The Ideal Translation Effort

[John of Japan]

My question is, what does the ideal translation effort look like? How many members, what structure, what positions must be filled, etc.?

The start should be, what is the skopos, or the goal of the translation? It might be a missionary translation, a study Bible, a scholarly resource, etc. Skopos theory in translation studies is the teaching that the goal of a translation should determine how it happens. (Skopos is the Greek word for "goal," appearing only in Phil. 3:14 in the NT, translated "mark" in the KJV.)

 

[JesusFan]

My question is, what does the ideal translation effort look like? How many members, what structure, what positions must be filled, etc.?

The start should be, what is the skopos, or the goal of the translation? It might be a missionary translation, a study Bible, a scholarly resource, etc. Skopos theory in translation studies is the teaching that the goal of a translation should determine how it happens. (Skopos is the Greek word for "goal," appearing only in Phil. 3:14 in the NT, translated "mark" in the KJV.)

I am not that concerned over which textual basis being used, as think good translation can be made off of MT/CT/Tr etc, but more concerned over if a formal translation basis instead of DE basis, and prefer a translation team instead of just one translator

 

[John of Japan]

I am not that concerned over which textual basis being used, as think good translation can be made off of MT/CT/Tr etc, but more concerned over if a formal translation basis instead of DE basis, and prefer a translation team instead of just one translator

I didn't mention the textual basis in the OP, so that's not really what I'm asking in this thread.

Why just one translator? Would that make you a fan of Young's, Darby's and similar translations?

 

[JesusFan]

I didn't mention the textual basis in the OP, so that's not really what I'm asking in this thread.

Why just one translator? Would that make you a fan of Young's, Darby's and similar translations?

No, as wrote preferred a translation team of scholars over a single persons

 

[Deacon]

The way the Authorized Version was created worked well.
A few teams of experts overseen by a few collators.

I dislike the idea of large team of people ...
While many hands make light work, too many hands produce a bland result.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Establishing your target audience is vital.
Develop a methodology - how you plan to translate (form a preface of your translation)
Choose your text (mentioned above)

1) You'll need a team leader; someone strong in organizational skills, collaborative writing and editing, publishing, analytics, etc.

2) A key component of a translation team should be scholars who have a strong background in a biblical language and an even stronger handle on the target language/audience.
Those with previous history of translation would be preferred.

2a) Many authors of academic commentaries of biblical texts have produced their own translations; such authors might be used as a consolation team.

3) The "ideal team" might include a poet or a language expert in the target language.

4) A team of venerable translators may be prone to translate towards an elderly audience, a few younger representatives should be included.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

No, as wrote preferred a translation team of scholars over a single persons

Sorry, I misread your post as being for single translators instead of a team.

 

[Van]

My question is, what does the ideal translation effort look like? How many members, what structure, what positions must be filled, etc.?

The start should be, what is the skopos, or the goal of the translation? It might be a missionary translation, a study Bible, a scholarly resource, etc. Skopos theory in translation studies is the teaching that the goal of a translation should determine how it happens. (Skopos is the Greek word for "goal," appearing only in Phil. 3:14 in the NT, translated "mark" in the KJV.)

What is the purpose of a bible translation? To make God's word understandable to people unable to understand the languages it was written in.

Why has the structure of the many translation efforts failed to produce a translation that cannot be improved upon? We see through a glass darkly.

One common goal is to minimize additions, deletions, and mus-translations of the source text. Some efforts are far better than others, but all have fallen short of the glory of inerrancy.

 

[John of Japan]

The way the Authorized Version was created worked well.
A few teams of experts overseen by a few collators.

I dislike the idea of large team of people ...
While many hands make light work, too many hands produce a bland result.

