New Testament Translation for Children – The Gospel of Mark

[Dan McClellan]

Hello, everyone! I have mentioned it here before, but I am working on a translation of the New Testament aimed at about a ten-year-old readership (this is not a Church project, this is my own personal project). I have completed the Gospel of Mark and am hoping to get some feedback from anyone who is interested in it or who has kids who might be interested in it. I'd like to know how easy it is for children (or second-language speakers of English) to understand, and which words, phrases, or constructions, if any, are difficult. I've attached the first two chapters as a preview, and if anyone is interested in the whole gospel, feel free to message me your email address and I'll send it along. 

Gospel of Mark, Chapters 1–2.pdf

Edited December 29, 2020 by Dan McClellan

[Kenngo1969]

Cool!  Finally, a scripture on my reading level!    

(Sorry.  Couldn't resist! )

[Amulek]

Very cool project @Dan McClellan.

I've got a nine year old who, I think, could be persuaded to test read the first couple of chapters and provide feedback. 

May cost me a pack of Pokémon cards (or two), but that's a price I'm willing to pay.  

I've printed off the first two chapters, and I'll talk to him tonight. Will let you know how it goes one way or the other.

 

[Kenngo1969]

34 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Very cool project @Dan McClellan.

I've got a nine year old who, I think, could be persuaded to test read the first couple of chapters and provide feedback. 

May cost me a pack of Pokémon cards (or two), but that's a price I'm willing to pay.  

I've printed off the first two chapters, and I'll talk to him tonight. Will let you know how it goes one way or the other.

 

The Ultimate Form of Market Research!   I like it!  

[Calm]

Is this the Church project?  I have a 9 year old granddaughter. I am thinking she could read it to me over FaceTime and I track the difficult parts. 

[Calm]

I tried to send her the link, but it isn’t available to them. Guess they have to be board posters. I will Pm my email. 

[Calm]

I am thinking footnotes are probably advanced for them. They are not being used in her class yet. 
 

It occurs to me I can ask my sister as she teaches 5 graders, used to be an English professor but wasn’t good with the politics, never got on Tenure track, so second half of her career has been elementary Ed. She might be very interested, though her speciality was American Literature; Emily ****inson was her dissertation. 
 

She might ask for Pokémon too or Calico Critters as she has gotten quite a bit of lego this year.  But monkeys are her favorite. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

Reading it over, I have a couple of immediate thoughts:  To keep children's attention, as much as possible, use active rather than passive voice, and present rather than past verbs.  Generally, try dynamic metaphrase/equivalence rather than word-for-word translating.  Be as picturesque and personal as possible.  Avoid prolixity at all costs.

Expressions should be used which relate more closely to children's experience:  Instead of "being tempted by Satan," try being bullied by Satan.  Instead of saying that Jesus "saw Simon and his brother Andrew," say that he saw Pete and his brother Drew [I got that from Rob Lacey, Word on the Street (Zondervan, 2003), 266].  Instead of "The Early Ministry in Gallilee," as a heading, try Early Teaching in Gallilee.  Instead of "the Sabbath," say the Sabbath Day.  Instead of "synagogue," say chapel.[1]  Instead of "legal scholars," say lawyers.  Instead of "with an evil spirit," say with an evil spirit inside him.  Instead of "it was like the whole city was standing around the door," say it was like everybody in town was standing at the doorway.  Instead of "with no one around," use alone.  Instead of “It is what I want. Be healed!” try O.K  Be healed!  Instead of "after digging through the roof," try pulling apart the roof.

[1] Note 6 seeks to educate the child, but in fact "synagogue" is also used of Christian congregations in both Book of Mormon as well as in the NT (James 2:2), and Church and Synagogue are really both qahal/ekklesia.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Hello, everyone! I have mentioned it here before, but I am working on a translation of the New Testament aimed at about a ten-year-old readership. I have completed the Gospel of Mark and am hoping to get some feedback from anyone who is interested in it or who has kids who might be interested in it. I'd like to know how easy it is for children (or second-language speakers of English) to understand, and which words, phrases, or constructions, if any, are difficult. I've attached the first two chapters as a preview, and if anyone is interested in the whole gospel, feel free to message me your email address and I'll send it along. 

