Though I use it frequently, I consider the New American Standard to be the most annoying modern English version of the Bible due to its claims to be a "literal" translation. Most people think of a literal translation as one which gives the most straightforward and simple rendering of a text in the receptor language. While the NASB on occasion does this, it frequently does not. At times, it goes beyond translation to interpretive paraphrase, as in Luke 22:70.
A literal translation of Jesus' reply to the Sanhedrin's question "Are you the Son of God, then?" is offered by the English Standard Version: "You say that I am." As most commentators note, Jesus' reply is deliberately ambivalent. None of that ambivalence is found in the NASB of Luke 22:70, however: "Yes, I am." Now, there may be a solid argument that Jesus intended no ambiguity by his answer, and this interpretation drove the NASB translators here. In no sense, however, can their rendering be called "literal," since a literal translation would not have the word "yes," and would include the second person plural for "say" and the particle "that."
Properly speaking, the NASB should describe its translation philosophy as "somewhat wooden with the freedom to paraphrase when the translators feel like it." Perhaps that wouldn't give it quite the marketing hook it presently has, but that would at least have the virtue of honesty.
No comments:
Post a Comment