German bible now available online and in the gospel library app

[Dan McClellan]

We are beginning the process of revising a public-domain German translation of the Bible in order to be able to provide a Church edition of the Bible for German-speaking Latter-day Saints. The current preferred translation in German, the Einheitsübersetzung, was first published in 1980 and is not in the public domain, so it was not a possibility for this project. We evaluated a number of German translations and the 1939 Menge best fit our criteria. While we're going through the process of revising the text and translating the study helps, the Church has made the original version of the Menge available online and on the Gospel Library app:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot?lang=deu

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt?lang=deu

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

We are beginning the process of revising a public-domain German translation of the Bible in order to be able to provide a Church edition of the Bible for German-speaking Latter-day Saints. The current preferred translation in German, the Einheitsübersetzung, was first published in 1980 and is not in the public domain, so it was not a possibility for this project. We evaluated a number of German translations and the 1939 Menge best fit our criteria. While we're going through the process of revising the text and translating the study helps, the Church has made the original version of the Menge available online and on the Gospel Library app:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot?lang=deu

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt?lang=deu

Fantastic! I recently ordered a German-language Bible through the church store, and was surprised to find it was the Einheitsübersetzung, as I thought we used the Martin Luther translation (at least, that's what I thought I was using on my mission), because of Joseph Smith's praise of it.

How long is it anticipated before the new version is available?

[MiserereNobis]

1939 German Bible? That wasn’t Germany’s finest year. No political pressure on the translation?

[Stargazer]

46 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

1939 German Bible? That wasn’t Germany’s finest year. No political pressure on the translation?

It was a private effort and started well before the First World War.

I just tracked down the translation on the German Wikipedia. Hermann Menge published his translation of the New Testament in 1905, then spent 12 years working on the Old Testament. The complete translation was published in 1926 -- the 1939 date is evidently based on the fact that Menge continued to revise his translation until he died in 1939. The Menge Bible went out of copyright in 2020. 

About his translation, Menge wrote: 

"I have ... tried everywhere to make the translation as faithful as possible, closely following the biblical original, with the philological accuracy to which I have been accustomed during my many years of activity and as a result of my literary work. This means not to stick too tightly to the literalness, but rather to translate true to the meaning, without adding anything to what has been handed down or leaving something out.

"Then it was my serious endeavor not only to dress my translation in understandable and clear German, also cleared of foreign words as far as possible, but also to pay attention to the mood and coloring of every book and section, indeed every passage, in order to to express the simplicity and naturalness of the historical pieces, as well as to do justice to the diverse styles of the psalms and the speeches in the prophetic and didactic books. In addition, I have made it my business to make it easier to grasp the meaning by means of copious headings and to promote clarity by carefully structuring the parts, which is undoubtedly of great importance especially in speeches and in letters, as well as in the poetic, prophetic and didactic pieces.

"There are a number of passages in the scriptures, the meaning of which cannot be ascertained with unquestionable certainty, and which have therefore always found different and equally justified explanations. I have consistently dealt with such passages in such a way that I reproduced the words of the original text with the greatest possible accuracy and left the reader with the task of finding out the meaning through their own reflection and of forming their own judgment."

This is my Google Translate-aided rendering from Menge's bio in the German Wikipedia.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Luther Bible is not good enough, then?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Luther Bible is not good enough, then?

I think the Catholic Church made it perfectly clear that the Luther Bible is not good enough  

[Dan McClellan]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Fantastic! I recently ordered a German-language Bible through the church store, and was surprised to find it was the Einheitsübersetzung, as I thought we used the Martin Luther translation (at least, that's what I thought I was using on my mission), because of Joseph Smith's praise of it.

How long is it anticipated before the new version is available?

So the text that is online now will be updated every month or two with the revised text as it gets completed. Half or all of Genesis will probably be released within the next two or three months. You’ll know text has been updated when a chapter summary appears. The footnotes and other study aids won’t be released until the very end, which will be within two years. 
 

It’s been decades since the Luther translation was the Church’s preferred translation. We considered it while we were evaluating translations for this project, but it just didn’t perform very well.

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Luther Bible is not good enough, then?

We included a 1912 edition of the Luther in our evaluation, but it just didn’t perform that well. It hasn’t been the Church’s preferred translation in German for decades.

