I would not have been one of them, John, since I believe there are times when it is acceptable to use a literal translation of a biblical language expression IF the literal expression is already in use in English, or is at least understandable for the correct meaning by the majority of English speakers, and if the expressions have the same meaning in both languages.

We agree on a lot of things. For example, it sounds like we both agree on the principle of metaphor to metaphor translation – the point of the “apple of my eye” post. It’s true that the underlying Hebrew does not mean “apple,” but does seems to be a figure of speech for “pupil” of an eye.

It’s comforting to the poet in me that you “get” the expression “apple of my eye” without difficulty. Nor does it surprise me that Peterson uses the expression.

At the time, your colleagues here on BBB argued to a man in favor of not using the expression in a Better Bible. At least that is how I remember it.

I’m familiar with the quotes about Luther’s translation method. My judgment to the contrary is impressionistic at this point. I continue to hold, based on my use of his translation, that Luther’s approach amounted to a moderate and spare use of DE translation technique, more moderate than, say, (T)NIV.

In context, one might argue, that was radical. In that sense, but only in that sense, Luther might be considered a forerunner of Nida and the GNB.

But it is important to qualify the relationship. Otherwise it comes to have a paradoxical ring to it, if you’ve ever used, as I have, the LutherBibel and Die Gute Nachricht (=GNB) side by side. The gap is enormous. As in a mile wide.

One might suppose that “the apple of my eye” came into the English language via a translation of the Bible, as did a number of English expressions. But I just did a little research at http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/34850.html, and it seems the expression was used in English to mean “cherished one” a long time before 1611, or even Wycliffe’s translation.

I think it’s great when a Hebrew or Greek idiom can be translated using a similar English idiom, which seems to be what happened in this case.

You and I — and a lot of other people — admire the work and the approach of Ernst Wendland, and I hope you are able to get him for the SBL conference. Note, though, that Wendland labeled Martin Luther’s approach as functional-equivalent. He used that as a description of Luther’s approach, and also said, “Luther aimed to produce what is known nowadays as a common-language version.” Being dynamic-equivalent or functional-equivalent doesn’t mean a translation has to abandon figurative language or be of poor literary quality.

See also a secular chapter on the history of translation, in the book Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (2001) where Jeremy Munday discusses the word-for-word vs. the sense-for-sense approaches to translation over the ages and lists Martin Luther as an important figure on the sense-for-sense side. He writes (p. 22),

Non-literal or non-accepted translation came to be seen and used as a weapon against the Church. The most famous example of this is Martin Luther’s crucially influential translation into East Middle German…. In response to accusations that he had altered the Holy Scriptures in his translations, Luther defended himself in his famous Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen (Circular Letter on Translation) of 1530.

And on p. 23,

Luther follows St Jerome in rejecting a word-for-word translation strategy since it would be unable to convey the same meaning as the ST and would sometimes be incomprehensible…. While Luther’s treatment of the free and literal debate does not show any real advance on what St Jerome had written eleven hundred years before, his infusion of the Bible with the language of ordinary people and his consideration of translation in terms focussing on the TL and the TT reader was crucial.

See also an article entitled “More on Luther’s Bible Translation Principles” in Notes on Translation 11.3.25-37. In this 1997 article, Milton Watt says, “Whereas Erasmus emphasized ‘the letter’ in his view of translation, Luther accentuated ‘the spirit.’ … Luther did not deny the need for philology, but he did relegate it to a lower priority.”

In Watt’s article Luther is quoted as saying,

We followed the rule that whenever the words could have given or tolerated an improved meaning, there we did not allow ourselves to be forced by the artificial Hebrew of the rabbis into accepting a different inferior meaning. For this is what the schoolmasters teach, that words are to serve and follow the meaning, not the meaning the words.

However, Watt also notes that Luther chose to be more literal in translation in two situations: 1) where the meaning of the source text is ambiguous, and 2) where there is a significant theological issue at stake.

So, John Hobbins, despite labels and polemics, perhaps you and I are not so far apart in our ways of thinking about translation, if we agree that a translation should be of good literary quality, should not be reluctant to translate figurative language as figurative language, should be faithful to the original in every way possible, and should not be afraid to make people think, and we both hold up Martin Luther’s translation as a positive example. We could probably still argue about which English translation best fits our image of what a translation should be, and whether to label Martin Luther as a formal-equivalent or dynamic-equivalent type of translator. No translation can be totally faithful to the original, and how you judge the relative merits of various translations depends on what you are focused on.

I will respond to your comments on blog.

David,

I am familiar with Ernst Wendland’s work, and hope to get him to contribute to an SBL session on Hebrew poetry I am involved in putting together. I agree he is doing very interesting work.

