Is Literary Translation Possible?

Thanks to a comment Rich Rhodes left on a Doug Chaplin post, I found myself clicking through to an insightful piece he wrote in April of this year.

In this post, I will butter Rich up by counting the ways in which I find his reflections of help to translators and to Bible translators in particular. I will then throw him in the oven and roast him by taking issue with his basic thesis.

Rich claims that literary translation is impossible, and enlists José Ortega y Gasset to make his point. He also claims that translation between living languages today invariably makes use of dynamic equivalence translation technique, whereas Bible translators, Neanderthals that they are, insist on making use of discredited literal and literary translation techniques. In response, I will make a case for carefully annotated literary translations à la Robert Alter. 

A most excellent thing about Rich Rhodes is that he writes in completely understandable prose. This is not a minor detail. There are days when I think: life is short; why even bother engaging people who can’t write crisply and clearly? But even on days when I think like that, I would still read Rich with pleasure.

Rich is right on when he says: “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).” He also chooses a great example in his Better Bibles post: how to translate Ἰουδαῖοι in John 7:11, 13. I believe he is entirely correct, whatever J. I. Packer might think (which I can’t quite figure out from Rich’s references), when he points out that in these instances, the term refers, in the concrete, to “Jewish leaders.”

In a translation free of annotation, it would be wise to translate as Rich suggests. In a literary translation of the kind José Ortega y Gasset desired – and which I desire, it would be important, on the contrary, to translate “Jews,” and add a footnote to the following effect: ‘Jews’ refers, in the concrete, to Jewish leaders. The usage is not unlike that someone from Wales or Northern Ireland might make of the term ‘the British’; that is, the term has negative connotations and refers in context to others even though the speaker herself may in fact be British.

Why maintain ‘Jews’ in translation? Because it preserves a particularity of the original, to wit: a prima facie inclusive term is used in a restrictive sense. The usage is a reflection of the fierce intramural debate that was occurring among ‘Jews’ of different persuasions at the time the gospel of John was written. Insofar as the gospel testifies to the expulsion of Jews who understood Jesus to be such things as son of God, Messiah, and God-in-the-flesh from mainstream synagogue life, the debate was clearly moving to a definitive parting of the ways. That explains the use in context of ‘the Jews’ in John 7:11, 13.

The usage is burdened with some very heavy baggage. That’s precisely the point: a dynamic translation like ‘Jewish leaders’ hides this fact. To remove the baggage from the sight of a reader of the gospel in translation involves a mutilation. I can see why it might be done in a popular translation. But it should be obvious that a translation which retains the baggage of the original performs a service to anyone interested in more fully grasping the nuances of the original.

José Ortega y Gasset is more helpful here than Rich wishes to acknowledge. For Ortega, literary translation is no more possible / impossible than dynamic equivalent style translation (to the extent that they differ; it’s important not to play them off against each other completely). As Rich knows, Ortega was far from arguing for the point he wishes to make.

Ortega identifies two inevitable facets of translation, the “misery” and the “splendor” of which all translation partakes. Here is a fine summary of Ortega’s analysis by David R. Knechtges – I have copy-edited here and there:

In 1937 the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset published in the Argentine newspaper La Nación an article entitled “ La miseria y el esplendor de la traducción” (The Misery and Splendor of Translation). In this article Ortega y Gasset identifies two important facets of translation. One he calls “misery,” the other “splendor.” The “misery of translation” stems from the pessimistic proposition that except for scientific works, which basically are written in their own special language, it is impossible to translate from one language to another. The reason for this miserable state of affairs is that there is a vast linguistic and cultural gulf that separates different languages. “Languages separate us and discommunicate, not simply because they are different languages, but because they proceed from different mental pictures from disparate intellectual systems — in the last instance, from divergent philosophies.” Despite this ostensibly pessimistic view of translation, Ortega y Gasset is actually optimistic, for he sees in the process of translation a redeeming quality that he calls the “splendor of translation.” To him, a translation is not a “magic manipulation” from one language to another, or even a “duplicate of the original text,” but rather is one that draws attention to the cultural and linguistic differences in order to “force the reader from his linguistic habits and oblige him to move within those of the author.” Thus, a good translation is one that allows the reader to undertake a metaphorical “voyage to the foreign, to the absolutely foreign, which another very remote time and another very different civilization comprise.” This enhanced “historical consciousness” has the beneficial result — or in Ortega y Gasset's words, the “splendor” — of introducing new perspectives that may challenge conventional beliefs.

Sorry, Rich, but I’m with Ortega all the way.