[JustAnAustralian]

10 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

While we're going through the process of revising the text

What does this revision entail?

[Dan McClellan]

12 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

What does this revision entail?

We're mainly going to be modernizing the language, but we'll also be correcting any errors we come across. 

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

we'll also be correcting any errors we come across. 

I'll be interested to see what kinds of things pop out here after his years of self-revision moving into the CoJC release.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

We're mainly going to be modernizing the language, but we'll also be correcting any errors we come across. 

If the language has not been modernized in the King James Version that the Church uses, why does the Church care if it’s modernized in a German translation?

[Dan McClellan]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the language has not been modernized in the King James Version that the Church uses, why does the Church care if it’s modernized in a German translation?

Largely because the language of the King James Version sits at the root of the rest of Restoration scripture and has been uniquely embedded within the social, ideological, and historical foundations of the English speaking Church. There's a widespread tyranny of tradition there that simply doesn't exist in other languages.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

Largely because the language of the King James Version sits at the root of the rest of Restoration scripture and has been uniquely embedded within the social, ideological, and historical foundations of the English speaking Church. There's a widespread tyranny of tradition there that simply doesn't exist in other languages.

Hi Dan,

 

Lots of presuppositions in my questions.

Since the BoM was first produced in English, all other versions must be translations from the English version to those languages. There are many passages in the BoM that match or closely match the KJV. When translating the BoM into those other languages how does this work? Are we trying to match the KJV archaic language and meanings in that language or do we try and match the section from the preferred version of the Bible in the language into which the BoM is being translated? And when choosing which version of the bible to use in other languages, is any deference given to foreign versions that most closely coincide with the KJV? If the biblical passages in the non English BoM do not match what is found in the preferred LDS Bible of the same language what explanation is given for the differences?

 

Regarding your "tyranny of tradition" comment, I recently was discussing Dr Wayment's New Testament translation with another member who outright rejected it by saying "It just does not sound like scripture".

[JustAnAustralian]

Non-KJV english versions have been used as the source of quotes in general conference, so I see no issue with foreign language versions not matching what we're used to.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Largely because the language of the King James Version sits at the root of the rest of Restoration scripture and has been uniquely embedded within the social, ideological, and historical foundations of the English speaking Church. There's a widespread tyranny of tradition there that simply doesn't exist in other languages.

That makes sense. 

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Non-KJV english versions have been used as the source of quotes in general conference, so I see no issue with foreign language versions not matching what we're used to.

I’m aware that Elder Uchtdorf has used such versions in his talks (I’m not immediately aware of any other general conference speakers who have done so, though I’m not denying there may have been some). 
 

But that doesn’t change the fact that the King James Version is the official English-language Bible translation of the Church. At least it was last I heard. If that has changed, it’s news to me. 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Dan McClellan]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Hi Dan,

Lots of presuppositions in my questions.

Since the BoM was first produced in English, all other versions must be translations from the English version to those languages. There are many passages in the BoM that match or closely match the KJV. When translating the BoM into those other languages how does this work? Are we trying to match the KJV archaic language and meanings in that language or do we try and match the section from the preferred version of the Bible in the language into which the BoM is being translated?

We train translators to use their preferred translations of the Bible as a base text, but to ensure that the translation ultimately aligns with the English, which is the priority. A preferred translation will frequently not exactly match the English, but it's usually close enough that it can save the translator a bit of time, and even after they've adjusted it to match the English, some degree of resonance can be achieved so informed readers will pick up on the connection. It really works differently from language to language, though.

Quote

And when choosing which version of the bible to use in other languages, is any deference given to foreign versions that most closely coincide with the KJV?

None whatsoever. We used to have an evaluation process that basically tried to determine which translation was closest to the KJV, but this caused all kinds of problems. Several years ago I revised our Bible evaluation process, and now the KJV plays no role in the evaluation.

Quote

If the biblical passages in the non English BoM do not match what is found in the preferred LDS Bible of the same language what explanation is given for the differences?

There's no explanation given. Most members of the Church have some degree of understanding that their Bible translations are going to differ here and there. Despite that, you might be surprised how many members and even leaders of the Church believe the preferred non-English Bible translations are "the KJV in our language." 

