Posted by: Nick Norelli | April 22, 2008

Pondering Translation

We all know that there’s no such thing as a completely literal translation (unless perhaps we consider the dreaded Concordant Literal New Testament or maybe and interlinear).  Just about all translations end up mixing dynamic and formal equivalency to varying degrees.  But I was just thinking about the Aramaic Targums and the Septuagint, and how free they were with their translation.  Indeed, we could certainly call large portions of the LXX paraphrases, and the Targums would fit that description as well.  So I’m wondering, if paraphrases, or less formally equivalent translations, were what the ancients preferred, why don’t we? (or do we?)  It’s quite common, dare I say almost intuative, to paraphrase a text, even at times when we have the text right in front of us.  We naturally seek to give those we are communicating with the sense of the text rather than the exact letter, don’t we? 

What say you?

B”H

Posted in Scripture

« Happy Freakin’ Earth Day!!!
Super-Long Meme »

Responses

I think you’re right Nick. I think they realized there is no text without interpretation and didn’t try t act like they were just some neutral passer-ons delivering a text they had no vested interest in. This is one of the reasons that I’m fine with both translation (as opposed to original language) and paraphrasing or even contemporizing an ancient text.

Bryan

By: Bryan L on April 22, 2008
at 8:34 pm

I’m not keen on paraphrases or really free translations. If you have two paraphrases using opposing idioms for a phrase from the source language, which one is the true word of God? I have tried to make myself read the NLT recently and at some point I usually become frustrated by the translation and close it.

By: Nathan Stitt on April 22, 2008
at 8:57 pm

Bryan: I agree, as long as the message isn’t changed.

Nathan: I love the NLT! My thing is this, if paraphrases were still considered the word of God by the ancients, then why should we consider them any less? I think what matters most is that God’s message is communicated.

By: Nick Norelli on April 22, 2008
at 9:00 pm

I think what matters most is that God’s message is communicated.

Bingo! The message is in the meaning, not the words. Whatever it takes to get the message across, I’m cool with.

And, yes, my Bible preferences have evolved up from formal translations to functional ones.

By: ElShaddai Edwards on April 22, 2008
at 9:18 pm

blabbity blabbity blab bblah. ya’ll sound just like a bunch o-lads who just don’t want to learn hebrew and greek and aramaic and are trying to excuse yourselves and rationalize you behavior.

By: Jim on April 22, 2008
at 9:50 pm

Jim: Oh, don’t worry, I plan to learn the languages; but when I teach or preach, I won’t be doing it in those languages. The question then becomes, what’s the best way to communicate the message to my audience?

BTW, “blabbity blabbity blab bblah” was a fine paraphrase of your entire comment. ;)

By: Nick Norelli on April 22, 2008
at 10:07 pm

I guess I haven’t read what you read in the LXX, but most of what I’ve read has not been “free” in any meaningful sense…

As for me, I do like very free translations when they are good. Literal translation techniques are often poor on meaning.

By: Eric Sowell on April 24, 2008
at 11:44 pm

Eric: I’m not sure that I know what you mean by “meaningful” but I had specifically in mind the book of Isaiah.

I was first alerted to the differences between the Hebrew and Greek of Isaiah a couple of years ago by my friend Nachman, who is an Israeli and native Hebrew speaker. He studied for years in Yeshiva before becoming a Christian and moving to America, where he earned his Master’s at Creighton University in Nebraska. There he studied Greek and Patristics. In any event, he compared the LXX of Isaiah to the various Targumim.

Brenton said in the introduction to his translation of the LXX:

The variety of translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Penteteuch is considered to be the part the best exceuted, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the very worst. (The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rpt. 2003), iii).

I can’t get my hands on it because it’s way too expensive, but you might want to check out the work of Isac Leo Seeligmann. Mohr Siebeck just put out a volume called The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies a couple of years ago. This is a re-release of Seeligmann’s work with a couple of additional essays added. You can check out the RBL review here.

By: Nick Norelli on April 25, 2008
at 12:37 am

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories