Another Thread On Translation

Some choice quotes from D.A. Carson's book The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism follows:

"...there is no rigid pattern, no indisputable step that signals the crossing of the line from 'literal' translation to paraphrase. And even 'literal' I have enclosed in quotation marks because the most literal of translations has to decide what word best suits the original, make decisions about idioms, search out the appropriate syntax in the receptor language. "(p.77,78)

"I am opposing the simplistic cast of mind that makes rigid distinctions between a 'literal' translation and a 'loose' translation, or between a translation and a paraphrase. In thousands of instances, the person who translates the New Testament from Greek into some other language must make decisions that some with equal knowledge may contest, or which involve his understanding of what the text means." (p.88)

"But just as it is possible to be too loose, it is possible to be too literal." (p.89)

"...it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the 'dynamic equivalent.' " (p.90)

 

How did I do that? The 'i' and the 'a' are far apart on the keyboard.

 

The following snips are taken from How To Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss.

"An idiom may be defined as 'an expression whose meaning cannot be understood from the combined meanings of its individual words.‘...you cannot translate idioms literally if you hope to retain their meaning." (p.61)

Some examples are given of biblical idioms on pages 62 and 63.

In John 10:24 "the people ask Jesus (literally), 'Until when you take up our souls?' The Greek idiom 'take up souls' means to 'keep in suspense'

John 9:21 deals with the parents of the man born blind. They tell the religious leaders that their son 'has lifespan.' The NIV says he is 'of age' --other translations have he is 'old enough' to speak for himself.

Mark 1:32 'literally' says that Jesus healed all 'those having badly.' But it means 'those who were sick.'

Should 1 Samuel 10:9 have the ESV rendering of 'God gave him another heart'? Or should it be more easily translated as 'God changed his heart'?

Esther 1:14 'who saw the king's face' is better translated as 'had special access to the king.'

Joshua 10:6 reads ’Do not relax your hand from your servants' in the ESV. But it means 'do not abandon your servants' as a number of translations have it.

Mark 1:2 has 'I send my messenger before Your face.' as the NKJV reads. But most versions have 'ahead of you.'
______________________________________________________________________________________________
So I think it's been proven that many Bible idioms are difficult if not impossible to render 'literally'.

I have heard it said numerous times to the effect that the Word should be translated by what it says --not by what some translator thinks. Nonsense. First of all, the majority of translations are not solo efforts.

It's a balancing act to be faithful to the original and at the same time to be faithful to the target language.

Using clumsy literalism is not a sign of being more biblical.

 

Some things written forty years ago, such as the above, have to be repeated today. Is anyone listening?

 

One has to advance from merely hearing to actually listening.

 

Are you saying you agree with everything D.A. Carson said in post 122?

I would be favorably impressed if you do. But from your many posts on the topic in the past leads me to believe that it would be unlikely.

 

MM, you are confused. Read the above with attention.

 

I really am laughing. It's hilarious.

You Brits invented English, but you can't understand simple North American English. DAC is Canadian who has spent the majority of his life in the USA.

Across the grid of Bible versions all use dynamic equivalence in the process of translation. Some versions use it more and some use it less, but all use it. It is impossible not to use it. All translation is interpretation. Even TC believes that.

You think in black and white. But that's not a valid way of viewing things on this subject. There is a weaving in and out. Some parts of a verse in a more form-oriented version strive for that. But other parts of the verse reverts back to DE.

It doesn't mean that the NKJV or NASBU are dynamic equivalent translations but they have to employ dynamic equivalence time and time again. It's inevitable.

The following is taken from A Word To The Reader of the NIV:

"The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the Biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the Biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures."

[I highlighted the ending.]

A lot of translations do what was described above. Unfortunately their marketing arms don't want to acknowledge reality.