Gospel of Mark, Chapters 1–2.pdf 92.71 kB · 15 downloads

Good thing we can teach our children/grandchildren at home the way we want them to be taught.  The words in this version of English may help some people to get the gist of what is being mentioned but with phrases in your version like "I am baptizing with water, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (instead of baptizing in water and with the Holy Spirit) and "the Spirit coming down on him like a dove" (instead of in the form of a dove) parents will need to carefully monitor what their children are understanding while trying to make sure they are getting the right ideas.

[Kenngo1969]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

... Emily ****inson was her dissertation. ...

I'm appalled ... appalled, I tell you!    Watch your language, Cal!   Don't make me report you to the Mods!  

   

[Dan McClellan]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Is this the Church project?  I have a 9 year old granddaughter. I am thinking she could read it to me over FaceTime and I track the difficult parts. 

This is NOT a Church project. This is my own personal project.

[Dan McClellan]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Good thing we can teach our children/grandchildren at home the way we want them to be taught.  The words in this version of English may help some people to get the gist of what is being mentioned but with phrases in your version like "I am baptizing with water, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (instead of baptizing in water and with the Holy Spirit) and "the Spirit coming down on him like a dove" (instead of in the form of a dove) parents will need to carefully monitor what their children are understanding while trying to make sure they are getting the right ideas.

My translation reflects what the Greek says. I suppose the preposition ἐν could be translated "with" for the sake of symmetry, which is precisely how the KJV has it, but I don't see the concern. "In the form of a dove" is also very clearly not in the Greek, and even the KJV has "like a dove" in all four gospels. The only one that's different is Luke, which has "in bodily shape like a dove." Only the CEV and the ISV have "in the form of a dove." I don't understand where you're getting these alternative readings, or why you think they're the "right ideas."

[Hamba Tuhan]

I've only read a little, but there's a sentence in chapter 2 that I think could use some improving:

But when they weren’t able to bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was and, after digging through the roof, lowered the bed down that the paralyzed man was laying on.

Besides using the requisite intransitive verb lie here, I would skip the redundancy created by 'lowered ... down' (or at least move down so that it doesn't stand between the relative pronoun and its antecedent):

But when they weren’t able to bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was and, after digging through the roof, lowered (down) the bed that the paralyzed man was lying on.

[Dan McClellan]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've only read a little, but there's a sentence in chapter 2 that I think could use some improving:

But when they weren’t able to bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was and, after digging through the roof, lowered the bed down that the paralyzed man was laying on.

Besides using the requisite intransitive verb lie here, I would skip the redundancy created by 'lowered ... down' (or at least move down so that it doesn't stand between the relative pronoun and its antecedent):

But when they weren’t able to bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was and, after digging through the roof, lowered (down) the bed that the paralyzed man was lying on.

Yikes, that was a pretty careless error. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll reconsider wording there, too. 

[LDS Watchman]

Gospel of Mark Translation suggestions

Is the intended audience strictly LDS or Christians in general?

If it’s strictly LDS, I would recommend considering including the revisions Joseph Smith made in the Joseph Smith translation. Some of his revisions are quite significant. I would also recommend not worrying about being completely faithful to the original Greek, and instead focus on simplifying and updating some of the archaic language in the KJV. 

My recommended revisions are based on the target audience being LDS.

I would consider including the verse numbers. Most 10 year olds are accustomed to verses in the scriptures. A soft verse number at the beginning of the text would allow for better readability, while identifying the verse. I also would recommend not having any footnotes. A 10 year old child is not going to read a footnote. In textbooks and other readings the children read at school, if a vocabulary word needs to be defined or explained the word in the text is bolded and then the definition is provided in the margin. I would recommend keeping the language as “churchy” as possible. Common terminology like “gospel,” or “Christ” should be retained. Your explanation of these terms in the footnotes is excellent and very helpful for young readers (as well as older readers). 

