Biblical Translation? How do they do it?

[Dismas2004]

From another thread, the topic of biblical Translating came up. I’m starting this thread so as to not interupt the flow of the other.

The issue at hand now is this:

Does Translating the bible require interpretation? I know that’s vague, but we’ll have to go through this systmeatically to come to a good concise answer.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Dismas2004:

From another thread, the topic of biblical Translating came up. I’m starting this thread so as to not interupt the flow of the other.

The issue at hand now is this:

Does Translating the bible require interpretation? I know that’s vague, but we’ll have to go through this systmeatically to come to a good concise answer.

As a former protestant I am thankful for the magestarium,because as a protestant to many scriptures made no sense,when you put them next to other scripture.The puzzle didn’t fit and when you would point out the problem with the serman on that particular scripture interperatation,he would pick and choose other scripture to validate his belief and I would do the same, a dog chasing his tail I am glad I am Cathilic and nothing the Holy Church teaches in scripture ever disturbed my my spirit or caused any conflicts to scripture.God Bless

 

[Dismas2004]

Lisa4Catholics,

Thanks for the post. I agree. what I’m looking for however, is the very art of translating the ancient texts. To get to the question our friend Michael has posed I think we need to get to a clear understanding of just how this is done. It is done the same by both protestants and Catholic scholars.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Dismas2004:

Lisa4Catholics,

Thanks for the post. I agree. what I’m looking for however, is the very art of translating the ancient texts. To get to the question our friend Michael has posed I think we need to get to a clear understanding of just how this is done. It is done the same by both protestants and Catholic scholars.

OOOH! You need to get Karl Keeting in on Michael He is way over my head I couldn’t afford the resources to debate him Jesus,brought me to his Church via the Holy Spirit,that is all the proof I needed,I study about our faith but my resources are scarse to get material and my debating skills are poor.I am not in tune with answers that divert questions, and having people twist around and misrepresent you say. I would Go nuts:whacky: Good Luck and God Bless

 

[porthos11]

It depends on the translation philosophy used.

If the translator is translating according to the literal or formal equivalence philosophy (aka word-for-word), then no interpretation is needed. All that is needed is to translate according to the literal text. This preserves Hebrew and Greek idioms and euphemisms and other figures of speech, making the text harder to read, but one that is accurate for serious study. Examples include the KJV, Douay-Rheims, RSV, NASB).

If the translation philosophy is dynamic equivalence (aka thought-for-thought) then there may be a measure of interpretation involved, because the translator is striving to render the meaning, rather than the actual words. Therefore the dynamic translation philosophy is more prone to doctrinal bias, but the resulting text is easier to read. But even properly rendered dynamic translations still do a good job bringing over the ancient meaning. Dynamic examples are the NIV, NAB, Jerusalem Bible, and Good News Bible [TEV]).

Really bad translations and paraphrases become interpretative (e.g. there is a “translation” that renders the Institution narrative as “This represents my body”. At which point, this no longer becomes a translation, but an outright interpretation, and a wrong one at that).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dismas2004:

From another thread, the topic of biblical Translating came up. I’m starting this thread so as to not interupt the flow of the other.

The issue at hand now is this:

Does Translating the bible require interpretation? I know that’s vague, but we’ll have to go through this systmeatically to come to a good concise answer.

Interpretation is unavoidable if there is to be translation ​

 

[Dismas2004]

True, their is a degree of interpretation involved, but I think it is very limited. Even in the dynamic equivalance - it starts out word for word and takes those words in groups as to get at what the author was trying to say. They (the translators) use other pieces of literature from the period as well, to get to an accurate “interpretation” of the words. But I think this “interpretation” is not like that of our friend Micheal is thinking of. Apples and oragens I think?

Gottle the Grear, can you elaborate on your comments?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Okay, here’s my $0.02 worth…

It is impossible to translate from one language to another and keep the exact same meaning – especially connotation and nuance. The problem is that each language carries with it certain meanings and understandings of each word.

Here’s a simple example: gender. Many languages have gender, but many do not. When you have gender related concepts you have to work through the meaning that is present. You also have to remember the rules and the exceptions. For example, in German all rivers are feminine except the Rhine which is masculine. In English we think of rivers as neuter.

