A surprise in storage

[MaxPC]

I was rummaging through boxes we took out of storage and found my copy of Young's Literal Translation Bible. I was glad to have found it again.

I appreciate Robert Young's foresight in producing a word for word; tense for tense; idioms included English translation of the Hebrew and Greek. It provides me with a balance to those translations that rely on Functional Equivalence in their translations.

Does anyone else here use the YLT?

[Sudsy]

I was rummaging through boxes we took out of storage and found my copy of Young's Literal Translation Bible. I was glad to have found it again.

I appreciate Robert Young's foresight in producing a word for word; tense for tense; idioms included English translation of the Hebrew and Greek. It provides me with a balance to those translations that rely on Functional Equivalence in their translations.

Does anyone else here use the YLT?

I have one also in my library but haven't used it for some time. Time to have another look at it.

[Bootstrap]

I have used Young's Literal Translation. Greek and Hebrew have different tenses than English and they have different words, there is not an exact equivalent for each tense and word in English. And Young's theory of how Hebrew verb works is not widely shared.

That said, it's a good translation to use for an interlinear, at least for Greek. That's pretty much how Young developed it.

In general, I agree with this critique:

Young's translation is designed to assist students in the close study of the Biblical text by reproducing in English the Hebrew and Greek idioms, in an exceedingly literal translation. In the New Testament his translation is based on the text of Estienne 1550. The character of the version may be judged from the sample passage below. It will be noticed that the English is highly unnatural. In the pursuit of minute accuracy, Young tries to represent the Greek tenses with certain English tenses consistently, he tries to adhere to the word-order of the original, and he consistently translates a Greek word with the same English word in all of its occurrences. But in doing these things, he often fails to give the sense of the Greek correctly in English. It is doubtful whether the translation is really of much help to those who do not know Greek, because here the English is being forced to observe rules of the Greek language. The reader must become familiar with Greek syntax and vocabulary in order to make sense of the English! Regarding Young's translation of the Old Testament, F.F. Bruce writes that "it is largely vitiated by an eccentric theory about the tenses of the Hebrew verb." (The English Bible: A History of Translations, p. 132.) The method of the translation and its rationale—including his theory of the Hebrew tenses—are fully explained in the Prefaces.

Here is an example from 2 Kings 5:18:

For this thing Jehovah be propitious to thy servant, in the coming in of my lord into the house of Rimmon to bow himself there, and he was supported by my hand, and I bowed myself in the house of Rimmon; for my bowing myself in the house of Rimmon Jehovah be propitious, I pray thee, to thy servant in this thing.'

I find that really hard to understand. And I don't find it more accurate.

That comes out quite different from most other translations, I find it harder to understand, and I'm not convinced that it is more accurate. For instance:

King James Bible
In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.

New International Version
But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also--when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this."

English Standard Version
In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter.”

Christian Standard Bible
However, in a particular matter may the LORD pardon your servant: When my master, the king of Aram, goes into the temple of Rimmon to bow in worship while he is leaning on my arm, and I have to bow in the temple of Rimmon—when I bow in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD pardon your servant in this matter.”

Here is an example from Romans 2:

1 Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O man—every one who is judging—for in that in which thou dost judge the other, thyself thou dost condemn, for the same things thou dost practise who art judging, 2 and we have known that the judgment of God is according to truth, upon those practising such things. 3 And dost thou think this, O man, who art judging those who such things are practising, and art doing them, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4 or the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, dost thou despise?—not knowing that the goodness of God doth lead thee to reformation! 5 but, according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou dost treasure up to thyself wrath, in a day of wrath and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who shall render to each according to his works; 7 to those, indeed, who in continuance of a good work, do seek glory, and honour, and incorruptibility—life age-during; 8 and to those contentious, and disobedient, indeed, to the truth, and obeying the unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and distress, upon every soul of man that is working the evil, both of Jew first, and of Greek; 10 and glory, and honour, and peace, to every one who is working the good, both to Jew first, and to Greek. 11 For there is no acceptance of faces with God, 12 for as many as without law did sin, without law also shall perish, and as many as did sin in law, through law shall be judged, 13 for not the hearers of the law [are] righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be declared righteous:— 14 For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law—to themselves are a law; 15 who do shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also witnessing with them, and between one another the thoughts accusing or else defending, 16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my good news, through Jesus Christ.

