read in Church: Using Women’s Groups to Improve the Quality and Readability of a Translation//The Bible Translator, 63(2), P. 81–86. Walker L.L. (2003). The Use of Capital Letters in Translating Scripture into English//G.S. Scorgie, M.L. Strauss, S.M. Voth (eds.), The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating Gods Word to the World, P. 393–421. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Waters B. (2011a). A Rationale for Adaptation//The Bible Translator, 62(2), P. 69–73. Waters B. (2011b). Adapt It//The Bible Translator, 62(2), P. 103–111. Week E.A. (2009). What is Catholic about a Catholic Translation of the Bible?//The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 71, P. 247–263. |
|
|
