Standard French translation for academic context?

[Peter Bekins]

Is there a particular modern French translation that would be most appropriate to use in an academic context for purposes of illustrating differences in target languages relative to the Hebrew source? For example, for English translations I would default to the NRSV. (In my case I am looking at examples of the definite article with generic nouns).

 

Best,

Peter

[Donald Cobb]

C'est compliqué. No, there isn't one version that is considered to be the the "go to" version for scholarly work. The Segond Révisée 1978 ("la Colombe") is, in my opinion, the version that is both readable and close to the original languages. Darby is, of course, very "literal" (but not very readable). I've heard good things from academics working with the original languages about the Catholic Osty version but haven't had much opportunity to use it much. 

 

You may also try using the NBS, which is fairly widely used, close to the original languages and often offers somewhat translations that are "inattendues". 

 

Other versions will be more sense based, i.e., TOB, Semeur, NFC, etc. 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by Donald Cobb

[Peter Bekins]

Thanks Donald, that is the sense I was getting, but obviously don't use French translations frequently enough to have any sense of how they differ.

[robrecht]

I've always liked the translation and notes of the TOB.

 

 

 

 

[Donald Cobb]

5 hours ago, robrecht said:

I've always liked the translation and notes of the TOB.

 

 

 

 

The TOB is generally good and sometimes very good but somewhat uneven. I attended a symposium on it a few years back when a revision was first discussed and one of the biblical scholars stood up and said "Please begin with the pauline epistles, they're a disaster!"—a somewhat extreme reaction IMO, although it's true that those books aren't the best translations.

[robrecht]

On 2/14/2023 at 4:10 PM, Donald Cobb said:

The TOB is generally good and sometimes very good but somewhat uneven. I attended a symposium on it a few years back when a revision was first discussed and one of the biblical scholars stood up and said "Please begin with the pauline epistles, they're a disaster!"—a somewhat extreme reaction IMO, although it's true that those books aren't the best translations.

 

An "ecumenical" translation of Paul is bound to create controversies; I would expect many scholars to disagree on any translation of Paul, but especially any attempt at an ecumenical translation. Do you have specific examples of what translations in TOB you find especially poor? I'm not disagreeing, just curious.

[Donald Cobb]

4 hours ago, robrecht said:

 

An "ecumenical" translation of Paul is bound to create controversies; I would expect many scholars to disagree on any translation of Paul, but especially any attempt at an ecumenical translation. Do you have specific examples of what translations in TOB you find especially poor? I'm not disagreeing, just curious.

 

Actually, a translation that brings to the table different convictions/approaches can be helpful, because there's a kind of "checks and balances". Ones tendency to translate loosely such and such a verse according to preference and/or denominational conviction can be challenged and has to hold its own against the original text. That approach will tend to be more objective than, say, a translation made by one person or one denominational slant.

 

No specific examples for the TOB come to mind at this point. It's mostly a tendency to paraphrase the text that is sometimes questionable. The problems pointed out with Paul weren't of a doctrinal nature, I don't believe. It was more the quality of the translation.

[robrecht]

Absolutely. Every translation is a conversation. And the broader the conversation, the more participants, the more interesting the conversation.