My recommendation then is to keep the common word, bold it, and then provide the meaning in the margin. For example:

This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. Just like Isaiah, the prophet, wrote:  

“Look! I’m sending my messenger before you. He will prepare your way. There is a voice of someone crying in the desert, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his path straight!’”

Then in the margin I would explain what gospel and Christ mean just the way you did.

Gospel: An Old English word that means “good news.” The “Good News of Jesus” is not just the Good news that Jesus brings. Jesus himself is also the “Good News.” The phrase could also be translated “the Good News that is Jesus.”

Christ: The Greek word christos (pronounced khri-STOSE) means “anointed one,” but the KJV translates it as “Christ.” Anointing is a special ceremony in which someone has oil put on them to symbolize being chosen and being given the power and authority to do a special job. “Jesus Christ” means “Jesus the Anointed One.” “Christ” is a title and not a last name.

Way: road
 

[JLHPROF]

I am curious if "in whom I am well pleased" and "makes me very happy" are really equivalents?

Being pleased and being happy are certainly similar but I don't know that the nuances between the words are close enough that I would use them interchangeably.
Kind of like tired vs exhausted.

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

This is NOT a Church project. This is my own personal project.

I would buy it for myself! 

[Kenngo1969]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I am curious if "in whom I am well pleased" and "makes me very happy" are really equivalents?

Being pleased and being happy are certainly similar but I don't know that the nuances between the words are close enough that I would use them interchangeably.
Kind of like tired vs exhausted.

Perhaps, but I think you need to consider Brother McClellan's intended audience more.  (Ask your grandchildren, maybe? )

[Dan McClellan]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I am curious if "in whom I am well pleased" and "makes me very happy" are really equivalents?

Being pleased and being happy are certainly similar but I don't know that the nuances between the words are close enough that I would use them interchangeably.
Kind of like tired vs exhausted.

That's a good question. The Greek verb there means to take pleasure or delight in something, or to find satisfaction in something. The idea is that the entity in question brings or causes delight, pleasure, or satisfaction. I wanted to distill that down to something that wasn't reliant on a relative object pronoun combined with a verbal phrase, which in my experience tend to complicate things for children. I've tried to avoid those as much as possible in this translation, and I think my rendering here still largely captures the semantic content of the clause. I'm open to alternative suggestions, though. 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

That's a good question. The Greek verb there means to take pleasure or delight in something, or to find satisfaction in something. The idea is that the entity in question brings or causes delight, pleasure, or satisfaction. I wanted to distill that down to something that wasn't reliant on a relative object pronoun combined with a verbal phrase, which in my experience tend to complicate things for children. I've tried to avoid those as much as possible in this translation, and I think my rendering here still largely captures the semantic content of the clause. I'm open to alternative suggestions, though. 

Well, we can't really use the word proud can we...
I suppose happy will have to do in place of pleased.

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

My translation reflects what the Greek says. I suppose the preposition ἐν could be translated "with" for the sake of symmetry, which is precisely how the KJV has it, but I don't see the concern. "In the form of a dove" is also very clearly not in the Greek, and even the KJV has "like a dove" in all four gospels. The only one that's different is Luke, which has "in bodily shape like a dove." Only the CEV and the ISV have "in the form of a dove." I don't understand where you're getting these alternative readings, or why you think they're the "right ideas."

The concern should be to clearly understand the correct concepts.  Word choice is secondary to that concern even though it is important to try to choose words which will help to convey the correct concepts.

For example, when trying to correctly understand the appearance and administrations of the Holy Ghost during our Lord's baptism, it would be helpful (I think) to convey the idea that the Holy Ghost was not a dove nor did he act like a dove, even though he appeared in the form of a dove.  And the term "like a dove" is not as helpful as the term "in the form of a dove" when trying to understand that concept, even if the original author used the term "like a dove" when he wrote what he wrote.  