It’s fine to emphasize, with someone like Lawrence Venuti, that translation is an ethnocentric act of violence which domesticates a foreign text and conceals itself ‘by producing the effect of transparency,’ which is, however, an ‘illusion.’ Your ‘All translations lie’ makes the same point.

But when all is said and done, it is wiser – as does María Teresa Sánchez in this fine piece - to place the discussion in a wider context, beyond the overheated language that characterizes the discussion today. Translation, like all art, is a lie. But, as Picasso put it, it is also, if it is any good at all, a lie that tells the truth.

The truth, furthermore, needs to meet us as a stranger. Its power to transform the familiar in our lives depends on its otherness coming through. An excellent literary translation accomplishes that. An excellent dynamic translation, in my experience, does not.

A literary translation, in order to be understood, will push the reader beyond the limits of his or her already acquired knowledge. It may have to be read and reread, perhaps with the aid of explanatory notes. A dynamic translation aims to be instantly comprehensible. Fine. But make no mistake: with fast food, you get what you pay for.

Comments

[Doug Chaplin]

Thanks for a thought provoking response to Rhodes, but I beg to demur ever so slightly.

[Site Translations]

Whenever a text is translated by a person, there will always be a certain level of subjectivity. As translators, we always debate between remaining truthful to the source text and adapting culturally so that the original can be understood by the target audience. Perfection will never be attained as long as there is a human filter, but the results will always be far more authentic than using automated translation software, which eliminates subjectivity but produces results that do not make any sense.

[JohnFH]

In the case of Bible translation, an option is to hew to the source text more than would be possible to be understood by the target audience, if explanatory notes were not added thereto.

[Peter Kirk]

Actually Rich wrote his post which you link to in April of last year, 2006. But the quotation is from his comment on Doug's post.

There is a fundamental way in which I think you and Rich are talking past each other. You write "Why maintain ‘Jews’ in translation?" as if the issue is whether an existing translation should be revised. There are indeed issues about how far a new translation should depart from a long standing translation tradition. But that is not Rich's point. Rather, he is asking whether this wording was ever properly justified, or was based on a misunderstanding of the subtleties of the Greek.

I commented elsewhere that I can understand Iyov preferring literary translation because he is coming at the Bible with a totally different perspective from mine. Similarly I suppose Ortega y Gasset. But I would expect you, as a more or less evangelical Christian, to have the same kind of perspective as me, namely that the purpose of reading the Bible is not to enjoy historical literature but to understand the inspired message which God has given to humanity. OK, that's a bit of an oversimplification. But if it is important to understand the message, we simply have no time for "allow[ing] the reader to undertake a metaphorical “voyage to the foreign, to the absolutely foreign, which another very remote time and another very different civilization comprise.”"

Yes, maybe by domesticating the Bible in translation we are telling "a lie that tells the truth". I could argue that the New Testament authors' use of the Old Testament justifies this approach. I believe that we not only should but are obliged to do this if we are to bring the gospel message to a lost and dying world.

The truth, furthermore, needs to meet us as a stranger. Its power to transform the familiar in our lives depends on its otherness coming through.

I'm sorry, I cannot disagree more. Well, I guess this might work with a small minority of intellectuals trained to read and understand what is strange. But for the great majority of readers the strange simply leaves them with lots of question marks, or else walking away from the texts.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Peter, for keeping the conversation going.

I'm all in favor of making Scripture comprehensible, but I'm not in favor of domesticating it. God's wisdom will always be foolish and scandalous in the eyes of the world. We can't save the world by minimizing the skandalon of God's word; I think you run that risk at times. But of course, we all do.

I don't want to downplay indigestible teaching of scripture, in translation or in subsequent interpretation. As it was for Ezekiel and St John the Divine, the word of God should sour your stomach before its taste becomes sweet as honey.

God's work, Isaiah says, is strange and alien to us. I'm not against the thought of someone like Helen Steiner Rice ("My God is no stranger"). But I think there is much more to being a believer than having good friends with which to have tea.

Offline I've been going back and forth with Rich Rhodes. Like Iyov, he believes a translation should be faithful to the style of the original. If the original is a literary text, a dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) should be literary in nature.

Do you agree?

[Stephen (aka Q)]

What a great post!

If I were choosing a translation for a new Christian, or an inquirer, I might very well choose a dynamic equivalence translation. But I always think it's a shame when people stay there forever. Let them confront the "oddness" of the biblical texts, as Brueggemann would put it.

I love your John 7:11,13 example:

"The usage [of Ἰουδαῖοι] is burdened with some very heavy baggage. That’s precisely the point: a dynamic translation like 'Jewish leaders' hides this fact."

