Iyov took a swipe at Dennis Danielson’s Paradise
Lost: Parallel Prose Edition a few weeks ago. At the time, I thought I
could take the
following comment at face value:
[A] leading “academic” has now endorsed a watering-down of Paradise Lost.
But that’s not the case. This excellent review by Ben Myers has the goods. On the contrary, Danielson’s volume is a tour de force. It is, in the context of Bible translation, an argument in favor of a diglot Greek-English edition of the New Testament. How so? The average student, after reading Danielson’s prose version of Paradise Lost, can go back to the original and make sense out of it without further explanation. I find that to be the case in reading the Greek New Testament alongside REB. This is what I mean.
My Greek is reasonably good, at the same
level as my Miltonic English. In short, I read the Greek, and here and there a
question mark remains. I read REB, return to the Greek, and it all makes sense
without further explanation. For example, Romans 3:21-22:
νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου
δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται
μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν
δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή
But now,
quite independently of law,
though with
the law and the prophets bearing witness to it,
the
righteousness of God has been made known;
it is
effective through faith in Christ
for all who
have such faith –
all, without distinction.
REB is better than any other English
translation I know of in this sense. For the same purpose, NRSV, NAB, and NJB
on the one hand and ESV, (T)NIV, and HCSB on the other are good second choices.
KJV, NKJV, and NASB are too wooden. NLT1, NLT2, CEV, and NCV are too free and,
I think it’s fair to say, indulge in simplification.
What options do you have if your Greek is not
as good as your Miltonic English? Here’s the answer you hoped you’d never hear.
I stand by it just the same: none. You might as well stick to REB for the New
Testament, or one of the good second choices listed above.
Back to Danielson’s Paradise Lost.
Danielson is, one assumes, an evangelical. He teaches at Regent College in
Vancouver BC. Two strikes against him from Iyov’s point of view. Despite Iyov,
who seems to think slander in the name of a worthy cause is justified (as do
one or two other bloggers I know), Danielson is an acclaimed scholar. Iyov’s
conclusion that Danielson’s prose version dumbs down Milton’s poetry is also
misleading. Ben says:
This prose translation may actually help readers to stay closer to the
text than they would when their reading is mediated by a clutter of scholarly
footnotes and interpretive comments. In spite of the inherent limitations of
prose, and in spite of the ways in which Milton’s style eludes any single
rendering, Danielson nevertheless succeeds remarkably in drawing your attention
back to the shape of the narrative action and to the structure of Milton’s own
language.
Look at the examples Ben gives, and judge for
yourself.
The ideal translation of the Bible in my book
is not one that simplifies and paraphrases the source text with the
unattainable goal of allowing “the modern reader to hear the text in the same
way the original readers heard it” (Mark Strauss). An excellent
translation of the Bible will be intelligible on its own, stretch the resources
of the English language beyond the bounds of “normal, idiomatic English”
in the interests of bridging the distance separating one cultural context from
another, and, in the process, draw attention back to the argument, structure,
and language of the source text.
Danielson does all of these things for
Milton. He cannot be accused of writing “in the most natural English of any
version” Field-test his prose: it would not pass muster with champions of
“normal, idiomatic English.”
It is not the case, as Iyov suggests, that
Danielson’s prose version prioritizes naturalness of expression over
faithfulness to the structure and language of the original. This sets his work
apart from DE translations’ claim to fame, their natural English. The obsession
with naturalness DE translations are noted for is the very reason they cannot
be said to be faithful to the structure, style, and register of the original.
It astounds me that CEV, the most famous DE
translation on the market, is praised by
linguists like Wayne Leman. In passage after passage, the only thing CEV has
going for it is its natural English. That is not enough. In my next post, I
will document my concerns.
Excellent post, John!
Very well put:
"An excellent translation of the Bible will be intelligible on its own, stretch the resources of the English language beyond the bounds of “normal, idiomatic English” in the interests of bridging the distance separating one cultural context from another, and, in the process, draw attention back to the argument, structure, and language of the source text."
I suspect DE translators (and Wayne too) will say they want just that "sometimes" -- but they want to have their cake and to nibble at it too. Thus they will say "I'm a pragmatist, too, not a 100% DE translator" or "Let the field test decide when we ought to go out of bounds beyond" -- which is like what C. S. Lewis's modernists do: "We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
Posted by: J. K. Gayle | December 19, 2008 at 06:13 AM
I'll give you that the CEV does simplify things - but a few of those other translations don't indulge in simplification, so much as turn hypotactic Greek in to paratactic English.
This isn't to say that they're accurate all the time, but then neither is the REB.
Posted by: Mike Aubrey | December 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Hi Mike,
CEV and NCV simplify and for that reason are marketed to children.
NLT1 and NLT2 tend to simplify by reducing figures of speech and metaphors to abstract propositions. I have provided examples of this tendency on other occasions.
That's what happens when you prioritize clarity over resonance and allusiveness. You lobotomize poetry and figures of speech in the process of disambiguation.
Posted by: JohnFH | December 19, 2008 at 12:38 PM
That's true, but in my experience, no translation doesn't lobotomize poetry - either of creative meaning or in propositional meaning.
No translation, not even ones that haven't been made yet, can stand up to the standard you've created.
Posted by: Mike Aubrey | December 19, 2008 at 01:22 PM
Mike,
BTW I plan to link to your objective genitive posts in an upcoming post. Excellent work.
All goals worthy of the name can only be approached asymptotically. I remain convinced that a metaphor-for-metaphor translation is a worthy goal, one that NLT and other translations on the DE side of the continuum in particular have not pursued.
Posted by: JohnFH | December 19, 2008 at 01:31 PM
I remain convinced that a metaphor-for-metaphor translation is a worthy goal, one that NLT and other translations on the DE side of the continuum in particular have not pursued.
Agreed, it is a worthy goal. Is it possible? I don't know. We translators are traitors after all (its it better in Italian?).
I will look forward to your comments on this genitive debate.
Posted by: Mike Aubrey | December 19, 2008 at 02:12 PM
Traduttori, traditori. But it's still possible to make headway, one figure of speech / metaphor at a time.
Posted by: JohnFH | December 19, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Thanks for this excellent post. Just to clarify one detail: Danielson isn't at Regent College; he's Professor and Head of English at the University of British Columbia.
Thanks again!
Posted by: Ben Myers | December 19, 2008 at 05:24 PM
Thanks for the correction, Ben. One more proof that Iyov cannot always be taken at face value.
According to Regent's website, Danielson is on their board. He must at least be sympathetic to Regent and its educational goals.
Posted by: JohnFH | December 19, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Oh yes, I'm sure that's true.
Posted by: Ben Myers | December 19, 2008 at 07:32 PM