I'm at Seminary at the moment and started learning Esperanto because I became so depressed about my difficulties with learning Hebrew and Greek. Nevertheless, I've got a great bible software program that helps me with all the conjugations and lexical range of the words, so I can be fairly confident about what I'm translating now. Its kind of cool being able to work out why there are several different ways of translating the same phrase or word.

Anyway, as regards to the accuracy of the translation. I've had to do lots of translation for the course, from Hebrew and Greek into English. Nearly all the time I've been able to cross check with the Esperanto version and found it very helpful.

If you are familiar with different translation philosophies, you have a spectrum from loose paraphrases like the Message or the Good News Bible, through to 'dynamic equivalent' translations, which aim for both accuracy and readability, so are literal when possible, and paraphrase occasionally to clarify. The NIV is the best example of this. Then you have 'formal equivalence' translations, which aim for a word for word translation, and where possible, often refelects the original word order. These include translations like the NASB, which uses modern English, except for prayers, then it reverts to 'holy' sounding Elizabethan English. The New King James Version, which is also a 'literal translation' based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. Then the ESV, which is an Evangelical, (and so slightly more literal) update of the NRSV, which is an update of the RSV... !!!

So on this spectrum, I'd say that the Esperanto translation is a 'formal equivalent' translation. It would be possible to make a it slightly more readable for native English speakers, but that would probably only make it more difficult for non-English speakers.

The final great thing I love about my printed Esperanto Bible (published by Kava Pech) is that it makes the acrostic psalms easy to identify, by introducing each phrase with the appropriate Hebrew letters. I don't know of any English translations that do this, and I don't know why.

Hey there, Rory,

Yes, I'm very familiar with the different translation philosophies. Though I never studied formally, I've studied for years on my own. Even got a hold of Bill Mounce's self-study Greek course, but I never followed through with it. Esperanto, however, is coming along fine!

Anyway, just by how I could muddle my way through the Esperanto Bible I could tell that it was very close to the KJV, which clued me into the idea that either the KJV and/or formal equivalency drove the translation.

I'm very happy with it, though I did read a review on Amazon in which the fellow who bought it noted one troublesome matter: not all the books of the bible were included. That concerned me. (Here's the link: La Sankta Biblia on Amazon). Is this the same in your version? I thought it rather strange myself.

At any rate, I've downloaded the Sankta Biblia (page by page!), but I'd love to get a hard copy sometime soon.

(Oh, and Mounce makes learning Greek fun and easier, I'm sure, than just learning by memorizing a bunch of paradigms, but I still didn't get into it full-steam-ahead as I am with Esperanto!)

Finally, what do think about the translation of John 8:58b: Antaŭ ol naskiĝis Abraham, mi ekzistas? Would "estas" have been more closer in meaning to the Greek equivalent for "I AM" implication? What do you think?

Thanks much,

Starkman

My English copy of Psalm 119 in the NKJV Pocket New Testament distributed by Gideons Internation does have the Hebrew letters for the accrostic.

Starkman

I have no idea why the Amazon reviewer says that all the books in the Bible are not in his edition, but he may not realise that Revelation is called "Apokalipso," after the Greek name, rather than the English. If anything, some Protestants would argue that there are too many books in it! After all it does include the what the Roman Catholic church calls the "Deutero-Canonical" books, or Protestants call the Apocrypha. The first printings of the KJV had these also, but they were in their own section between the OT and the NT. In La Sankta Biblio en Esperanto they are scattered throughout the OT, but the entire books are printed in italics, so if you're a Protestant you're not going to mistake them for Scripture.

The Amazon reviewer also complains about the some of the verse numbers being slightly different. This is because the SBE largely follows the RC Vulgate versification. The Bible is a very old book used by a number of different communities. For example, the Jewish Tenach (OT) largely follows the Christian verse numbering system, but occasionally departs from it. The Latin Vulgate does the same. None of this effects the meaning of the text and it reminds us that God has been at work for a long time, and sometimes in traditions quite different from our own.

I also had to download the SBE from the internet. There used to be a great page at steve-and-pattie.com, with the text really nicely presented, but it looks like someone hijacked their web address and its not up now.

Finally, you mention John 8:58b. The Greek could be translated as 'estas' but 'existas' is well within the lexical range of "eimi." It is 1st person present indicative, and so has no need of the preceeding "ego" ("I"), which supports the use of "existas," and fits well with how the vast majority of Christians have always interpreted this verse.