Quote

Regarding your "tyranny of tradition" comment, I recently was discussing Dr Wayment's New Testament translation with another member who outright rejected it by saying "It just does not sound like scripture".

Yeah, that's the result of dogmatically sticking with a translation that uses English that is 500 years out of date. It was already considered outdated the day it was published in 1611. We rationalize it away by inventing these notions of the eloquence, majesty, sophistication, antiquity, and so on, of scripture, but really we're just making up reasons to make it sound defensible. I talk a bit about this in a paper I published in the Religious Educator a couple years ago:

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-20-no-2-2019/far-it-translated-correctly-bible-translation-church

[aussieguy55]

An academic at the Australian Lutheran College shared with me some texts in Luther's translations of texts used in the homosexual debate. Some other scholars have challenge the NRSV translation especially 1 Cor 6:9.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TRtn_Fu_K39ZEwm8byQmSazT6V06umryb8ugexeE4Q/edit

[OGHoosier]

7 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

An academic at the Australian Lutheran College shared with me some texts in Luther's translations of texts used in the homosexual debate. Some other scholars have challenge the NRSV translation especially 1 Cor 6:9.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TRtn_Fu_K39ZEwm8byQmSazT6V06umryb8ugexeE4Q/edit

With respect, I don't think Google Translate is advanced enough to count as an authority. Google has done a lot to improve it using advanced computing but it still struggles with the contextualization of passages, so in cases like these it doesn't seem right to use it as an authoritative translation. It's unlikely that Google Translate would be able to capture the whole semantic domain of a word in current usage, let alone usage from hundreds of years ago. 

In any case the English word "boys" doesn't capture the full domain of the word Paul used in 1 Cor 6:9. I quote from one of Robert Boylan's posts on the subject, dated July 19 2016.

Quote

Furthermore, the terms translated as “effeminate” and “homosexual” are μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης; the ESV correctly captures the meaning of these terms as denoting both the active and passive partner in the act of homosexual activity ("men who practice homosexuality"). This is also brought out more explicitly by the Lexham Bible:

 

 . . . nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners.

 

The leading NT Greek Lexicon, BDAG, defines these terms thusly:

 

4692  μαλακός

• μαλακός, ή, όν (s. two prec. entries; ‘soft’: Hom. et al.; ins, pap, LXX, Philo; Jos., Ant. 8, 72 βύσσος μ.; Mel., P. 80, 594 στρωμνῆς μ.)

 

1. pert. to being yielding to touch, soft, of things: clothes (Hom. et al.; Artem. 1, 78 p. 73, 10 ἱματίων πολυτελῶν κ. μαλακῶν; PSI 364, 5 ἱμάτιον μαλ.) μ. ἱμάτια soft garments, such as fastidious people wear Lk 7:25. (τὰ) μ. soft clothes (Sb 6779, 57; s. λευκός 2, end) Mt 11:8ab.

 

2. pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship, opp. ἀρσενοκοίτης (Dionys. Hal. 7, 2, 4; Dio Chrys. 49 [66], 25; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 15, 10; Vett. Val. 113, 22; Diog. L. 7, 173; PHib 54, 11 [c. 245 BC] may have this mng.: a musician called Zenobius ὁ μαλακός [prob. with a sideline, according to Dssm., LO 131, 4—LAE 164, 4]. S. also a Macedon. ins in LDuchesne and CBayet, Mémoire sur une Mission au Mont Athos 1876 no. 66 p. 46; Plautus, Miles 668 cinaedus [Gk. κίναιδος] malacus; cp. the atttack on the morality of submissive homoeroticism Aeschin. 1, 188; DCohen, Greece and Rome 23, ’76, 181f) 1 Cor 6:9 (‘male prostitutes’ NRSV is too narrow a rendering; ‘sexual pervert’ REB is too broad)=Pol 5:3.—S. lit. s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης. B. 1065. DELG. M-M.

