So You Want to Be a Bible Translator!

[Van]

Wanting to translate God's word into our understanding is noble, and those standing in the way so they can self aggrandize might fit the definition of mulish obstructionist.

 

[AustinC]

Wanting to translate God's word into our understanding is noble, and those standing in the way so they can self aggrandize might fit the definition of mulish obstructionist.

Do you read Charles Taze Russell's translation or Joseph Smith's translation?

 

[John of Japan]

Wanting to translate God's word into our understanding is noble, and those standing in the way so they can self aggrandize might fit the definition of mulish obstructionist.

Your solution is easy: start your own thread. Don't sidetrack mine. There, obstruction removed!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

… Unfortunately, being without training in the Greek, he mixes up translation and textual criticism a number of times in the book. …

How does a competent translator, even one untrained in the Greek, manage to mix up translation and textual criticism a number of times?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

To translate is to carry across something such as the intended meaning, derived from words or grammar the receptor does not understand or fully understand, and bring the meaning, as at least understood by the translator, to the receptor. When we interpret God's word and derive its meaning, we translate into our understanding the message, or our understanding of that message. …

What is being described there is better referred to as interpretation or paraphrase, which certainly have their place. Teachers and preachers do this regularly, and expound in the process.

However, translation is generally meant to match the original as closely as possible, while still making sense in the target language.

Even a very good translation is no substitute for interpretation, which will require knowledgeable preachers and teachers to explain some of the meaning.

 

[Van]

What is being described there is better referred to as interpretation or paraphrase, which certainly have their place. Teachers and preachers do this regularly, and expound in the process.

However, translation is generally meant to match the original as closely as possible, while still making sense in the target language.

Even a very good translation is no substitute for interpretation, which will require knowledgeable preachers and teachers to explain some of the meaning.

Lets see, my native or "heart" language is English and God's Word as available today is written in Greek (among other languages). So to interpret say John 3:16, from the text as found in a Reverse interlinear, and then present that view in English is not a translation, but is an interpretation.

However, if someone knows Greek, and they go from the Greek John 3:16 into English, presenting their interpretation of the text, then that is not an interpretation, but a translation. Got it...

They see hard to separate, as any translation is an interpretation , and any interpretation is a translation of sorts. The words are synonyms. Interpreters translate and translators interpret.

 

[Aaron]

Not impossible, I'll grant you, but extremely difficult to do.

Our church has an outreach to the Rohingya, a Muslim people group with many in Milwaukee. Our linguistics prof and some of the students are involved, and we plan to translate the NT into their language. We we have a student in our MA in Bible Translation about to take the course "Greek and Hebrew Issues in Translation," and she wants to do her Greek project (translating 25 verses from Romans and annotating the work) in that language. To me, this will be a test about whether or not one can do what you propose.

One must be motivated by love to do it this way, no doubt, and it is a method fraught with difficulty. But the question was, what is the absolute minimum amount of (I assume cognitive) skill required to be a translator.

 

[John of Japan]

How does a competent translator, even one untrained in the Greek, manage to mix up translation and textual criticism a number of times?

That's a very good question, but it happens more than you'd think. H. D. Williams, a KJV-Only author, wrote a book on Bible translation, Word-For-Word Translating of The Received Texts, in spite of the fact that he has never translated, was fluent in no foreign language, and did not know the original languages of Scripture (a classic wannabe ). In it he gave seven illustrations of translating the NT, and no fewer than four of the seven examples are strictly about problems of textual criticism, not translation, and another is partly about textual criticism.

 

[John of Japan]

One must be motivated by love to do it this way, no doubt, and it is a method fraught with difficulty. But the question was, what is the absolute minimum amount of (I assume cognitive) skill required to be a translator.

So, then, judging by your posts, you would say that knowledge of the target language is needed, but not fluency, correct?

 

[John of Japan]

You might find Charles Van der Pool's Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek-English Interlinear useful. He ceated a modified Strong's numhering set.

I'm not familiar with that work, but I like the title!

 

[John of Japan]

My exchange with RighteousnessTemperance brings up the thought, does one have to be conversant in textual criticism to be a Bible translator? Thoughts?

 

[Aaron]

So, then, judging by your posts, you would say that knowledge of the target language is needed, but not fluency, correct?

I'm just saying literacy is the bare minimum cognitive skill needed to begin. Fluency is a necessary requirement to complete the task.

And not just fluency, but an instinct for nuances that one might only gain by living among the people and adopting their ways. Language and culture are inseparable.

 

[Conan]

My exchange with RighteousnessTemperance brings up the thought, does one have to be conversant in textual criticism to be a Bible translator? Thoughts?

One doesn't have to be. But one would be a better translator by knowing textual criticism. He or she would follow the better, or original text easier perhaps.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm just saying literacy is the bare minimum cognitive skill needed to begin. Fluency is a necessary requirement to complete the task.

Got it, thanks.

And not just fluency, but an instinct for nuances that one might only gain by living among the people and adopting their ways. Language and culture are inseparable.

This is very true. Having said that, input from or partnership with a native speaker is absolutely essential to getting the nuances right: semantic range, idioms, transferring metaphors, etc.

 

[John of Japan]

One doesn't have to be. But one would be a better translator by knowing textual criticism. He or she would follow the better, or original text easier perhaps.

My view is a little different. My position is that a translator should simply choose the source text (TR, Byzantine, UBS, depending on the skopos, meaning translation goals), and there is no need to engage in textual criticism.

The typical translator may have read a lot on textual criticism, but will still not be capable of making text critical decisions, which is a very specialized process.

 

[37818]

I'm not familiar with that work, but I like the title!

The Apostolic Bible Polyglot

 

[Van]

Must translators, those that interpret the intended meaning of scripture, be imbued with the stain of Gnostic knowledge, acquired in human academia, to be considered authentic?

 

[John of Japan]

The Apostolic Bible Polyglot

Thank you. So it's an interlinear. I see that the OT is the LXX. I've not been able to use the LXX (in my software) much, though I've occasionally consulted it; it's too spotty in its renderings.

 

[John of Japan]

One more qualification is the spiritual gift of the "interpretation of languages" (1 Cor. 12:10). This goes along with the "gift of languages," occurring right after it in the chapter. Even if someone knows fluently more than one language, they may not find translating to their liking. It's a separate discipline.

In my own case, I had no idea that I was any good in languages until I obeyed the call of God to be a missionary. I had taken Latin in high school, and the usual Greek and Hebrew in college and seminary, but I never thought of myself as particularly good at languages.

When we reached Japan, I studied under a tutor first, while I waited for a place to open at the prestigious Tokyo School of the Japanese language. Then I would travel two hours one way, including car, Tokyo rush hour trains, and walking the last leg. I absolutely loved it! I reveled in it! Those were the two best years of my life, in spite of the hardships. Then, when the opportunity came to join a translation effort, I jumped at the chance.

The point is, God gifts who He will as Bible translators. Those who God gifts will love languages and revel in translating. Language ability and translation ability are gifts I don't deserve, given directly by God, but I am delighted at the gifts. (Maybe you haven't caught that from my posts.... )

 

[37818]

Thank you. So it's an interlinear. I see that the OT is the LXX. I've not been able to use the LXX (in my software) much, though I've occasionally consulted it; it's too spotty in its renderings.

. . .(except some words in the LXX), . . .