So what would be "a few"? I'm not sure what you mean by "collators." What exactly would their task be?

~~~~~~~~~~~
Establishing your target audience is vital.

Exactly. That's skopos theory.

Develop a methodology - how you plan to translate (form a preface of your translation)
Choose your text (mentioned above)

1) You'll need a team leader; someone strong in organizational skills, collaborative writing and editing, publishing, analytics, etc.

Definitely, though the team leader may not be doing the editing himself. An editor is definitely needed. It has always bothered me that the KJV translates the same Greek phrase with the same meaning every time as "Holy Ghost" sometimes and "Holy Spirit" others.

2) A key component of a translation team should be scholars who have a strong background in a biblical language and an even stronger handle on the target language/audience.
Those with previous history of translation would be preferred.

Well said, but alas, on the mission fields of the world there is often a paucity of genuine scholars. For example, it is my understanding that Wycliffe does not train its translators in the original languages, but trains them to translate from English (sometimes the GNB). Even if you get the SIL master's degree, you are still not required to learn Hebrew and Greek.

2a) Many authors of academic commentaries of biblical texts have produced their own translations; such authors might be used as a consolation team.

What would a "consolation team" do?

3) The "ideal team" might include a poet or a language expert in the target language.

Definitely. The KJV effort had a team of English scholars who checked the language. The NIV also had such experts. When I read the NIV through when it first came out, I thought, "I don't like the translation method, but the English is beautiful, so this translation will last." And it has.

4) A team of venerable translators may be prone to translate towards an elderly audience, a few younger representatives should be included.

Rob

Good point.

 

[John of Japan]

What is the purpose of a bible translation? To make God's word understandable to people unable to understand the languages it was written in.

Why has the structure of the many translation efforts failed to produce a translation that cannot be improved upon? We see through a glass darkly.

One common goal is to minimize additions, deletions, and mus-translations of the source text. Some efforts are far better than others, but all have fallen short of the glory of inerrancy.

What should be the makeup of a translation effort to achieve these goals?

How many members? What offices? What leaders?

 

[Van]

What should be the makeup of a translation effort to achieve these goals?

How many members? What offices? What leaders?

The structure of the translation team does not correspond to the product of the team. But whether a single individual or a bureaucratic multilevel organization, the members need to be "born anew" believers in Christ, trained in the skills needed to discern the intended messages without adding to or deleting from those intended messages.

 

[37818]

I am not that concerned over which textual basis being used, . . .

In a word careless.

 

[37818]

No, as wrote preferred a translation team of scholars over a single persons

A better view.

 

[JesusFan]

What is the purpose of a bible translation? To make God's word understandable to people unable to understand the languages it was written in.

Why has the structure of the many translation efforts failed to produce a translation that cannot be improved upon? We see through a glass darkly.

One common goal is to minimize additions, deletions, and mus-translations of the source text. Some efforts are far better than others, but all have fallen short of the glory of inerrancy.

Actually the revisions and updates were at times improvements, and the simple truth is there cannot be any translation being inerrant, as none today are inspired as the Apostles were by the Holy Spirit

 

[JesusFan]

In a word careless.

No, rather that the major Greek texts agree with each other so much in common, and that the variants are normally to phrasing such as lord Jesus, Jesus the Lord etc no real differences between them as speaking towards doctrines and practices, so from any of those Greek texts a good translation can be made

 

[JesusFan]

In a word careless.

Take the Nas/NKJV translations, both use different textual sources, yet both considered among best of the MV, as both used scholars of high skills and used a formal translation philosophy

 

[37818]

@John of Japan thread here is an excellent question.
@Deacon gave excellent input.

I see in our large selection of English translations answers. But am at this point at a loss to summarize them.

 

[37818]

No, rather that the major Greek texts agree with each other so much in common, and that the variants are normally to phrasing such as lord Jesus, Jesus the Lord etc no real differences between them as speaking towards doctrines and practices, so from any of those Greek texts a good translation can be made

With all the manuscript evidence we have, within them, the banded down, texts, of their original autographs.

 

[Deacon]

Definitely, though the team leader may not be doing the editing himself. An editor is definitely needed. It has always bothered me that the KJV translates the same Greek phrase with the same meaning every time as "Holy Ghost" sometimes and "Holy Spirit" others.

Re: Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit… I agree with you, perhaps it was a phrase that was transitioning in their age.