 

 

1133  ἀρσενοκοίτης

• ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ (ἄρσην ‘male’ + κοίτη ‘bed’; Bardesanes 719 fgm. 3b 10, 25 p. 653 Jac. [in Eus., PE 6, 10, 25]; Anth. Pal. 9, 686, 5 and Cat. Cod. Astr. VIII/4 p. 196, 6 and 8 have the sp. ἀρρενοκοίτης; Theoph. Ant. 1, 2 [p. 60, 27]; in a vice list—ἀρσενοκοιτεῖν SibOr 2, 73; AcJ 36 [Aa II/1, 169]; cp. the association of ἄρσην and κοίτη Lev 20:13, s. Soph. Lex.: ἀ.= ὁ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοιμώμενος κοίτην γυναικείαν=‘one who has intercourse w. a man as w. a woman’; cp. the formation of μητροκοίτης [μήτηρ + κοίτη] ‘one who has intercourse w. his mother’ Hipponax 15, 2 Diehl³ [=Degani 20, 2]) a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, ’86, 187-91; cp. DWright, ibid. 41, ’87, 396-98; REB’s rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term ‘sexual pervert’ is lexically unacceptable), of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός (difft. DMartin, in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, ed. RBrawley, ’96, 117-36); 1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. Romans forbade pederasty w. free boys in the Lex Scantinia, pre-Cicero (JBremmer, Arethusa 13, ’80, 288 and notes); Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution (on its rarity, but w. some evidence concerning women used for sacred prostitution at Corinth s. LWoodbury, TAPA 108, ’78, 290f, esp. note 18 [lit.]), or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service (s. Wright, VigChr 38, ’84, 125-53). For condemnation of the practice in the Euphrates region s. the ref. to Bardesanes above.—RBurton, The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, 1934, vol. 6, 3748-82, lit. reff. and anthropological data relating to a variety of Mediterranean cultures; DBailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, ’55; KDover, Greek Homosexuality ’78; RScroggs, The NT and Homosexuality ’83; JBoswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality ’80; JBremmer, Greek Pederasty, in JBremmer, ed. From Sappho to de Sade² ’91, 1-14; ECantarella, Bisexuality in the Ancient World ’92.—Pauly-W. 8, 1333f; 1459-68. DELG s.v. ἄρσην. M-M.

 

For a further discussion on the meanings of μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης in this text, see Robert Gangon [sic], The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, pp. 303-331.

 

[Stargazer]

It was brought up in this thread that the 1930s Germans were making some changes to the Bible to accord with their political outlook. I discovered a newspaper clipping amongst my papers the other day that actually talks about this. The clipping is from the 13 February 1936 Oregonian newspaper. Here's the image:

[poptart]

So you guys used Luther's Bible?  Not The KJV?

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, poptart said:

So you guys used Luther's Bible?  Not The KJV?

No. In English the KJV is the "official" one, and has been since the beginning (to the best of my knowledge) but nobody is forbidden to use other translations. Joseph Smith once said that he felt the Luther translation in German was the best one/most accurate he knew of. When I was serving on my mission, we did in fact use a version of the Luther translation (this was back in the 1970s). At the moment, however, if you order a Bible in the German language, the church distribution service sends you the Catholic "Unity translation". The LDS church is currently working on a new German translation, based on the one that the OP mentions.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Stargazer

[poptart]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

No. In English the KJV is the "official" one, but nobody is forbidden to use other translations. Joseph Smith once said that he felt the Luther translation in German was the best one he knew of. When I was serving on my mission, we did in fact use a version of the Luther translation (this was back in the 1970s). At the moment, however, if you order a Bible in the German language, the church distribution service sends you the Catholic "Unity translation". The LDS church is currently working on a new German translation, based on the one that the OP mentions.

Catholic bibles too?  Ok, the LDS church just earned a few more street credit points from me, I'm impressed.  My German sucks now.  Growing up I was around a lot of Japanese things and it was almost fluent.  Nice thing with German, i'm not having to use a dictionary for the kanji.  Sure there's google translate but that's not how you learn.  At least with German what you see is what it is.

[pogi]

On 5/30/2021 at 3:51 PM, Dan McClellan said:

There's a widespread tyranny of tradition there that simply doesn't exist in other languages.

I'm jealous of those other languages.  I would love a modernized English church version of the Bible...and you can throw in the Book of Mormon with it. 

Do you have a favorite modernized English Bible translation? 

Edited July 16, 2021 by pogi