I was just talking to a friend about this. I really like how reading Yahweh makes God feel more personal when reading OT passages, even though my brain knows to what LORD means. Yet at the same time by not seeing LORD some of the nuance of the NT writers is lost when the term Lord is applied to Christ.
Also, I saw this post from the biblical (OT) scholar, Iain Duguid (professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and translator/consultant for the HCSB/CSB), over at Puritan Board. In context, Duguid was talking about the LSB translation of the Bible. I thought it was insightful as well:
Let me start, as I always do, by reminding us that translation is really hard. You can't write extensive notes to defend your decisions, as you would in a commentary, half of your footnotes will be deleted and there's always a chance that an English style editor will change what you wrote. You are also often hemmed in by the unwise decisions of a general editor somewhere along the way, often someone who has no personal experience of the translation process. I also haven't used the LSB extensively, so bear that in mind in reading my evaluation.
Having said that, I think some of their most trumpeted distinctions are fundamentally wrong-headed. Take the use of Yahweh throughout for the divine name. I get the attractiveness of that, and in some contexts it really pops as a translation. Think "I am Yahweh" or "Yahweh said to my lord" (Ps 110:1). In other places, however, it messes with people's favorite translations, for example: "Yahweh is my shepherd". That's why the HCSB went with Yahweh in some places and "the LORD" elsewhere - but that leaves you with some really strange alternations between the two, which is why the CSB ditched Yahweh completely. More importantly, it drives a wedge between the testaments, since the NT quotation of an OT passage often doesn't match. Even more importantly, the average reader won't now see that the NT is calling Jesus the same title as the OT calls Yahweh, "the Lord". If it is good enough for Jesus to use kurios when translating Yahweh, I can't think why "the LORD" isn't good enough for us.
The same problem exists for the much-trumpeted doulos = slave in all contexts translation. There are some places where doulos certainly ought to be translated slave. But there are plenty of other places where "servant" is a more apt rendition into English of the person's role. The result is a flattening of the Biblical text that results in a loss of nuance. It also - once again - threatens to put a rift between the OT and the NT; for example, according to this understanding Zech 3:8 ought to speak of "my slave, the Branch" (since LXX has doulos); fortunately, the translation goes for a more sensible (and traditional) "my servant, the Branch"). Very few words in one language always translate into a single word in another language: that's just not how languages work; so for example, ruach should be rendered breath, Spirit and wind, sometimes all within a short space (e.g. Ezek. 37:1-14). That's why nobody (except perhaps Youngs literal translation, which completely misrepresents the meaning of Ezekiel 37 because of its overly literal translation) adopts a consistently literal translation policy. Everyone (including the LSB) uses a more dynamic translation sometimes.
Finally, I don't think any one institution has the resources to do a great translation. For the CSB oversight committee, we have translators from a wide variety of backgrounds, who each brought their own expertise (including a full time in house editor to check consistency between parallel passages across the board). It still sometimes felt like an overwhelming project.
I was just talking to a friend about this. I really like how reading Yahweh makes God feel more personal when reading OT passages, even though my brain knows to what LORD means. Yet at the same time by not seeing LORD some of the nuance of the NT writers is lost when the term Lord is applied to Christ.
Thanks, this is helpful! :)
Also, I saw this post from the biblical (OT) scholar, Iain Duguid (professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and translator/consultant for the HCSB/CSB), over at Puritan Board. In context, Duguid was talking about the LSB translation of the Bible. I thought it was insightful as well:
Let me start, as I always do, by reminding us that translation is really hard. You can't write extensive notes to defend your decisions, as you would in a commentary, half of your footnotes will be deleted and there's always a chance that an English style editor will change what you wrote. You are also often hemmed in by the unwise decisions of a general editor somewhere along the way, often someone who has no personal experience of the translation process. I also haven't used the LSB extensively, so bear that in mind in reading my evaluation.
Having said that, I think some of their most trumpeted distinctions are fundamentally wrong-headed. Take the use of Yahweh throughout for the divine name. I get the attractiveness of that, and in some contexts it really pops as a translation. Think "I am Yahweh" or "Yahweh said to my lord" (Ps 110:1). In other places, however, it messes with people's favorite translations, for example: "Yahweh is my shepherd". That's why the HCSB went with Yahweh in some places and "the LORD" elsewhere - but that leaves you with some really strange alternations between the two, which is why the CSB ditched Yahweh completely. More importantly, it drives a wedge between the testaments, since the NT quotation of an OT passage often doesn't match. Even more importantly, the average reader won't now see that the NT is calling Jesus the same title as the OT calls Yahweh, "the Lord". If it is good enough for Jesus to use kurios when translating Yahweh, I can't think why "the LORD" isn't good enough for us.
The same problem exists for the much-trumpeted doulos = slave in all contexts translation. There are some places where doulos certainly ought to be translated slave. But there are plenty of other places where "servant" is a more apt rendition into English of the person's role. The result is a flattening of the Biblical text that results in a loss of nuance. It also - once again - threatens to put a rift between the OT and the NT; for example, according to this understanding Zech 3:8 ought to speak of "my slave, the Branch" (since LXX has doulos); fortunately, the translation goes for a more sensible (and traditional) "my servant, the Branch"). Very few words in one language always translate into a single word in another language: that's just not how languages work; so for example, ruach should be rendered breath, Spirit and wind, sometimes all within a short space (e.g. Ezek. 37:1-14). That's why nobody (except perhaps Youngs literal translation, which completely misrepresents the meaning of Ezekiel 37 because of its overly literal translation) adopts a consistently literal translation policy. Everyone (including the LSB) uses a more dynamic translation sometimes.
Finally, I don't think any one institution has the resources to do a great translation. For the CSB oversight committee, we have translators from a wide variety of backgrounds, who each brought their own expertise (including a full time in house editor to check consistency between parallel passages across the board). It still sometimes felt like an overwhelming project.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/legacy-standard-bible-a-year-after-translation.110222/#post-1326641