Bible translations: literal or loose

[Ron_Conte]

The original Rheims Douai (late 1500’s to early 1600’s) is a very literal translation, with excellent notes.

Challoner’s translation (mid 1700’s) is still fairly literal, but noticeably looser.

The CPDV (my translation) is a little looser than Challoner in some places; in other places a bit more literal.

As time has passed, translations have become more and more loose, with translators taking ever more liberties with the text (rephrasing, inclusive language, dropping phrases and verses, etc.).

Now it is common for a loosely translated version to be called ‘literal’. This is a serious problem in Bible translations. It is made worse by the concepts of ‘formal equivalency’ versus ‘dynamic equivalency’. These concepts were devised by Eugene Nida, a Protestant who gathered and unified an number of theories of the linguists of his day and applied them to Bible translations. He favored dynamic equivalency, but he also understood that there are gradations between strict formal and entirely dynamic translations.

The modern use (or misuse) of these two terms often treats them as if these were two distinct options, not a gradation. And formal equivalency is denigrated, while dynamic equivalency is exalted.

Which type of equivalency is this?

The translation approach focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In such a translation, one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. The message in the receptor culture is constantly compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy and correctness. The translator attempts to reproduce as meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original.

 

[rdscheirer]

Who knows unless you are a scholar of the ancient Hebreww, Aramaic, and Greek?
We must leave it up to those who do the translations. I am a Surgeon (General) - can I really tell you all that can go wrong during an operation or post-op- of course not. My patients put their faith in me to do the best that I can. We put our faith in those that interpret the scriptures through out the ages through all the different languages.

In my studies I was happy to learn that when you ask the Lord for mercy- in the old Hebrew it is actually mercy and benificence. So the Old testament mercy asked for benefits as well as mercy. Why shouldn’t we ask God for benefits- it may not be what we want- but He gives us what we need- sometimes a kick in the b—.

 

[Jehuty_X]

The original Rheims Douai (late 1500’s to early 1600’s) is a very literal translation, with excellent notes.

Challoner’s translation (mid 1700’s) is still fairly literal, but noticeably looser.

The CPDV (my translation) is a little looser than Challoner in some places; in other places a bit more literal.

As time has passed, translations have become more and more loose, with translators taking ever more liberties with the text (rephrasing, inclusive language, dropping phrases and verses, etc.).

Now it is common for a loosely translated version to be called ‘literal’. This is a serious problem in Bible translations. It is made worse by the concepts of ‘formal equivalency’ versus ‘dynamic equivalency’. These concepts were devised by Eugene Nida, a Protestant who gathered and unified an number of theories of the linguists of his day and applied them to Bible translations. He favored dynamic equivalency, but he also understood that there are gradations between strict formal and entirely dynamic translations.

The modern use (or misuse) of these two terms often treats them as if these were two distinct options, not a gradation. And formal equivalency is denigrated, while dynamic equivalency is exalted.

Which type of equivalency is this?

The translation approach focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In such a translation, one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. The message in the receptor culture is constantly compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy and correctness. The translator attempts to reproduce as meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original.

// some books from the latin vulgate are not “word-for-word” more like “sense-for-sense”…read this article americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1997/feature2.asp …

 

[Ron_Conte]

A good literal translation integrates both word for word and sense for sense. This description:

The translation approach focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In such a translation, one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. The message in the receptor culture is constantly compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy and correctness. The translator attempts to reproduce as meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original.

is of formal equivalency.