What A Literal Translation Does Make
I have long been bothered by claims that a literal translation is one whose word count will most closely approximate the word count of the original. It is the appeal of one word for one word, and even worse, always the same word for the one word whenever possible.
It has long seemed to me is that articulating a desire for a translation that changes as little of the text as possible betrays a flawed understanding of translation. What seems blatantly obvious to me is that the desire to change as little of the text as possible is a desire that comes not from good translation theory but from a theological assertion regarding not altering the exact words of holy scripture as we have received them.
3 comments:
There are many good practical reasons for using a formal equivalent version. For one thing, all formal equivalent versions tend to be fairly similar, so if you find yourself in a church using a different version is will still be fairly similar.
Another reason is that there is less interpretation between you and the original author. While a more dynamic version might be more understandable, it may convey less of the subtleties of the original, and it may rule out alternative understandings present in the original that a more formal equivalent version would transmit.
Many times when one finds a difficult to understand passage in the formal equivalent which is easy to understand when dynamic, the real fact is that the original Greek is tricky, ambiguous or difficult.
Also, a formal equivalent version may convey more of the original tenses to the reader. While this may make the text a little more stilted than a free translation, it can tell you more about some subtleties of the original.
Thanks for the good points, the "ambiguity" factor especially. My preferred translation approach is remain as vague as is the text. To make clear what is semantically unclear parallels the desire to make simple what is theologically complex. I do not agree that word-to-word adherence is the best way to establish that congruent ambiguity.
My primary point was not that "formal equivalent" translations shouldn't be used. It is that their word-to-word approach does not necessarily make them the most "literal" translations by nature.
Formal equivalent versions are good to have indeed as a tool for doing (comparative) exegetical work. This is still something different from it being a good translation.
As for preserving tenses (and the buzz topic would be gender), the wish for preserving in the translation what we arbitrarily designate as the same grammatical feature in a modern language is odd. A Greek Aorist tense is not the same thing as an English Past tense (nor is a gender designation in Greek always equivalent to a gender designation in English).
These are just my thoughts.
JOE: a gender designation in Greek always equivalent to a gender designation in English
OR: Let's take the gender issue. Sometimes Greek masculine may imply both genders. Other times it does not. The trouble is, it is a matter of judgment which is which.
So the argument goes, we need to make English more correct by inserting inclusive language to make it accurate to the Greek. But then nobody can agree on which passages fall into which categories.
If you only change the passages that you feel definitely should be both genders, it is as if you have passed judgment on the others that they are not both genders.
There's no winning by going down this road. Why not leave the genders masculine and educate the reader? (If we even need education, I don't think masculine English is really as different to Greek as some PC forces want to tell us).
Aorist is not the same as past tense: Sure, you can't be entirely mechanical about it. On the other hand, many English translations feel free to use any tense they feel like if it conveys what the translator thinks is the important point.
JOE: Formal equivalent versions are good to have indeed as a tool for doing (comparative) exegetical work. This is still something different from it being a good translation.
OR: Exegetical as opposed to... what? Liturgical or general use? But most people get their understandings from scripture from the latter, not from formal exegesis. Is it more noble to get the most from scripture in formal exegesis than normal use?
JOE: I do not agree that word-to-word adherence is the best way to establish that congruent ambiguity.
OR: It's extremely hard to get the exact same form of ambiguity with a different sentence structure as the original. Besides which, I'm yet to see a dynamic version that even sees ambiguity as a virtue. Even some of the so-called formal versions are guilty of rearranging the sentence in a way that rules out ambiguity.
Post a Comment