The Literal Is Not Best

Thanks, Rippon. It is refreshing to read these sincere comments in a non-biblical context and thus without the emotional charged bias.

I can personally apply a musical metaphor --

• each musician [translators]
• comes to the same musical score [the text]
• and plays it on his/her instrument [pen & paper]
• producing sound [translation]

Of course, every performance does not sound exactly the same [versions]; each musician brings their own experience (that is, skills & knowledge) to the notes on the sheet music and may play it slightly louder/softer, or faster/slower, etc. than another musician (thus creating their own interpretation). The resulting performances may be different, but that alone does not make any of them incorrect.

 

Really strange Rippon. We're supposed to learn about Bible translation from the translator of a Korean comic book? No thanks.

It is not widely realized in the literature on Bible translation, (and certainly not on this forum) that there are many kinds of translation (not to mention verbal interpretation): literary, business, diplomatic, news, movie subtitles, scholarly, and oh yes, comic book translation. All have different goals, techniques and principles. I have personally done various kinds. (I once translated a Bach mass from Latin to Japanese.:saint: ) My co-worker right now is working on a scholarly translation.

Comic book translations (even ones trying to teach history) have an extrememly different goal from Bible translation: entertainment as opposed to communicating God's truth. Surely that can be seen even from Rippon's OP!

 

But the book doesn't succeed if it doesn't entertain, right? So entertainment is the main means by which a comic book communicates, even one trying to teach history, even if the final goal is different. (And I have read a few Japanese manga in the original.) You yourself wrote in the OP how the humor had to be right or it wouldn't work. Written humor doesn't cross cultures well, though funny illustrations can.

So the end result had to be dynamic as opposed to literal. Different goal from a Bible translation, different techniques, different philosophy of translation. Hey, if I were translating a comic book I wouldn't translate it literally either. Nida would be proud of me, as long as it was only a comic book! :thumbs:

Have to hit the sack. It's late.

 

Thanks for eloquently making my point. This is what I was trying to say: humor must be translated dynamically or it won't communicate. However, the Bible is not humor. It is extremely serious communication of truth, as you agree. Therefore the method must be different.

To me, the closest secular equivalent to Bible translation is diplomatic translation. Unlike translating comics, the method in diplomatic translation must put authorial intent before reader comprehension. Since God is the ultimate Author of the Bible, surely the truths the Sovereign God intends to convey in the Bible are far more important than whether or not the reader comprehends those truths. Surely as a Calvinist you can agree with that!

Reader comprehension is important. But once again, in DE the reader's comprehension comes before authorial intent, but conservative methods put authorial intent first, even trying to preserve ambiguities. So we will continue to disagree here.

Sounds like you're learning Korean. I don't believe I've seen you discussing Korean meanings before. Go for it!

 

I agree with JoJ. I have, in my few years, translated texts for friends and clients, ranging from Germen-to-English, Japanese-to-English, and even Germen-to-Japanese.
When you read something in a language that you know, but your client doesn't, you have to consider some things; for instance, what quirks does the text contain that don't translate over? If I were translating "I went to New York to see my friends" to Japanese, I wouldn't use their word for "see", since I didn't go to literally look at them; I would use "meet".

Little things like that, over and over and over, can make the finished product seem different, or even inaccurate, if translated back into English word for word.

 

Ahahaha, I see.
Wow, I misread almost all of that.

But, ah, everything after the part about me agreeing with anyone is still my posted opinion.

*feels silly*

 

Um, you are really missing my point here, Rippon. It depends on what kind of translation I was doing as to how dynamic my translation would be. In doing some kinds of secular translation I might even do a complete paraphrase--just not in Bible translation.

 

Translating "meet" for "see" is just what I do in translating from Greek into Japanese. This is well within the paramaters of my translation method, called optimal equivalence (the method of the NKJV and HCSV Bible translators). Rippon is talking about a bit more than that.

I have to run now, so I can't find it for you, but there is a BB thread from some time ago where I discuss in detail the problems with the dynamic equivalence (functional equivalence) method of translation.

 

Think back. ZBs was talking about secular translation. You answered saying I preferred more literal translation. So I am left to logically conclude that you think I translate everything literally when I've been trying to say there are different methods for different tasks. Next time please be more clear.

 

I can't comment on the HCSB, since I don't have it and haven't read it. I only know what the translators say.

 

Since Rippon started with a quote, I'm going to add one here. I've been looking at the 1950 reprint of the 1906 2nd edition of The Letters of St. Paul and Hebrews, translated by Arthur S. Way. This is a pretty free translation, a paraphrase in fact, but read what Way writes:

"These versions giving the literal rendering as they do, constitute a court of appeal in matters of faith, the only possible one. It is also the only form of translation about which there can be anything like the general agreement. No expanded, explanatory translation could be final, as is evidenced by the variety of opinions as to the interpretation of many passages in the Epistles. This form of translation is the only one for which permanent acceptance could reasonably be expected" (p. ix). :type:

 

Clarification: I didn't mean theologically conservative or liberal here. I meant conservative in translation method.

Having said that, I've recently come to where I classify translations in two categories: theologically based and linguistically based. By this I mean that "conservative" (in the above meaning) Bible translation methods start out with the theological presupposition of the verbal-plenary inspiration of the Bible. On the other hand, linguistically based translation methods begin with linguistic presuppositions, such as that of Nida that language is a code, or with him and others the presuppostion that clear communication, producing reader response, is the most vital element of a translation, as opposed to authorial intent.