Likewise, when trying to correctly understand what baptism is and what it involves, it would be helpful (I think) to convey the idea that it involves immersion in water instead of only with water to help people understand that it not only involves using some water which could be sprinkled or poured if the point was only to use some water when baptizing with water.  And to understand the role of the Holy Ghost in baptism it would be helpful (I think) to convey the idea that the person being baptized is being baptized with the authority of the Holy Ghost or in his name rather than to convey the idea that the person being baptized is being immersed (baptized) in the person of the Holy Ghost.

In other words, it is less important to try to understand the exact words an author or orator originally uses than it is to understand what he was trying to describe or talk about  Which is why we need the Holy Spirit more than a word translator.

[Dan McClellan]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

The concern should be to clearly understand the correct concepts.  Word choice is secondary to that concern even though it is important to try to choose words which will help to convey the correct concepts.

For example, when trying to correctly understand the appearance and administrations of the Holy Ghost during our Lord's baptism, it would be helpful (I think) to convey the idea that the Holy Ghost was not a dove nor did he act like a dove, even though he appeared in the form of a dove.  And the term "like a dove" is not as helpful as the term "in the form of a dove" when trying to understand that concept, even if the original author used the term "like a dove" when he wrote what he wrote.  

But the Gospel of Mark absolutely nowhere says the Holy Spirit "appeared in the form of a dove." It seems what you're suggesting I do is use impose what the Book of Mormon says on the Bible, rather than translate what the Bible says. My goal is actually to preserve the differences between the gospels and the Book of Mormon, and even between one gospel and another, because the reality of those differences is a correct concept that I prioritize over the dogma of harmonization. Similarly, in translating the book of Isaiah, I don't replace what the Hebrew manuscripts say with what the Book of Mormon versions of Isaiah say. Even with official scripture translation projects for the Church we don't take the liberty to alter what the texts say just to harmonize them or make them reflect Mormonism more clearly. 

Quote

 

Likewise, when trying to correctly understand what baptism is and what it involves, it would be helpful (I think) to convey the idea that it involves immersion in water instead of only with water to help people understand that it not only involves using some water which could be sprinkled or poured if the point was only to use some water when baptizing with water.  And to understand the role of the Holy Ghost in baptism it would be helpful (I think) to convey the idea that the person being baptized is being baptized with the authority of the Holy Ghost or in his name rather than to convey the idea that the person being baptized is being immersed (baptized) in the person of the Holy Ghost.

In other words, it is less important to try to understand the exact words an author or orator originally uses than it is to understand what he was trying to describe or talk about  Which is why we need the Holy Spirit more than a word translator.

 

But the author of Mark is not concerned with distinguishing baptism by immersion from sprinkling. That concern is anachronistic. To alter the translation in order to reflect that concern is not to understand what the author was trying to describe or talk about, it's to impose our contemporary ideologies on the text and make it say only what it means specifically to us and specifically now. Again, our policies wouldn't even allow such alterations for official scripture translation projects. Part of my goal is also to help folks recognize and begin to accommodate these complexities as they're beginning to learn to read the scriptures so they don't grow up with brittle and distorting concepts of the univocality and inerrancy of scripture. 

[Ahab]

On 12/30/2020 at 3:47 AM, Dan McClellan said:

But the Gospel of Mark absolutely nowhere says the Holy Spirit "appeared in the form of a dove." It seems what you're suggesting I do is use impose what the Book of Mormon says on the Bible, rather than translate what the Bible says.

Yes, with inspiration from the Holy Ghost, just as Joseph Smith did when he translated the Bible.

On 12/30/2020 at 3:47 AM, Dan McClellan said:

My goal is actually to preserve the differences between the gospels and the Book of Mormon, and even between one gospel and another, because the reality of those differences is a correct concept that I prioritize over the dogma of harmonization. Similarly, in translating the book of Isaiah, I don't replace what the Hebrew manuscripts say with what the Book of Mormon versions of Isaiah say. Even with official scripture translation projects for the Church we don't take the liberty to alter what the texts say just to harmonize them or make them reflect Mormonism more clearly. 

