English
14 January 2010
I’ve been doing a lot of reading recently on the subject of translation and, more specifically, Bible translation. So I thought I would talk about the things I’ve been reading about. I’ll also be giving some links to some good reading materials.
I expect to be writing rather often on this subject over a period of time, so I’ll start now with some introductory remarks.
First I’ll say that the existence of so many Bible translations currently available is an asset, not a liability. In other words, I believe that though there may be something lost by not having a universally accepted English translation, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. I would be hesitant about starting an entirely new English translation project, since after all there are so many translations out there, but in general the ones that exist are a boon, not a bane.
Second, I’ll point out the pitfall of referring to ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations. There are several problems associated with this idea:
- There is a sort of idea that ‘a literal translation equals an accurate translation’. Of course it’s true that an accurate translation will resemble the form of the original in places. But the form of the original is not itself the meaning. Otherwise we’d all be using interlinear translations.
- Various translations describe their translation philosophies in prefaces. All translations seem to tout their particular philosophy as the most balanced one. From the ESV’s ‘essentially literal’ marketing slogan to the HCSB’s ‘optimal equivalence’ and the NIV and NLT’s explanation of why they did things right, it’s clear that all translators think they’ve struck the right balance between accuracy, clarity, naturalness and beauty.
- Some translations claim to be ‘literal’. But really, the word ‘literal’ has to be very carefully defined. In every translation described as ‘literal’, meaning always has the trump card over form. As I mentioned in the last bullet point, there is always a balance. The ‘literal’ translations simply have that balance tending toward the form of the original. At the heart of it, there’s no philosophical difference between a ‘literal’ and a ‘meaning-based’ translation—they’re all meaning-based at the heart of it.
Last week I read a really good paper by Mark Strauss, called ‘Form, Function, and the “Literal Meaning” Fallacy in Bible Translation’. I like the paper partly because it addressed two things that I’ve always felt but never really seen expressed:
- The rule of thumb ‘as literal as possible, as free as necessary’ is flawed because it has form and not meaning as its goal. Strauss’s restatement of the rule as ‘Translate the meaning; follow the form when it promotes this goal’ is just what I’ve been thinking for some months now.
- As Strauss said, ‘words normally have only one sense in any particular context’. I’ve been bothered by the Amplified Bible because it tries to hard to find nuances in the original that really aren’t there. Instead of reading a sentence, understanding the meaning and trying to express that meaning accurately and clearly into English, the Amplified Bible takes the approach of looking at each word and putting into English every one of the meanings the word can possibly have. This is fallacious. Finally I’ve read someone who agrees with me on that!
So stay tuned in the next weeks to read what spills from my mind onto the keyboard. Please comment if you have something to contribute, or if you have a question, or if you disagree with something I say.
Leave a reply