Yes! Certainly mature Christians should be capable of tackling the language actually used by the biblical authors!

[Rich Rhodes]

I guess part of where we differ, John, comes from differences in the demands of NT translation and OT translation. Most of the NT is mundane language. Most of the OT is real literature (except maybe for the historical books). And, before you accuse me of being knee-jerk anti-literary (rather than just realistically pessimistic which is how I read Ortega), you should read my post from last January about nostalgia.

[JohnFH]

Rich, your "nostalgia" post is a great read.

But the NT is mixed in register, even if its style is predominantly mundane. An example: some NT authors use Septuagintalisms for effect. Another: though I've never really caught on to the structure of his argumentation (it's outside of my depth), it is said that Paul works within an identifiable rhetorical tradition. A competent DE translation would make the structure of Paul's argumentation as transparent to us as it was for his first readers. I continue to wait for such a translation.

Why the style of the synoptics is mundane was explored by Erich Auerbach (and we shouldn't forget Norden) in his masterful essay, "Fortunata."

You will see, if you look at my translation work, that I try to avoid the churchy language many of us treasure. Like you, I feel it sometimes obscures the source text's actual nuances.

[Peter Kirk]

If the original is a literary text, a dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) should be literary in nature.

Do you agree?

I agree with the argument, but not with the premise as applied to the Bible. See also my comment on your next post. I note that in your latest comment you at least recognise that there is a point here which needs to be argued rather than assumed.

As for the rest of this, I am working on a post on it for Better Bibles Blog.

[JohnFH]

I'm glad, Peter, that you are going to write further on this. Here is a Ben Witherington quote from his blog to sink your teeth into:

Most of the letters of the NT, with the exception of the very shortest ones (2-3 John, perhaps Philemon) look very little like the very mundane pragmatic epistolary literature of that era. In terms of both structure and content, most NT documents look far more like rhetorical speeches. Some are in fact straightforward sermons, ‘words of exhortation’ as the author of Hebrews calls his homily, some are more rhetorical speeches suitable for assemblies where discussion would then ensue (e.g. after dinner discussions at a symposium), but all are profitably analyzed in detail by means of rhetorical examination. Not only so, but micro-rhetoric clearly enough shapes: 1) the chreia in the Gospel; 2) the speech summaries in Acts; 3) the way portions of a book like Revelation is linked together by catchword and A,B,A structure (see Bruce Longenecker) as well. In other words, rhetoric is not just something that illuminates Paul and other portions of the ‘so-called epistolary corpus’ in the NT. It is a necessary tool for analyzing it all.

My point: a dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) of the NT should be no less accomplished, rhetorically speaking, than the source texts it renders.

[Peter Kirk]

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

I agree - but also no more so! In terms of the NT not being in literary style, I was thinking more in terms of language than of rhetorical structure. Nevertheless, the NT does not attempt (unlike much contemporary literature) to emulate the high literary style of classical Greece, so we should not try to emulate high literary style in our translations.

My BBB post is now here.

[asim saddique]

Dear Friend in Christ,

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

I have been going through the studies at your web site, and I am deeply inspired with all of the teachings and studies thereon like Bible studies and other teaching materials on our Web site. This is such a wonderful studies you have arranged for all the nations, in the long run of your service for the nations of the all the world.
I am from Islamic Republic of Pakistan where it is difficult to have Radio and TV channel for preaching purposes. They would not allow us to do that here; the Satan has real strong hold over everything. I often say that we are living in the land of the enemy.

Friend, I humbly request you to expand your outreach your program in Urdu and Punjabi language. Urdu is the language spoken and understood by more than one sixth of the total population of the world. Urdu is spoken in Pakistan, India, Nepal, Afghanistan and also in Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran and others.

I would ask you to pray and share it among the brethren. I would offer my services for being translator, recorder and distribution/sales. I pray that your consideration will have His mark over your decision.

May God bless you abundantly! May His perfect will be done!

Grace and Peace be with you, all brethrens.

Yours brother in Christ,
Asim
Pakistan

[Chariots of Fire 5]

I think it is important for people to learn how to read the Bible in its best literal translation possible, but it can be difficult for those just starting to read the Bible. I would have to agree with Stephen that it is easier to start with a dynamic equivalence translation, but after people get to understand the Bible more they should move on to a more literal translation and read the Bible as it was meant to be read.

Unfortunately, with all the translations there are always discrepancies. The only real way to read the Bible and get the correct translation is to learn the languages of the Bible and translate it for yourself.