What Constitutes a Valid Translation?

[franklinmonroe]

WHAT constitutes a valid English Language translation?...

Of course, "valid" does not mean 'perfect' (from online American Heritage Dictionary) --

adj.
1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
Logic.
4a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
4b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
5. Archaic. Of sound health; robust.
[French valide, from Old French, from Latin validus, strong, from valere, to be strong.]​

So, I agree with Ed Sutton that while a Bible translation may not "accurately convey to a 100% certainty, in every instance of a word and/or phrase, the exact sense of the Hebrew and/or Chaldee/Aramaic, and/or Greek languages, as the writers were inspired to pen down the 'God-breathed-out' words of Scripture" it can still be a efficacious version overall.

 

[Rippon]

“The statement of the contents of a passage, text, etc., in the same or another language, without following the original text verbatim.” (Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, p. 159)

Regardless of the credentials of Misters Pei and Gaynor I disagree.On the basis of that definition of the word paraphrase most of the so-called form-driven versions would qualify.

I seriously doubt that your Japanese translation follows the original text verbatim.Do you also profess that you follow the word order as well?Do you also claim that that you have aimed for a word-to-word equivalence?

No.A biblical paraphrase is simply a rewording of the original -- a restatement with different words (usually in easier to understand).

Now the old Living Bible by Ken Taylor did not go back to the originals.Mr.Taylor just paraphrased the 1901 American Standard Bible.

 

[Rippon]

I'll back translate John 3:16 from a Japanese paraphrase and show you the difference. I'll even give the Japanese original for you! The Gendaiyaku says:

神は、そのひとり子でいますイエス・キリストをこの世に遣わされ、十字架上で私たちの罪の身代わりとして死なせるほどに、私たちを愛してくださった。それは、イエス・キリストを信じる人が誰であろうと、滅びることが泣く、救われるためなのである。

"God sent his only Son Jesus Christ to this world, and to the extent that he made his Son die on the cross in the place of our sin, God loved us. So, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will not perish, but will be saved."

Now, if anyone, absolutely anyone on this forum can't find several ways this rendering messes things up, I'll be very surprised! But this is a paraphrase, and this is what the translator thought the verse meant.

Do you think it's possible for someone who thinks he translating in a form-driven manner to translate erroneously as well?Perhaps the form-driven guy can translate what he thinks the verse means also and yet err.Who would not translate what he thinks a given passage means?Some highly educated man could translate wrongly while sincerely believing a certain verse means a particular thing.

But back to your translation of the paraphrase (talk about going through some filters!).God din't "make" His Son die on the cross in place of our sin.God the Father gave His Son.The 'cross' itself is not in the original."Only Son" is kind of weak --'one and only' is better."In place of our sin" is not mentioned in the verse."God loved us" should appear earlier in the verse.

Those are just some of my layman's observations.

 

[Rippon]

I just thought of two more paraphrases a few minutes ago.How about Kenneth Wuest's and F.F.Bruce's expanded translations?They were really paraphrases.But they were not done in a cavalier manner as you seemed to suggest.

Paraphrases of the Bible have been helpful to the Church over the centuries and I think God approves!:godisgood:

 

[John of Japan]

Regardless of the credentials of Misters Pei and Gaynor I disagree.On the basis of that definition of the word paraphrase most of the so-called form-driven versions would qualify.

No, most form-driven versions would not qualify. That's baloney. And by this you show that you don't understand paraphrase. And anyway, Pei and Gaynor have much better credentials than anyone on the BB, including me and certainly you. I gave this definition once on a Bible translation e-list and a noted scholar liked it. I think I'll stick with his opinion. :thumbs:

I seriously doubt that your Japanese translation follows the original text verbatim.Do you also profess that you follow the word order as well?Do you also claim that that you have aimed for a word-to-word equivalence?

The idea that a word-for-word translation must follow the word order of the original is a ridiculous mischaracterization often used by opponents of formal equivalence. Of course I don't follow the original word order. (1) The word order is less important in Greek than in most languages because of the nature of Greek syntax. (2) In Japanese syntax the verb comes last. It would not make sense any other way.

No.A biblical paraphrase is simply a rewording of the original -- a restatement with different words (usually in easier to understand).

This is not what a biblical paraphrase is. And here your lack of fluency and experience in any other language shows through. You have confirmed to me that you do not understand paraphrase.

 

[TCGreek]

Here's the thing about the Septuagint. Would an English translation along the same lines, with the same faults, be considered an acceptable translation in 2008 America? I highly doubt it. Very few Americans would make it their Bible. But then there are now literally hundreds of Bible translations in English, with dozens of translations available right now. It's a mad competition in America with huge bucks for the winner--the publisher of the most popular Bible.

When the LXX was being used at the time of Christ, there was nothing else available in the OT in Greek. (Aquila's version didn't appear until the 2nd century AD.) So in this sense bringing the LXX into a discussion about valid 21st century English translations is a non sequiter--it just doesn't compute!

Consider this. There are many tribes and nations around the world with just one Bible translation ever, or maybe just one still in print. That translation may be good, adequate or quite poor. It doesn't matter if we think such a version to be valid or not, a good translation or a poor one, formal equivalence or functional equivalence. It's all they have. It's their Bible.

