This might be a hard blog to read because of the content and length. Sorry :)
Bible Translation is a highly undervalued art. To add insult to injury, some people (e.g. KJV Fundamentalists) are highly critical and suspicious of Bible Translation. I think this stems from a poor understanding of what exactly Bible Translation is.
Bible Translation is the process of taking the Biblical Text and converting it into another language. Because language is constantly evolving, Bible Translation will always be necessary until God intervenes and breaks the curse of Babel. Bible Translation takes a high level of skill and training. There are a variety of methods to doing Bible Translation, and they exist on a sort of continuum.
This picture sort of illustrates my point. On the left side is what translators call a more "wooden" translation, sticking closer to a literalistic (as my Hebrew professor calls it), word-for-word, functional translation. The farther left you go, the more probable it is that you will see adverbial participles rendered in a temporal manner, less gender sensitivity, and more ambiguity in the text. The farther left you go, the more Greek and Hebrew it will sound, even if it has English words with it. On the right side is the more free translations. The more right you go, the more interpretation is done. Translators will interpret genitive ambiguities, such as the term αγαπη θεου. This means "love of God." But does it mean God's love for us, or our love for God? Free translations look at the context to decide, and place their interpretation as the translation. Free translations are also more likely to include gender neutrality and interpret participles. They actually sound like English rather than Greek and Hebrew put into English. This picture does not exactly represent the middle very well, but in my studies, we've called the general middle section dynamic translations. These translations seek the middle way between free and functional translations.
This is the difficulty of Bible Translation: should we be more literalistic, and word-for-word, thus perhaps forsaking intelligibility, or should we focus on intelligibility and perhaps (unknowingly) interpret the text wrongly? Or should we seek to find some middle ground between the two paths? This is the blessing of English. Because there are so many translations, you can decide which translation method is best for you and pick a Bible from that translation camp.
As an example, we can use 1 Peter 5:10, which I just translated for my Greek 4 class.
More to follow, thanks for reading.
Bible Translation is a highly undervalued art. To add insult to injury, some people (e.g. KJV Fundamentalists) are highly critical and suspicious of Bible Translation. I think this stems from a poor understanding of what exactly Bible Translation is.
Bible Translation is the process of taking the Biblical Text and converting it into another language. Because language is constantly evolving, Bible Translation will always be necessary until God intervenes and breaks the curse of Babel. Bible Translation takes a high level of skill and training. There are a variety of methods to doing Bible Translation, and they exist on a sort of continuum.
This picture sort of illustrates my point. On the left side is what translators call a more "wooden" translation, sticking closer to a literalistic (as my Hebrew professor calls it), word-for-word, functional translation. The farther left you go, the more probable it is that you will see adverbial participles rendered in a temporal manner, less gender sensitivity, and more ambiguity in the text. The farther left you go, the more Greek and Hebrew it will sound, even if it has English words with it. On the right side is the more free translations. The more right you go, the more interpretation is done. Translators will interpret genitive ambiguities, such as the term αγαπη θεου. This means "love of God." But does it mean God's love for us, or our love for God? Free translations look at the context to decide, and place their interpretation as the translation. Free translations are also more likely to include gender neutrality and interpret participles. They actually sound like English rather than Greek and Hebrew put into English. This picture does not exactly represent the middle very well, but in my studies, we've called the general middle section dynamic translations. These translations seek the middle way between free and functional translations.
This is the difficulty of Bible Translation: should we be more literalistic, and word-for-word, thus perhaps forsaking intelligibility, or should we focus on intelligibility and perhaps (unknowingly) interpret the text wrongly? Or should we seek to find some middle ground between the two paths? This is the blessing of English. Because there are so many translations, you can decide which translation method is best for you and pick a Bible from that translation camp.
As an example, we can use 1 Peter 5:10, which I just translated for my Greek 4 class.
- Greek
- ὁ δὲ θεὸς πάσης χάριτος, ὁ καλέσας ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐν Χριστῷ, ὀλίγον παθόντας αὐτὸς καταρτίσει, στηρίξει, σθενώσει, θεμελιώσει.
- My Translation
- "And though you suffer a little while, the God of all grace, who called you into his eternal glory in the realm of Christ, he himself will restore you, support you, strengthen you, and steady you."
- Looking at my translation, you can see that I prefer a more free translation; I like to interpret a little more, but it's my own translation and I believe everyone does some sort of interpretation, even when they read an ambiguous sentence in English. As you can see, I place the participial phrase "ὀλίγον παθόντας,"(though you suffer a little while) at the beginning of the sentence in English, in order to connect God to the actions that he will do in the future. Further, I interpret the dative ἐν Χριστῷ to be a dative of sphere: this is why I put "in the realm of Christ."
- Functional Translation (NASB)
- "After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you."
- This functional approach still seems to contain some "free-ness" in it: the translators moved word order as I did in order to connect God to his later actions. Thus, "after you have suffered...the God of all grace..." rather than "the God of all grace...after you have suffered...". In a functional fashion though, the translators kept the participial phrase ὀλίγον παθόντας as a temporal participle rather than interpreting it as a concessive participial as I did. Note also that the NASB translators opted to keep the dative ἐν Χριστῷ vague here, "in Christ," rather than interpreting it as a dative of sphere as I did.
- Free Translation (NLT)
- "In his kindness God called you to share in his eternal glory by means of Christ Jesus. So after you have suffered a little while, he will restore, support, and strengthen you, and he will place you on a firm foundation."
- This free translation did all sorts of things. I don't even know where to begin.
- Dynamic Translation (HCSB)
- "Now the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ Jesus, will personally restore, establish, strengthen, and support you after you have suffered a little."
- This dynamic translation keeps "God of all grace" fronted, in the beginning of the sentence. The HCSB translators still change word order a little, placing ὀλίγον παθόντας at the end of the sentence rather than in the middle, as it is in Greek. The HCSB leaves ἐν Χριστῷ vague and translated the adverbial participle in a temporal manner as the functional approach did. In a free manner, the HCSB says that God will "personally" do all these things, rather than that he "himself" will do all these things.
More to follow, thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment