Faithful Bible Translation

The conversation around Bible translation continues. Is it appropriate for a translation to be faithful to the stylistic choices of the original (Iyov’s formulation)? Which currently available formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence translations seek to be faithful to the stylistic choices of the original? To what extent are they successful? Significant areas of agreement have emerged. In this post, I try to highlight them.

The premise of the discussion deserves repeating. It was supplied by Rich Rhodes in a post of April 2006: “We do need to talk about the difference between the lies of literal translations and the lies of dynamic equivalent translations. All translations lie (since I’ve gotten us stuck with that metaphor).”

This is an essential premise, because, as Rich can also say, as part of the team at the Better Bibles blog, “In fact, this whole blog is about showing that literal translations effectively lie to us.” Okay, but it might be more productive to concentrate on understanding the ways in which dynamic equivalent translations lie, if that is the translation technique of choice. Otherwise, the discussion is about scoring points for one’s side, not about producing better Bibles.

Point-scoring aside, agreements have emerged in the discussion of the past few days:

(1) A dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) of the Bible should be no less accomplished, rhetorically speaking, than the source texts it renders.

Peter Kirk assented to this principle, while noting that it should also be no more accomplished. This leads me to mention a second and even broader area of agreement:

(2) A dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) of the Bible should respect the style and register of the original language texts it translates.

Wayne Leman puts it this way: “I fully agree with the idea that a DE translation should have the same level of literary quality as that of its source text.”

The point is put very colorfully by Rich Rhodes, but also relativized, as follows: “If I had my druthers would I like to see the GNB upgraded for stylistic appropriateness? You bet. But do I use it? All the time. But then I like first order referential accuracy.”

In my view, the question of first order referential accuracy is the nub of the whole question (see his post for an illuminating discussion). But I differ with Rich about how accurate GNB is in this sense. It is my considered opinion that GNB, CEV, and the like are so concerned about second order referential accuracy that they often fail to achieve first order referential accuracy. In terms of Rich’s excellent example, where the original language text has something like “Ouch!” GNB too often has something like “It hurts me” instead.

Indeed, I would argue that first-order referential accuracy is unlikely to be achieved if the stylistic choices of the original are not respected.

The debate has been hamstrung to some extent because of the thesis I began with:

If a text is literary, its dynamic equivalent must also be literary.

That led some people to conclude that I thought the original language texts of the Bible are written in a uniform literary style. Nothing was further from my thoughts. It is the leveling to an identical, monotonous style and register which has long characterized Bible translation. It is this leveling I protest.

Doug Chaplin put the discussion on the right track by showing us what a “literary” translation of a non-literary text might look like. By “literary” he means “stylistically equivalent.” His translation of Mark 1:19-22 (note also the ensuing comments) deserves careful consideration. To my mind, it marks an improvement over previously available so-called formal and so-called dynamic equivalent translations.

Theory is nice, but practice is more revealing. The translation I offered of Psalm 51 attracted many helpful comments (here, here, and here), especially those made by Wayne Leman. But I want to highlight Rich Rhodes’ remark on my translation: “[T]he way you're approaching this, is, I would argue, dynamic equivalence. You are concerned about balancing naturalness with referential accuracy and phrasing it in the corresponding style.” Indeed, that is precisely what I’m trying to do.

Lingamish, who likes to claim to be a bone-head but isn’t, put matters nicely in the form of two maxims:

1. A truly literary translation will suggest the foreignness of the original without being incomprehensible.

2. A literary translation will not be literary in ways that the original is not.

Of course, there will always be differences of opinion about how literary a particular text is. Peter Kirk seems to have trouble accepting that much of the Hebrew Bible is written in literary Hebrew. He is welcome to his opinion. But the consensus goes in the other direction, and those who share it will perforce translate the bulk of the Hebrew Bible into a variety of rhetorically accomplished, literary styles if indeed they choose to translate in a way that respects the stylistic choices of the source texts.

Finally, I would like to point out what I consider to be red herrings in the discussion. The claim is sometimes made that since the message of the Bible is communicated if presented at the level a 6^th grader can understand, then that is the level it should be translated at.

Well yes, for those who read at a 6^th grade level. What about those of us who read at a 10^th, 11^th, or 12^th grade level? Those of us who do will naturally prefer translations like NJPSV, NRSV, REB, or NJB rather than (T)NIV or HCSB, and we will be quite non-plussed by GNB, CEV, and NCT. NJPSV, NRSV, REB, and NJB make use of the full range of vocabulary the English language offers.

On the other hand, as I have pointed out often on this blog, even a translation like NJPSV or NRSV tends to smooth out and simplify the texture of the original. Far less so than GNB, CEV, and so on, but they still do.

But the larger point is another. None of the standard, mass-marketed translations currently available aims at stylistic and rhetorical equivalence with the same doggedness as Doug does with his translation of Mark 1:19-22 and as I do with my translation of Psalm 51.

