Flawed Book on Translation

The last chapter of Williams' book is "77 Criteria For Translating." What it really appears to be is a set of rules for the translator. This in itself is discouraging. 77 rules for a translator to keep? Wow! Give me principles, instead, please. Some are good, but many are poor linguistically or poor methodology. It would take far to long to examine all of them, but I'll comment on the most egregious.

According to rule 3, “Word-for-word translation is the method of translating to be utilized. Interpretation is left for the pastors, missionaries, teachers, and evangelists” (pp. 229-230). This fails to realize that sometimes interpretation is necessary even in word-for-word translations. A famous example is anoqen , which can be translated as either “from above” or “again” in some passages (Luke 1:3, John 3:3, 7).

 

In his "77 Criteria For Translating" Williams makes other requirements that are not actually translation decisions, and indeed may not be in the hands of the translator himself! Here is a sampling of those.

“12. Footnotes and/or marginal notes should be used liberally in translation work” (p. 231). Why? I see no reason for this, and Williams does not give one. This is all he says about it. Sometimes I put an explanatory footnote in our translation, especially about cultural differences (measuring time, etc.), but why should this be a criteria? Surely this should be a decision by the translator.

“14. A brief introduction to a book of the Bible should be placed at the beginning of the receptor translation” (p. 231). Why? Williams gives no reasons. Surely this should be a decision by the translator.

“34. A glossary should be attached to the translation explaining (e. g.) people, festivals, titles, customs such as phylacteries, myrrh, etc.” (p. 234). Again, why? This is all Williams says. He gives no reasons. Such a glossary would add to the printing cost, and often missionary translators are on a budget.

“40. Font sizes and columns should be predetermined before translation begins” (p. 235). Chances are this will be decided by the printer, not the translator. If the translator has a hand in the decision, it will be after sitting down with the printer. At any rate, I think it is completely ridiculous to mandate this even before beginning translation!!

What I am objecting to mainly in this post is the tendency by Williams to throw out rules with no explanation. These rules are not based on any discernable principle of translation, but seem to be no more than his whims.

 

I'm not sure Silva means here what I meant, though I don't have the book and thus can't see the context of his statement. I was speaking of interpretive decisions on individual renderings, but he seems to be speaking of the translation as a whole.

 

On page 230 Williams writes, “7. Under no circumstance should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example." Once again I strongly urge Dr. Williams to do his research and rewrite the entire book. In this case, he needs to research the many, many countries that have no translation based on the received texts, or at least no translation in print based upon the received texts.

Japan has no versions in print based on the received texts, and has never had any versions based on his particular view of the received text: the “Scrivener Annotated Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Ben Chayyim, Second Great Rabbinic (not the first) edition Hebrew Text published by Daniel Bomberg" (p. xix). So, if I were to follow the instructions of this book, I would have no versions whatsoever to consult to help me in my NT translation from the TR into Japanese. I would be on my own.

 

Good idea, Rob. Maybe I can get to that in the near future. :thumbs:

 

Low Level of Scholarship

On page 69 Williams criticizes something he calls “scholarolatry, or the worship of scholarship.” Well and good. In expanding his point, he goes on to mention various liberal and neo-orthodox scholars, and discuss canon criticism. I could write quite a bit about his discussion, but I’ll let it pass. My point here is rather that this critic of scholarolatry uses sources in his book that might be rejected in the paper of a student in his first year at a good seminary.

He quotes from a Bible handbook dated 1873 on p. 125. He uses Webster’s Student Dictionary as a source in a footnote on p. 100. (A student dictionary? Come now.) He quotes from the extremely old commentary by Adam Clarke (1831) on p. 147. He references Strong’s dictionary in a footnote on p. 146. Williams doesn’t seem to know about BAGD and the many other Greek lexicons and dictionaries out there (I have 10 in English and 2 in Japanese), though he speaks out against Thayer’s as being by a Unitarian. He quotes Gail Riplinger favorably quite a few times. (Come now, a woman “Bible teacher” with no theological training or degrees in Bible, but plenty of bizarre theories!)

Again, here are some blunders by Williams showing a low level of scholarship. He says that the number of languages in the world is increasing (p. xxi). Quite the contrary, the number of languages is decreasing as tribes die out or are assimilated. Recently the last speaker of a dialect of Ainu died here in Hokkaido. (The linguistic scholar who researched her was saved in our church in Yokohama.)

On page 5, Williams quotes Nida’s Bible Translating from 1947 as an attempt “to justify the method” of dynamic equivalence. This book was actually written well before Nida’s complete development of his theories in his Toward a Science of Translating in 1964. The quote by Williams from Bible Translating has nothing to do with dynamic equivalence!

 

Thanks for the kind words. However, re Sorenson's book, I'd get in trouble if I critiqued it--not the least because it was given to me by a supporting pastor! :saint:

I consider Williams' book to be fair game because it's talking about a technical area that in my view isn't tied directly to the KJVO controversy.

 

Williams Didn't Follow His Own Advice

I could write many more pages concerning the errors in this book. However, I think I’ve made my point. So I’m going to wrap things up with some final quotes.

The book, though well-intentioned, is fatally flawed because of the many errors in linguistics and translation methodology. The sad thing is, Williams appears to realize that he lacks in this area. He himself is not qualified to be a translator—he actually admits this. Notice the following quotes.

“The work of translating God’s words should not be attempted by inexperienced individuals” (p. 7).

“We acknowledge that a translator should not attempt to translate into a foreign receptor-language without many years of experience in a foreign culture speaking a foreign language and without the help of many counselors. However, the method or basis of translating should not be dictated by cultural experiences, but rather by the counsel of the Lord” (p. 8).

“Although this author has had formal training in Latin, Spanish and French, and has studied Hebrew and Greek on his own, he would never attempt to translate the Scriptures into another language without the proper experience and training in a specific culture and language-group for many years (viz. 15-20 years). This does not infer that the method or underlying principle of translating is not understood” (p. 8).

So now you have Williams’ linguistic resume. He is not a linguist and he is not a Bible translator. For him to write a book on translation is about the same as if I would write a book on heart surgery.

In recent days I’ve been a consultant on two secular translation projects: a brochure and other work for the sewage plant of our city here in Japan (note to self—prepare for snide comments), and a scholarly paper for a Japanese prof in English at a local college. Why did my linguist friends come to me for help? They know that in both English and Japanese I have the diplomas, the professional experience and the skills. These linguists would not be surprised if I wrote a book on translation studies. Thus, I am baffled. Williams requires far more from the translator than he does from himself—the supposed expert who wrote a book telling the translator how to do it.

According to Phil Stringer, who authored two chapters, “This is one of the great mission challenges of our new century. Will we burden millions of new Christians with translations of the Bible made by modernists? Will we rise to the occasion and support legitimate translations (sic) efforts around the world?” (p. 163). That’s what makes this so sad. There is a great need for such a book. This book does not fill that need.

I'm done, but feel free to continue to comment or ask questions. Or, if there is anyone out there who has read the book and wants to defend it, you are welcome to try.