So, in translating from one language to another we have to know both languages, we have to understand the nuance and connotation that is present in the source language and attempt to find an equivalent expression in the target language. This is where issues of “dynamic equivalence” come into play.

Literal translation leads to serious problems – this is, in fact, what happens when computer translation programs are used. The better ones do consider word usage in order to do limited grammatical analysis, but they still produce translations that are usually less than acceptable.

So, to answer the question, yes, there is always interpretation involved in translation.

Deacon Ed

 

[prodromos]

Here is an essay written by Matthew Steenberg, one of a team of translators working on a modern English translation of the LXX
monachos.net/other/on_orthodox_translation.shtml

And here is a thread on the subject from a couple of years ago on monachos.net where some very interesting points are made.
first part of thread (archived)
remainder of thread (and most interesting part IMHO)

John.

 

[Dismas2004]

Deacon Ed:

Okay, here’s my $0.02 worth…

It is impossible to translate from one language to another and keep the exact same meaning – especially connotation and nuance. The problem is that each language carries with it certain meanings and understandings of each word.

Here’s a simple example: gender. Many languages have gender, but many do not. When you have gender related concepts you have to work through the meaning that is present. You also have to remember the rules and the exceptions. For example, in German all rivers are feminine except the Rhine which is masculine. In English we think of rivers as neuter.

So, in translating from one language to another we have to know both languages, we have to understand the nuance and connotation that is present in the source language and attempt to find an equivalent expression in the target language. This is where issues of “dynamic equivalence” come into play.

Literal translation leads to serious problems – this is, in fact, what happens when computer translation programs are used. The better ones do consider word usage in order to do limited grammatical analysis, but they still produce translations that are usually less than acceptable.

So, to answer the question, yes, there is always interpretation involved in translation.

Deacon Ed

Do you think however that the interpretation comes from a paradigm of faith or from a paradigm of othe rliteratur of the time?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Dismas2004:

Do you think however that the interpretation comes from a paradigm of faith or from a paradigm of othe rliteratur of the time?

I would hope it comes from both. Anyone with a good knowledge of Greek and Hebrew can translate the Scriptures. However, if one doesn’t also know the body of faith which incorporates those Scriptures it is possible to choose a word which does not reflect the faith tradition and, therefore, does not accurately reflect what the writers of Scripture had in mind.

The best translations are those that get into the minds of the original writers – that can understand the historico-social-religious setting in which the work was done. By doing so one enters into the feeling and the spirit of the work and, thereby, presents a translation that carries, as much as possible, the original meaning of the author.

We have to also avoid going too far in putting our religious thinking into the translation (such as the famous Johanine comma). In fact, we have to be careful that we do not do grave disservice to the original by making the translation fit a particular theology. One classic example comes to mind, and one that cased some concern for many tradititionalists: the translation of Luke 1:28 which the NAB renders as:

And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

The expression “favored one” has caused distress because St. Jerome translated this is “gratia plena” from which we got the English “full of grace”. The Greek word is "kecharitOmenE" which is derived from “charitos” (to show grace to). St. Jerome applied a thological understanding to the Greek and produced a Latin translation that is not precisely accurate. The Greek expression for “full of grace” is actually found in John 1:4 in reference to the *Logos *(Christ) where he is said to be "pleres charitos" or, literally, “filled with grace.” This is a case where an expression of our faith is actually influenced by a translation more than from the original. Was Mary “full of grace”? Of course! But that’s not what the author wrote.

So, while faith informs us and helps us in the translation process, it can also be a hinderance if it makes us add material that is not present in the original.

Deacon Ed

 

[Dismas2004]

Deacon Ed:

I would hope it comes from both. Anyone with a good knowledge of Greek and Hebrew can translate the Scriptures. However, if one doesn’t also know the body of faith which incorporates those Scriptures it is possible to choose a word which does not reflect the faith tradition and, therefore, does not accurately reflect what the writers of Scripture had in mind.

The best translations are those that get into the minds of the original writers – that can understand the historico-social-religious setting in which the work was done. By doing so one enters into the feeling and the spirit of the work and, thereby, presents a translation that carries, as much as possible, the original meaning of the author.

