It is an interesting thing to know more than one language. I am a student of Spanish, Biblical Greek, and most recently Biblical Hebrew. As far as Spanish goes, it has to this point been about communicating verbally. I am only beginning to be known as a Spanish speaker in such a was as to attract work in translation. Biblical languages are a different creature, however. For most people studying biblical languages serves to facilitate reading technical commentaries or doing word studies. It is a well-known shock-and-awe technique to talk about "the Greek" from the pulpit. My point is that very few people are interested in mastering the language(s) for the purpose of producing a Bible translation. Nonetheless, there is always a dose of translation philosophy mixed into our classes. One of my long-time classmates commented to me that he has never been in a biblical language class where the professor didn't at some point make a comment about the impossibility of accomodating people who say, "Just give me a literal translation." Translation just doesn't work that way.
There are, however, more and less literal translations. The typical spectrum runs: "literal"---dynamic equivalent---paraphrase. Beyond those unfortunate people who really believe Peter used the KJV, there are all kinds of translation preferences for all kinds of reasons. What I find intriguing are those preferences that are very strongly expressed. In my church tradition there are biblicist moorings that demand literal translation. That is, the words of the bible, umediated, are themselves "sound doctrine." So the result of a less literal translation is likely to be less sound doctrine. On a slightly more sophisticated level, it can be said that the less literal a translation is, the more mediated it is by the translator; the translator's theology is bound to creep into even the most literal translations, but the "danger" is greater with, say, a paraphrase. On the other side, issues of readability are very important. The impact of a translation like the Message (for those who are no predisposed to reject it) is very great, and this has everything do to with the use of language that is more familiar and poetic than the restrictions of literal translation will ever allow for. Moreover, the meaning of the literal words is often better communicated in words other than those the literal rendering can provide (this is what the professors are always getting at). This is so even when something might be understanable literally translated, but better understood as, say, a dynamic equivalent.
So my own preference is for all of them. I read from a four translation parallel (KJV, NIV, LB, NRSV) for my private devotions, though mostly focusing on the NRSV (on the literal side). I carry and preach from the NIV. Technically I should say I carry and preach from the NVI, since it is actually the Spanish NIV equivalent to which I refer. An interesting dynamic is added in the hispanic church context in which I minister. The standard translation used among Spanish speakers is the Reina Valera, which is an even older translation than the KJV. Equally, the Spanish is antiquated and difficult for native speakers to read. Adding to this is the hard reality that many of the hispanics in my church context are not highly educated to begin with. It is therefore madness, in my esimation, to continue using the RV. But it was the only option for so long that it is difficult to get out of the box. Anyway, reading level is another factor concerning the legitimacy or illigitimacy of a translation as I see it. Here is an interesting site that presents the reading levels of many translations:
http://www.ibs.org/bibles/translations/
(I wonder, though, how accurate it is to say that something like the KJV is even a 12th grade reading level, when the problem is antiquated language rather than literacy. There are just some words in Elizabethan English that no modern should know.) As the reading levels listed indicate, my point is not that less literal translation solves this problem. My point is that readability, on various levels, is a very important consideration (I'm tempted here to get sidetracked onto a discussion of icons, etc. in the context of illiteracy from which they arose, but I'll refrain). On the whole it seems to me that less literal translations do a better job of addressing the issue. Given the nature of the Bible and Bible study, a person is trying hard enough to understand the story and take in the theology. There is every reason to try to facilitate that process rather than create more obstacles.
That last sentence brings me back to the starting point of this post. How much of the theology is lost in translation? How much more in less literal translation? It seems to me that there is macro-theology to be found in any loose translation--the overall story, the main ideas, the gist. But the micro-theology with which we are often very preoccupied is only discernable through consideration of the particulars. An oft-noted fact strikes me as significant: The gospel of John is considered the easiest (simplest, least technical) Koine Greek in the New Testament. It is also regularly cited as the most theologically profound. That is certainly a matter of opinion, but I tent to agree. There is no necessary conflict between simple language and the communication of the deep things of God, which is part of the question at hand. With tranlsation, however, the question is made more complex, and we are left wondering if, regarless of the simplicity of the original language, the meaning is communicated in translation--be it literal or not.
This macro- and micro- theology intrigues me as a possible way of thinking about some answers. As a theology student much of my time is spent reading and listening to Bible scholars point out theological deficiencies on all sides. In my world much of what the Bible meant/means is bound up with careful, detailed study of texts in the original languages. I have come to conclusions since beginning this journey that, when realized, took my breath away. Things of such importance are set clear in the course of this kind of study that it makes me thankful to God for those who are gifted to teach and fearful to think what it would be like without them. Furthermore, theological disputes within Christianity are inevitably engaged on a micro level. There are a numer of correlaries to this.
One, it is precisely on the macro level that unity is made feasible. We agree in general; we disagree in particular. Take salvation for example. There are many theories of atonement, "plans of salvation" to be found in Christendom. We do not all agree on the particular how's or when's or why's of salvation. We do not agree on what we must do, in what order, with what ritual, and so on, or whether we must do anything at all, so we go to particular passages, verses, and words to make our cases. What we do agree on is that we need to be saved, that God wants to save us, and that the story of Jesus the Christ has everything to do with our salvation, all of which is available in the most paraphrastic translation.
Two, I observe the preference for less literal translations to be often rooted in a desire to avoid the division micro-theology has so often caused in the past. We don't want to argue over the particulars, we want to hear the theology of the gist. We don't want cumbersome details, we want the main idea. The main idea is obvious, which means a lower risk of conflict.
Three, if it is assumed that disagreement is inevitable and that conversation about disgreement is good, to live only on the level of macro-theology is an impairment. The vast majority of Christians do not seem to live by having their minds settled on particular points of micro-theology. Our faith by-and-large stands upon the overarching themes and messages of Scripture (Who could doubt that there is significant disagreement there as well?) We learn to trust in the God who saves despite the dissonance regarding how exaclty he does so in Christ. We seek to live transformed lives while unsure just what part of the transformation is ours and what part his. These are the foundations, and we must and will always return here for the strengthening of our faith. But Anselm's formulation has been so enduring because our faith will always seek understanding. We want to add richness and texture to the story, so we seek to know the how's and why's and when's. Some of Prostestant (and on some level all) Christianity's values dictate that we will will always return to Scripture for those answers. Given that use of the Bible (I'll save whether or not it's a proper use for another post), the micro-theology lost in loose translation becomes a loss indeed. And an attempt to extrpolate answers from a translation that just gives the gist is a good way to draw unfounded conclusions, be they true or not.
Thus, I affirm again the place for all kinds of translations. My qualification to that affirmation is that each has its use and each has its weakness. Sometimes we may miss the trees for the forest and sometimes we may miss the forest for the trees. I think is it impossible to say that the main ideas are more vital than the particular ones, or vice versa. Throughout a person's life it seems that one or the other might need more emphasis, depending on the situation. So I consider it a blessing from God to have the great variety of translations, the life's work of so many faithuful men and women, to shed light on our journey to know and be known.Labels: Bible Versions, Ecumenism, Languages, Translation