That disappoints me but I suppose in a job your primary concern is to remain employed and that usually means doing only what your employer wants you to do.

On 12/30/2020 at 3:47 AM, Dan McClellan said:

But the author of Mark is not concerned with distinguishing baptism by immersion from sprinkling. That concern is anachronistic. To alter the translation in order to reflect that concern is not to understand what the author was trying to describe or talk about, it's to impose our contemporary ideologies on the text and make it say only what it means specifically to us and specifically now. Again, our policies wouldn't even allow such alterations for official scripture translation projects. Part of my goal is also to help folks recognize and begin to accommodate these complexities as they're beginning to learn to read the scriptures so they don't grow up with brittle and distorting concepts of the univocality and inerrancy of scripture. 

The author of Mark probably wasn't aware at the time he wrote what he wrote that other people would distort or not understand what baptism actually involves... immersion in water instead of only with water (which is not what baptism is)... otherwise he probably would have clarified that point like most members of our Lord's church now try to clarify that point in Church handbooks and manuals and lesson materials wherein we try to clarify that point because we know the Bible text alone is not sufficient to clarify every point associated with the true gospel of Jesus Christ.  Sad to me that some people are more concerned with sticking to only what the authors of the Bible said instead of adding to it what has been and may continue to be revealed with inspiration from our Lord through the Holy Ghost.

[Dan McClellan]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, with inspiration from the Holy Ghost, just as Joseph Smith did when he translated the Bible.

The JST leaves all four gospels with "like a dove." It does not change a single occurrence to "in the form of a dove."

Quote

That disappoints me but I suppose in a job your primary concern is to remain employed and that usually means doing only what your employer wants you to do.

Yes, I do what the First Presidency wants me to do. 

Quote

The author of Mark probably wasn't aware at the time he wrote what he wrote that other people would distort or not understand what baptism actually involves... immersion in water instead of only with water (which is not what baptism is)... otherwise he probably would have clarified that point like most members of our Lord's church now try to clarify that point in Church handbooks and manuals and lesson materials wherein we try to clarify that point because we know the Bible text alone is not sufficient to clarify every point associated with the true gospel of Jesus Christ.  Sad to me that some people are more concerned with sticking to only what the authors of the Bible said instead of adding to it what has been and may continue to be revealed with inspiration from our Lord through the Holy Ghost.

Which is to suggest that the scriptures should themselves contain all corrections to any potential misreadings and misapplications, which is not what the scriptures are for. The Brethren want the scriptures to have a broad range of interpretive possibilities so that they can be a more dynamic tool for guidance and inspiration for all who seek answers in them. They're the ones who delineate the doctrine. They are happy to leave the scriptures as they are.  

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

The JST leaves all four gospels with "like a dove." It does not change a single occurrence to "in the form of a dove."

Yeah, I'm not sure why he left those scriptures in the Bible that way and I probably should not have limited what I was talking about to only his translation of the Bible.  I was talking more about how he added to what the Bible said by clarifying how the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, like he did when writing 1 Nephi 11:27 and D&C 93:15: 

27 And I looked and ^abeheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the ^bprophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was ^cbaptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a ^ddove.

15 And I, ^aJohn, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my ^bbeloved Son.

 

5 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Yes, I do what the First Presidency wants me to do. 

Which I would hope would be to share what we teach in all of the scriptures, as a collective body of teachings, as concisely as possible.

5 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Which is to suggest that the scriptures should themselves contain all corrections to any potential misreadings and misapplications, which is not what the scriptures are for. The Brethren want the scriptures to have a broad range of interpretive possibilities so that they can be a more dynamic tool for guidance and inspiration for all who seek answers in them. They're the ones who delineate the doctrine. They are happy to leave the scriptures as they are.  

And as they are they teach that our Lord was baptized in water, instead of only with water, and that the Holy Ghost is a person who though on some occasions has appeared in the form of a dove is not much like a dove as a man is not much like a dove.