Featured Theological Basis for Translation Method?

Do you think a theological basis for a particular translation method can be determined? If so, what is that basis? Why should I translate word-for-word or with a free method or with dynamic equivalence or something in between?

 

But one should take a position on inerrancy based on his theology, should he not? If so, then does that not give him a basis for a method of Bible translation? I think you are saying that in your post when you say that "every word would be assumed to be placed in the original texts by the Lord Himself." That statement seems to present a theology of verbal inspiration. Is that your position?

 

As I think this through here is the difficulty: translating every word of the original is certainly possible to a large degree, except except the target language doesn't have a form the original language has, such as the Greek article. Many Asian or tribal languages do not have an article. However, translating the grammatical forms becomes problematic if the target language doesn't have the same form. So I'm sure you'll agree that compromises in the area of grammar are often necessary.

I certainly agree.

To me, translating idioms is a separate problem from a general translation method. Advocates of both literal and DE methods describe how to do it in a similar way, when they actually deal with the problem of idioms in their writings (which is seldom).

About the problem, that is a case where an idiom was used to translate a non-idiom, Μὴ γένοιτο, "may it not be," as you know. It has often puzzled me that the KJV translators did it in that seeming unnecessary way. At any rate, this is a rendering that I don't consider to be DE per se, but a regular free rendering.

“Free translation is usually taken to concentrate on conveying the meaning of the ST disregarding the formal or structural aspects of the ST” (Key Terms in Translation Studies, by Giuseppe Palumbo, 2009, 49).

I agree in general. But then what do we make of theological conservatives who defend DE such as D. A. Carson or even the GARBC Greek scholar Rod Decker (RIP)?

By the way, are you familiar with the Bible Faculty Summit? Check it out: http://biblefacultysummit.org/. It will be at Maranatha this year. I think you would enjoy it and perhaps see some old friends and make new ones. My son and I are both planning to present papers.

 

Here is an essay on "God forbid" by Doug Kutilek, a fundamentalist, on Rod Decker's website: http://ntresources.com/blog/?page_id=2648

 

Let me run this thought by you, then. Just recently I was noticing some differences how the Bible translates itself. Siloam ("outflow) translated "sent" in John 9:7 and Abbadon (Hebrew for destruction) in Rev. 9:7 is translated by Appolyon, meaning "Destroyer." All of the other words translated for us directly in the NT are literal, but these two seem a little free. So maybe that's were we can find exegetical basis for adapting the grammar in the target language when needed.

Good history lesson. Thanks!

My objections to calling "God forbid" a DE translation are: (1) DE did not exist as a translation method until the 1960s, and (2) the goal of DE is reader response, and I don't think the KJV translators were aiming at response, but rather impact.

Very cool. His Exegetical Fallacies was a great help to me.

I hope you can make it. Dr. Bob would enjoy it too, him being a fellow Maranatha grad, right?

 

Very few English translations have used the LXX for their OT source text, though I know of a Japanese one by Catholics and liberal Protestants that did. The thing is, for centuries there have been many English speakers who could translate from Hebrew, so why do a double translation, source language to language to target language? Double translations always decrease accuracy.

Having said that, there are cases on mission fields where the missionary may not know the original languages and the nationals do, so the translation is done from an English version because there is no other way to get the Word of God into that language.

 

Well, he chastises us for a bunch of other stuff, so....

Gasp! God forbid! Eek

 

That hardly seems fair.Cautious

This is why defining terms is so important in this discussion. Your definition of word-for-word may be different from Yeshua1's, and both may be different from mine. So, what do you mean by "word for word"?

Does this mean you see no connection between a theological stance of verbal inspiration and any translation method? Eugene Nida thought there was. His defender, Philip Stine, wrote:

"Nida's approach...appeared to challenge the view of Scripture that many translators from conservative theological backgrounds had always held (and many Bible translators came from such backgrounds). Most Bible translators and church leaders would affirm that in some way God provides the ultimate source of the Bible. But many also hold a view of how the Bible expresses that divine source, a view that connects the divine source with actual words and forms. They see God directing in some way the writing and canonization process. For translators who believe that not only were the thoughts of the Bible inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, but also the words themselves, a translation approach such as Nida's contradicts their theology because it puts a premium on the message rather than the form" (Let the Words be Written. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, p. 59).

Again from Stine: "In the translation studies perspective of Bassnett and Lefevere, the Jerome model rests on a particular conviction about the nature of the Bible itself. This conviction, also held by many later translators, asserted that God had inspired the words, idioms, and grammar of Scriptures, so translators should retain these words, idioms and grammar to the maximum degree possible" (p. 159).