17 Lo, thou art named a Jew, and dost rest upon the law, and dost boast in God, 18 and dost know the will, and dost approve the distinctions, being instructed out of the law, 19 and hast confidence that thou thyself art a leader of blind ones, a light of those in darkness, 20 an instructor of foolish ones, a teacher of babes, having the form of the knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21 Thou, then, who art teaching another, thyself dost thou not teach? 22 thou who art preaching not to steal, dost thou steal? thou who art saying not to commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou who art abhorring the idols, dost thou rob temples? 23 thou who in the law dost boast, through the transgression of the law God dost thou dishonour? 24 for the name of God because of you is evil spoken of among the nations, according as it hath been written. 25 For circumcision, indeed, doth profit, if law thou mayest practise, but if a transgressor of law thou mayest be, thy circumcision hath become uncircumcision. 26 If, therefore the uncircumcision the righteousness of the law may keep, shall not his uncircumcision for circumcision be reckoned? 27 and the uncircumcision, by nature, fulfilling the law, shall judge thee who, through letter and circumcision, [art] a transgressor of law. 28 For he is not a Jew who is [so] outwardly, neither [is] circumcision that which is outward in flesh; 29 but a Jew [is] he who is [so] inwardly, and circumcision [is] of the heart, in spirit, not in letter, of which the praise is not of men, but of God.

[Neto]

I have one somewhere, and would occasionally look at it when I was doing Bible translation. But he was following a different textual tradition than I was using, so I don't recall that it was terribly helpful in my work.

[MaxPC]

I have one somewhere, and would occasionally look at it when I was doing Bible translation. But he was following a different textual tradition than I was using, so I don't recall that it was terribly helpful in my work.

I was rummaging through boxes we took out of storage and found my copy of Young's Literal Translation Bible. I was glad to have found it again.

I appreciate Robert Young's foresight in producing a word for word; tense for tense; idioms included English translation of the Hebrew and Greek. It provides me with a balance to those translations that rely on Functional Equivalence in their translations.

Does anyone else here use the YLT?

I have one also in my library but haven't used it for some time. Time to have another look at it.

It is good to know that I am not alone .

Neto, I do not do translations for indigenous people so I can see where that would not necessarily be of help in your important work.

Sudsy, would you be so kind as to let me know if you find it useful? I have found it quite useful when conducting in-depth Bible studies in my younger years. Young had a talent for understanding Greek and Hebrew.

[Neto]

I have one somewhere, and would occasionally look at it when I was doing Bible translation. But he was following a different textual tradition than I was using, so I don't recall that it was terribly helpful in my work.

I was rummaging through boxes we took out of storage and found my copy of Young's Literal Translation Bible. I was glad to have found it again.

I appreciate Robert Young's foresight in producing a word for word; tense for tense; idioms included English translation of the Hebrew and Greek. It provides me with a balance to those translations that rely on Functional Equivalence in their translations.

Does anyone else here use the YLT?

Neto, I do not do translations for indigenous people so I can see where that would not necessarily be of help in your important work.

I may have been too negative. Concordance (using the same word in translation where the same word is used in the Greek text) is definitely important. It assists the reader/"studyer" in understanding the range of meaning for a given word, and can help avoid assigning special meaning to a word in one context that is actually imposing the meaning of the receptor language word onto the text.

[MaxPC]

Concordance (using the same word in translation where the same word is used in the Greek text) is definitely important. It assists the reader/"studyer" in understanding the range of meaning for a given word, and can help avoid assigning special meaning to a word in one context that is actually imposing the meaning of the receptor language word onto the text.

I think you are right. It does seem to me that each of the translation methods have their place and purpose. Your work and methods play a highly important role in getting the Gospel message to those who are not from Western or even Eastern cultures. I do not think the groups in South America would know what do with some of those Greek idioms. Some in the West would not either.

[RZehr]

I often will look at YLT for comparison sake.

[MaxPC]

I often will look at YLT for comparison sake.

Likewise; it does provide insights into some of the more obtuse phrases.