We have to also avoid going too far in putting our religious thinking into the translation (such as the famous Johanine comma). In fact, we have to be careful that we do not do grave disservice to the original by making the translation fit a particular theology. One classic example comes to mind, and one that cased some concern for many tradititionalists: the translation of Luke 1:28 which the NAB renders as:The expression “favored one” has caused distress because St. Jerome translated this is “gratia plena” from which we got the English “full of grace”. The Greek word is "kecharitOmenE" which is derived from “charitos” (to show grace to). St. Jerome applied a thological understanding to the Greek and produced a Latin translation that is not precisely accurate. The Greek expression for “full of grace” is actually found in John 1:4 in reference to the *Logos *(Christ) where he is said to be "pleres charitos" or, literally, “filled with grace.” This is a case where an expression of our faith is actually influenced by a translation more than from the original. Was Mary “full of grace”? Of course! But that’s not what the author wrote.

So, while faith informs us and helps us in the translation process, it can also be a hinderance if it makes us add material that is not present in the original.

Deacon Ed

:clapping: Fantastic, Couldn’t have said it better myself! Thanks for the post.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I’d like to add both an orthodox Jewish & a personal perspective, if I May.

Today, Dec. 22, is one of 4 first-light-until-nightfall fast days on our calendar, on which we abstain from food & drink (but not from bathing, marital relations, and wearing jewelery, cosmetics & leather, all of which we abstain from on the 2 'round-the-clock fasts on our calendar). It is the 10th of the Hebrew month of Tevet (the “fast of the tenth [month]” referred to in Zechariah 8:19), on which we recall Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem (see II Kings 25:1). But it also marks the translation of the Torah into Greek, i.e. the Septuagint (see aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/The_Tenth_of_Tevet.asp). That the Torah was translated into another language is considered a cause for sadness & a reason to mourn. Our Sages say that when the Torah was translated (into Greek), (spiritual) darkness descended on the world.

A lot of my work (at a government office, for the past 11.5 years) is Hebrew-to-English translating. Gregory Rabassa, one of the masters of our craft (he’s translated all of Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s works from Spanish to English), has written extensively on the theory of translation. He says that there is no such thing as a translation per se. He says that all languages have a unique ability to both form and impart thoughts and ideas that simply cannot be reproduced, copied or duplicated in any other language. Thus, Sr. Rabassa says that every “translation” is, necessarily, an interpretation (Whose? The translators’).

This tinyurl.com/35bwg is a very good article about him (& a preview of his upcoming book “If This Be Treason: Translation and Its Dyscontents” ) from the **The **New York Times this past May. Here is one excerpt:

“My thesis in the book is that translation is impossible,” Rabassa said. “People expect reproduction, but you can’t turn a baby chick into a duckling. The best you can do is get close to it.”

I do not want to read an interpretation of God’s words, I want to read God’s words in the original. It is our belief that only the original Hebrew version of the scriptures can, in any way, be considered authoritative (to say nothing of authentic). We view “translations” of the Tanakh as, at best, study aids and, at worse, gross misrepresentations of God’s words (which were, after all, originally recorded/spoken in Hebrew).

Thus, Dismas2004, my answer to your original query

Does Translating the bible require interpretation?

Yes, absolutely.

Porthos11, in response to your post:

If the translator is translating according to the literal or formal equivalence philosophy (aka word-for-word), then no interpretation is needed. All that is needed is to translate according to the literal text. This preserves Hebrew and Greek idioms and euphemisms and other figures of speech…

I look at the differences between formal & dynamic equivalence as being of degree, not kind. Perhaps one involves less interpretation than the other, but (as per Sr. Rabassa) translating is, in & of itself, an act of interpretation, and thus, highly subjective. The interpretation involved may be subtle but it is certainly there.

All languages have idioms, euphemisms & figures of speech that simply do not translate and lend themselves (more or less easily) to gross mistranslations. The etymologies of words are different & unique, as are the allusions & metaphors that can be drawn from them. I’ll give you two ferinstances.