Osxo-Jabe,
You're right, many English translations do break up Ps 119 into its Hebrew letters, but SBE also does so for Ps 9-10, 25, 34, 37,111, 112, 145 and Lam 1,2,3,4.

Far be it from me to comment on Christian interpretations of Bible verses.

But from a language standpoint, it doesn't make that much sense to say "Mi estas" in Esperanto. The Esperanto-speaking reader is waiting for the rest of the sentence; I am... what?

Meaning-wise, this use of "I am" is used to mean "I exist", so "Mi ekzistas" would be the expected translation, and it would be the translation I'd choose, if I were translating the text.

Disclaimer: The text below is for linguistic interest only and is not intended to express my theological viewpoint, nor to provoke any kind of theological debate

Of course I know this text was written in Greek, but if we were to suppose that God speaks mainly Hebrew (as in the Tanach) (reminder: linguistic interest only, I am not implying that there is some one and only godly language)... well, you couldn't say a simple "I am", present tense, in Hebrew. להיות, the verb for "to be", doesn't conjugate in the present tense. If God were speaking Hebrew, he would have no choice but to say "I exist" (אני קיים).

Well, that's what I would have thought; that the Esperanto Bible wasn't missing anything, but the reviewer was! (Ha!)

erinja,

If someone asks in English, "Are you going to the store?" the answer, "I am" is sufficient. But you're saying it would not be acceptable in Esperanto to answer "Mi estas"?

See, that's why I asked about John 8:58. In orthodox Christianity (not Greek Orthodox), it is viewed that Jesus' response to the Jews ("Before Abraham was, I AM"), though using the simple present indicative of the Greek "to be," harkens back to God's response to Moses' question about what God should be called. God's response to Moses was "I AM" or "I AM that I AM" (Hebrew: "ehyey")), meaning the eternal self-existing one, not one who merely exists, which might connote a time this being did not exist.

In John 8:58, then, to translate the Greek present indicative (ego eimi) to "I exist" (or even "I existed") would not only miss what Jesus was saying, but would also just be inaccurate: "ego eimi," as present indicative of "to be," which, simply, is "I am," just as it is in English.

This said, it seemed to me that Esperanto could also have used the present indicative "mi estas," but apparently this won't work? If that's the case, then, it seems that "ekzistas" doesn't capture the essence of the present indicative of the Greek (or English, for that matter).

Or does "ekzistas" mean more than just merely to exist in John 8:58? I'd really like to capture the nuance of this word used in this passage.

Thanks,

Starkman

erinja:Parallel texts are a great way to learn. Also, it's easy to find the Esperanto Bible online, and some online Bible viewers will let you look at two translations side by side, so that's really helpful.

Olive Tree offers a free bible reader cell phone app and an Esperanto translation. It also offers an option to view two translations at once. They offer lots of other free translations too.

Donniedillon:

erinja:Parallel texts are a great way to learn. Also, it's easy to find the Esperanto Bible online, and some online Bible viewers will let you look at two translations side by side, so that's really helpful.

[url=olive Tree.com]Olive Tree[/url] offers a free bible reader cell phone app and an Esperanto translation. It also offers an option to view two translations at once. They offer lots of other free translations too.

Hey Donniedillon,

The Olivetree link isn't working!

Thanks,

Starkman

Starkman:
If someone asks in English, "Are you going to the store?" the answer, "I am" is sufficient. But you're saying it would not be acceptable in Esperanto to answer "Mi estas"?

No, you wouldn't say that in Esperanto, and you wouldn't say that in other languages, as f.e. in the german. The answer is simply: Jes
.
I wonder if not "I exist" is also a better translation for the english bible than "I am", because "I am" can also mean, as you wrote: "I am going to the store".
.
Perhaps instead of "Mi estas" or "Mi ekzistas" a better translation is: Mi ĉiamas
.
The meaning of ekzisti is: to exist, to be there, to live. I think that is comparable to the english word, isn't it?

Starkman:

Donniedillon:
Olive Tree offers a free bible reader cell phone app and an Esperanto translation. It also offers an option to view two translations at once. They offer lots of other free translations too.

Hey Donniedillon,

The Olivetree link isn't working!

This is the correct link. I also corrected the link above.