A few precedents are nonetheless worthy of note. In the case of the Hebrew Bible, the translator who has worked the hardest on “balancing naturalness with referential accuracy and phrasing it in the corresponding style” (Rich Rhodes’ formulation) has been Robert Alter. It’s been awhile since I looked at it, but I think Richard Lattimore’s translation of the New Testament was moving in the right direction. Lattimore had an advantage over most translators of NT Greek. He was widely read in the classics, with an ear for style those who are illiterate in the classics simply do not possess. But he was fastidious about being faithful to the stylistic choices of the New Testament writers. He never classicized.

Comments

[J. K. Gayle]

Cheers to you, John, for sifting through the salient (and most critical) points of the conversation on "Faithful Bible Translation."

And, yes, three cheers to the late Richmond Lattimore (translator, classicist, poet, and third culture kid born & raised in China by American parents) who dared to read Homer and the NT writers.

Another as brave as Lattimore is Willis Barnstone (translator; anthologist; poet; Jewish son of Polish immigrants to America; and teacher in Greece during the Civil War, in Argentina during the Dirty War, and in China during the Cultural Revolution). Barnstone dares to read the NT as a Jew. (See first The Poetics of Translation: History, Theory, Practice and second, at least: The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament).

And thanks, John, for thrice acknowledging things "rhetorical" in your post on "Bible" translation. Those of us who work on that other shore (the small society of "classical rhetoric") appreciate the bridges. Whether from Aristotle or his Homer, from the NT or its LXX, from my Goldilocks monologue to yall's dialogue, I know some of us very much benefit from the wider conversations! (FYI, "yall's" is untranslated Texan for "that belonging to or possessed by all of you").

helpful thoughtful post, as usual!

[JohnFH]

J.K., thanks very much for your comments. You seem to be an encyclopedia Brown. What a blessing to have you around.

[Wayne Leman]

Which currently available formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence translations seek to be faithful to the stylistic choices of the original?

I don't think any of the "mainstream" translations do. (Although in his own way, Peterson does do genre correspondence pretty well in The Message.)

I'm not sure if Alter does this with stylistic choices or just with more limited formal features such as consistent translation of Hebrew waw by "and" (which I do not consider accurate, since it doesn't take into consideration the different meanings waw has in different contexts). I haven't read his translation of Psalms yet, which I need to do.

I hunger for a translation which is not only accurate and uses natural English, but also reflects original biblical text style. I find it very difficult to read versions which use unnatural English. I have a strongly negative visceral response to them. I *know* that it is possible to have our naturalness cake and eat it (style and accuracy), too! :-)

[JohnFH]

Wayne,

I agree with you about Alter and his consistent translation of the Hebrew conjunction vav. It doesn't work for me either. I don't know of any translation out there that captures the wondrous connective flow of classical Hebrew prose in a natural and consistent way. But I don't people have tried hard enough yet either.

I really appreciated your comments on my translation of Ps 51 in which you nudge me toward greater naturalness. It often is possible to reach a higher degree of naturalness with an extra effort.

Excellent translation, I find, is hard work.

[J. K. Gayle]

John, Wayne, Iyov, Rich, Peter, Wayne, Doug, and any of you other Bible translators:

(Where) do you find yourself in Willis Barnstone's schema? I've just copied it into a post: "Willis Barnstone on (Y)OUR Translation Approach"

Best regards,
Kurk (aka J.K. Gayle)

[Peter Kirk]

Thanks, John, for this summary of the debate.

The claim is sometimes made that since the message of the Bible is communicated if presented at the level a 6th grader can understand, then that is the level it should be translated at.

Has anyone claimed that? I certainly haven't claimed that. I simply objected that you called translations targeted at 6th graders "improperly done".

Of course if you want to explore "the full range of vocabulary the English language offers" you will end up using words like "prolixity" which send to their dictionaries even majors in the English regiment like Lingamish.

From the little I have seen of Alter's translation I have not seen much “balancing naturalness with referential accuracy and phrasing it in the corresponding style”, a lot more sacrificing naturalness in order to preserve original language stylistic features.

[JohnFH]

Nothing wrong with having to go to the dictionary once in awhile. A stock question I get is, "how many languages do you know?" I always reply, "I'm still learning English."

There are unnatural aspects to Alter's translation technique: Wayne pointed out the most obvious example. But his work is also chock full of felicitous renderings.

[Hetty Grain]

Hi there,

I am look for the biblical translation for the following Quote from Philippians 4:13 - "I can do everything through him who gives me strength". For a tattoo.

Many thanks.

[Sarah]

Similar to the posting above, I'm looking for the reference "Hebrews 12: 1-3" translated into Hebrew for a tattoo.

These are my favorite versus and since all of the wording won't fit I'd like to have the reference. Thanks for any assistance that can be provided!

[jenny]

Hi,

Could you please translate the following verse into biblical hebrew

God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.
BIBLE, 1 Corinthians 10:13