The word “sacrifice” as it refers to the various offerings (mostly animal) discussed in Leviticus (and elsewhere) is a bad mistranslation that puts a very bad angle on the whole order of offerings. The original Hebrew korban is a cognate of root (k-r-v) meaning “to approach” or “to draw near/close to”

We revere the first Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy as the Torah, our most basic scripture, and believe that God dictated it verbatim to Moses, who then wrote it down. Translating Torah as “The Law” is not only just plain wrong but it helps sustain the canard that mine is a cold & casuistic faith of laws, and not a faith premised on God’s love (which it, in fact, is). Hebrew has several words for “law”, “statute”, “ordinance” & the like but Torah isn’t any of them. Torah is, in fact, a cognate of the root h-r-h. The Hebrew words for “instruction/direction” (hora’ah), “teacher” (moreh) and "parent (horeh) are all cognates of the same root. (Our Sages teach that if the Torah was merely a statute book, we would have very little, if any, use for the Book of Genesis, in which we orthodox Jews count only 3 of the Torah’s 613 precepts.)

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

Dismas2004, you mentioned apples & oranges. Just as we cannot transmute one into the other, so too we cannot translate Holy Writ from Hebrew (or Aramaic, i.e. parts of Daniel, Ezra & Nehemiah) into any other language.

Deacon Ed, for your $0.2

It is impossible to translate from one language to another and keep the exact same meaning – especially connotation and nuance. The problem is that each language carries with it certain meanings and understandings of each word…So, to answer the question, yes, there is always interpretation involved in translation.

worth, we’ll buy you a (kosher, of course ) chocolate cee-gar. Well said! I couldn’t agree more. Connotation & nuance simply do not translate.

You also said:

The best translations are those that get into the minds of the original writers…

Indeed, as Hamlet says, “Ay, there’s the rub.” And when the original writer/speaker is God Himself, getting into His mind (so to speak) in order to come up with a good translation is utterly beyond our ken.

Dismas2004, you asked:

Do you think however that the interpretation comes from a paradigm of faith or from a paradigm of the literature of the time?

Ah, this is the $64,000 question. While a knowledge of the language & literature of the time (such as it is/isn’t for most of the Tanakh) is essential, interpretation, I think, necessarily comes from a paradigm of faith. Look at how we orthodox Jews & pious Roman Catholics interpret so much of the scriptures in such vastly different ways. Where do these vast differences come from if not from our respective faiths?

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv

 

[copland]

From another thread, the topic of biblical Translating came up. I’m starting this thread so as to not interupt the flow of the other.

The issue at hand now is this:

Does Translating the bible require interpretation? I know that’s vague, but we’ll have to go through this systmeatically to come to a good concise answer.

---

In the Love of Christ;

Dismas2004

I do translate, and I am working on a big project right now, though I am not sure whether I am going to publish it in the future, but I am looking into it. I also have a friend (Peter Papoutsis) who is translating the Greek Septuagint for the Greek Orthodox Church.

As far as the interpretation in translating, there does require somewhat an interpretation in transmitting from one language into another for the simple fact that some words can have a number of meanings. So when you translate you do have to determine what best fits the context.

But as far as exegetical interpretations, that is where you have to be careful when choosing a translation because heresy comes in many forms, and transmitting the Scriptures from another language into another can be effected by the biasness of the translator. I never knew the full effect until I learned Greek and started testing some of the translations that are on the market.

You have translations that are effected by doctrinal biasness, liberalism, carelessness, and also those trying to make there translation so readable that accuracy suffers.

My personal style of translating is a very literal translation that is not too hard on the ears, and supply footnotes to explain those passages that are impossible to transmit the fullest meaning from the ancient languages with its nuances and idioms. John 1:1 is the perfect example. ‘and the Word was God,’ if you read it in Greek you find that the lack of a definite article before ‘Theos’ proves that Jesus is not the Father, and the word ‘theos’ being placed before Logos (Word) proves that He is the Divine Word by placing emphasis upon ‘theos’ because of word placement, which supports the Trinity doctrine. And in turn defeats the Jesus only Pentecostals and the liberal "Jesus was a good teacher only’ crowd.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Dear Stillsmallvoice:

Shalom Alechim!

Hmmm…if it’s gonna be Kosher, how about a corned beef on rye? Chocolate is so fattening and those darn chocolate cigars are so hard to keep lit!

One of the reasons I originaly studied Hebrew (aside from the scholastic requirement) was to read the Scriptures in their Original Language. Of course, since I was never fluent in Hebrew and today struggle to recognize Alef from Bet (well, not really, but I did struggle with Samech - Mem and with Bet - Kaf and to stop trying to read Chet/He as Pi) there was always a tendency to translate into English even as I read the Hebrew.

Deacon Ed