Add to that the literally thousands of tribes and languages with no Bible, not the slightest bit of Scripture translated into their language. And here American Christians are, wondering which Bible to try out next and spend big bucks on. And are they obeying the last command of Christ, to reach the world? May the tribe of missionary Bible translators increase.

John, I believe if you read Ed's comment on translations you'll see the relevance of mentioning the LXX.

 

[John of Japan]

But back to your translation of the paraphrase (talk about going through some filters!).God din't "make" His Son die on the cross in place of our sin.God the Father gave His Son.The 'cross' itself is not in the original."Only Son" is kind of weak --'one and only' is better."In place of our sin" is not mentioned in the verse."God loved us" should appear earlier in the verse.

Those are just some of my layman's observations.

You are on target with each point. Good job! I would add that "saved" and "has eternal life" are quite different. And each of these points can skew what God wants the reader in the target language to understand with this passage.

But you see, this is how far out of bounds a paraphrase can get--not that it will always be out of bounds.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I believe if you read Ed's comment on translations you'll see the relevance of mentioning the LXX.

If you mean #37 I've re-read it twice and I'm not sure I get it. Please explain your point to me.

 

[EdSutton]

Ed, I see your point, but get this: the Jews of the Diaspora and the Early believers made good use of the LXX.

Every translation project involves a bit of interpretation, because we going from one language to another and decisions have to be made about syntaxes, idioms, and so on.

But we still have to learn to trust the process. :thumbs:

Indeed, the early church and the Jews did make good use of the LXX, but that is not what I was referring to, primarily. I was contrasting the OT and the NT, vs. the two primary languages, here, in conferring doctrine.

The KJV translators noted the "good use" of the LXX, while also noting it was but a translation, If I recall.

The like wee are to thinke of translations.
The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come near it for perspicuitie, gravitie, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it?
Condemne it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and the most learned men doe confesse) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meete with, for that heretikes (forsooth) were the Authours of the translations, (heretikes they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholikes, both being wrong) wee marveile what divinitie taught them so. Wee are sure Tertullian was of another minde: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Doe we trie mens faith by their persons? we should trie their persons by their faith. [From the KJV Preface: (To the Reader)]

Did you happen to note their displeasure with the vilifying of Englishe Bibles? I happen to agree with their sentiments, as expressed here, completely.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

No, most form-driven versions would not qualify.

Pei & Gaynor said :"The statement of the context of a passage,text,etc. in the same or other language,without following the original text verbatim."

Again,based on that definition even the more form-driven versions would qualify as paraphrases.

That's baloney. And by this you show that you don't understand paraphrase. And anyway, Pei and Gaynor have much better credentials than anyone on the BB, including me and certainly you. I gave this definition once on a Bible translation e-list and a noted scholar liked it. I think I'll stick with his opinion.

Borrowing a paraphrased line from rbell : I say pish tosh to that JoJ.Why do I say pish tosh?Because I like the way it sounds.I'll say it again.Pish tosh.

Well Pei and Gaynor,along with you and your noted scholar friend may be wrong.The P&G definition is just plain inadequate.Paraphrasing would have a much wider application than my commonly understood definition of the word.

This is not what a biblical paraphrase is. And here your lack of fluency and experience in any other language shows through. You have confirmed to me that you do not understand paraphrase.

Well that's only in your mind.There have been some good God-honoring paraphrases which may outclass your preferred method of translation in a number of ways.Have you ever seen the paraphrases of Wuest and Bruce?

You still didn't answer some questions.Do you follow the original text verbatim?Have you aimed for word-to-word correspondence?

 

[John of Japan]

Pei & Gaynor said :"The statement of the context of a passage,text,etc. in the same or other language,without following the original text verbatim."

Again,based on that definition even the more form-driven versions would qualify as paraphrases.

Fine, take a "form-driven" translation and prove that it is a paraphrase by this definition. And I don't mean find a verse or two that you say are paraphrased, I mean prove that the overall translation is a paraphrase.

Well Pei and Gaynor,along with you and your noted scholar friend may be wrong.The P&G definition is just plain inadequate.Paraphrasing would have a much wider application than my commonly understood definition of the word.

Fine. Give me the definition you go by. Not your own, not a normal dictionary definition, which would be the popular meaning, but something from a linguistic scholar.

Well that's only in your mind.There have been some good God-honoring paraphrases which may outclass your preferred method of translation in a number of ways.Have you ever seen the paraphrases of Wuest and Bruce?

You have no way of telling whether or not an English translation would outclass my method of translation unless you can read Japanese. So we'll have to pass on this one. As for Wuest and Bruce--non sequitor.

You still didn't answer some questions.Do you follow the original text verbatim?Have you aimed for word-to-word correspondence?

I've given my principles of translation on the BB before. I think it was a couple of years ago, though. But your questions are loaded, and furthermore I don't know what you mean by "word-to-word" correspondence. There are so many views on that.

I will simply say that I look for the optimal equivalent in Japanese of each element of grammar and each individual word in the original Greek NT. For scholarly treatments about this methodology see Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation and A Theory For Biblical Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model, both by James Price.