Yet they considered the variances of translation to be a positive mark of the translation.

From the KJV Preface:
…we have not tied ourselves to uniform phrasing, or to the use of identical words, as some, perhaps, would wish that we had done because they have observed that some learned men, somewhere, have been as precise as they could be in that regard. We were indeed particularly careful not to vary from the sense of a word which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there are some words that do not have the same sense everywhere). In this we were conscientious and dutiful. But our duty was to express the same notion in the same particular word; it was not, for example, if we translate a Hebrew or Greek word once by “purpose,” never to call it “intent,” or if we translated a word as “journeying,” never to call it “traveling”; if as “think,” never as “suppose”; if as “pain,” never as “ache”; if “joy,” never “gladness,” etc. That sort of approach seemed to us to savor more of eccentricity than of wisdom, and we reckon that it would breed scorn in the atheist rather than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God a matter of words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? Why use one exclusively when we may use another that is no less appropriate?

... alas, on the mission fields of the world there is often a paucity of genuine scholars. For example, it is my understanding that Wycliffe does not train its translators in the original languages, but trains them to translate from English (sometimes the GNB). Even if you get the SIL master's degree, you are still not required to learn Hebrew and Greek.

What would a "consolation team" do?

Well John, your title suggested an "IDEAL" situation... not a typical situation... lol

Opps, a spelling err - A consultation team, a team of on-call, readily available scholars to assist/consult when needed.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

Re: Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit… I agree with you, perhaps it was a phrase that was transitioning in their age.

Yet they considered the variances of translation to be a positive mark of the translation.

Could be. In the case of ekklesia, "church," it was translated "assembly" in the KJV, but unfortunately translated "church in the wilderness" in Acts 7:38 because of their replacement theology.

From the KJV Preface:
…we have not tied ourselves to uniform phrasing, or to the use of identical words, as some, perhaps, would wish that we had done because they have observed that some learned men, somewhere, have been as precise as they could be in that regard. We were indeed particularly careful not to vary from the sense of a word which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there are some words that do not have the same sense everywhere). In this we were conscientious and dutiful. But our duty was to express the same notion in the same particular word; it was not, for example, if we translate a Hebrew or Greek word once by “purpose,” never to call it “intent,” or if we translated a word as “journeying,” never to call it “traveling”; if as “think,” never as “suppose”; if as “pain,” never as “ache”; if “joy,” never “gladness,” etc. That sort of approach seemed to us to savor more of eccentricity than of wisdom, and we reckon that it would breed scorn in the atheist rather than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God a matter of words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? Why use one exclusively when we may use another that is no less appropriate?

They are talking here about "translation by concordance," also called "verbal consistency," which can be an error but can also be proper. In this case, every mention of the "Holy Spirit" refers to the same Person with no variation of meaning, so I'll stick to my guns on this one.

The biggest culprit of the error, though, is Young's Literal Translation, who practiced it to a fault. I wince every time I read his word for "eternal," which is "age-during" with verbal consistency.

Well John, your title suggested an "IDEAL" situation... not a typical situation... lol

Touche! It is about an ideal effort. So in an ideal translation effort, the translators would know the times verbal consistency is important, and when it is not.

Opps, a spelling err - A consultation team, a team of on-call, readily available scholars to assist/consult when needed.

Rob

In the Bible translation world, this refers to translation consultants. One of our grads is the translation consultant for the Madi tribe Bible in Africa.

 

[John of Japan]

The structure of the translation team does not correspond to the product of the team. But whether a single individual or a bureaucratic multilevel organization, the members need to be "born anew" believers in Christ, trained in the skills needed to discern the intended messages without adding to or deleting from those intended messages.

In your thinking, how good can a one-man translation be? The single translator must know the source and target languages, both, extremely well. In his book Issues in Missiology, Thoughts about Translation, Robert Patton describes his one man translation of Sranantongo, a language of Suriname. From what he says in his book, the Lord really helped him and he produced a serviceable translation for that people group. But normally I highly recommend against a one person translation. Most missionary translations occur with one translator and one national.

And I agree, of course, that the translators should be born again.