In a post entitled, Martinus Luther, you are the apple of my eye, easily googleable, I exemplify my point that Luther was not a DE translator ante litteram. Of course, counter-examples might be cited, but really, Luther’s translation lies on the FE, Hebraizing side of the continuum, not the DE side. The very recent Zurcher Bibel is, for sure, more consistently literal than was Luther, and follows in the footsteps of the original Zurcher Bibel, and Zwingli, in so translating.

Note also this comment by Luther – I cite it simply to demonstrate a danger which Luther ran rather strongly in theory, but much less in practice, precisely because he translated literally more often than not:

“I endeavored to make Moses so German that no one would suspect he was a Jew.”

That quote ought to send chills down your spine.

Finally, by way of example, I address on my blog a danger involved in making clarity the overarching goal of a translation: the peculiar treachery of translations that aim for clarity (a two part series).

You might be interested in the writings of Ernst Wendland, who has developed an approach to translation that he calls a literary-rhetorical approach. The term “dynamic equivalent” is sort of passé now, and other names for basically the same approach (which I consider a very normal approach) are meaning-based or functional-equivalent. Wendland’s literary-rhetorical approach is in the same vein, except that it reflects his high regard and concern for the literary value of the scriptures. See also his article on “Martin Luther, the Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation,” published in two parts, in Notes on Translation 9.1.16-36 and 9.2.47-60 (1995). See also Michael Trinklein’s “Luther’s Insights into the Translator’s Task,” published in The Bible Translator 21.2.80-88 (1970).

Looking back at the preface to the RSV, I like what it says:

The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a heritage of the past or praise its literary style, but to those who read it that they may discern and understand God’s Word to men. That Word must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning. It must stand forth in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today.

John Hobbins, one thing I hear you saying is that there are reasons you might prefer a certain form of the English Bible, apart from whether or not it is a good translation. You prefer a translation that sounds formal, that transports the reader/hearer from everyday life, into a more formal and awesome sphere. You want a translation that has a sanctified aura about it, and one way to achieve that would be to use language that doesn’t sound normal, such as a form of English from the past. This goes along with your preference for formal, liturgical worship. I can identify with you there. I, too, prefer a formal style of worship, where people don’t dress ultra-casual, and where a reading of The Message would seem out of place. It is related to sanctification, and I don’t want to minimize the appropriateness of this approach to meeting with God.

Regarding the translation of Psalm 14:1, I would translate this as something like, “The fool says to himself, God is irrelevant.” Or, to use nonsexist language, maybe “Fools say to themselves….” But, as I understand it, to retain the literalism “says in his heart” is inaccurate. In the ancient Hebrew way of thinking, the heart was the seat of the intellect, not of emotions, so to say “in his heart” in English communicates the wrong thing. If you wanted to be a little more literal in your English translation, you could say, “The fool says in his mind,” but I think it would be saying the same thing, only less strangely, to say “…says to himself” (or “say to themselves”).

I will acknowledge that a literal translation like “says in his heart” can be appropriate if the user of the translation knows what the text is supposed to mean, apart from the words.

As for cultural planning, indeed. If your goal is to tie Christianity to the linguistic and the theological update it received through the Reformation, you are going to advocate a traditional translation. I hope someone like you, John, is self-aware about this. But as you rightly note I entirely reject this goal. I don’t reject the Reformation, but I believe Christianity needs to move on beyond it and not allow itself to be tied there.

As for your DE “translation” of “there is no God”, this is not a translation but a distortion. Where did you get it from? This looks like an attempt to blacken the name of the method by linking it with an example which is not DE at all and which is not, I think, taken from any major DE version.

A few brief remarks. The “literal as possible and as free as necessary rule” was already the motto of the RSV translation team, unless my memory is entirely faulty. I doubt they invented it either.

I disagree with the notion that a translation that purposely adheres to the wording of the source text even when that means stretching the resources of the target language, is of interest only to scholars.

Note that Alter’s translations have been selling well to a literate, lay audience. The new Zurcher Bibel struggled mightily to render the Hebrew and Greek in “Hebrew” and “Greek” dress. It was done very intentionally, with the help of top-notch linguists and professors of literature. It’s been a long time since a Bible in German has sold so briskly.

On a related note, Peter is of course all wet when he suggests that only a minority of people are interested in a translation in the KJV tradition. The number of people who are sticking to KJV or NKJV remains enormous. ESV, of course, is just RSV with many improvements and a few unimprovements.

Part of what is at stake in this debate is cultural planning (an aspect of translation according to Pym and others). If your goal is to loosen Christianity from its ancient moorings and the linguistic and the theological update it received through the Reformation, you are going to advocate a non-traditional translation. Someone like Peter is self-aware about this, but I’m sure everyone else has thought through the confessional and theological implications of their preferred translation technique.

It is also frustrating for someone like me who reads Luther and knows the Lutherbibel a bit, to see remarks of his co-opted by others with whom he shares relatively little in terms of translation method.

Now, if you believe in promoting a version of Christianity which draws from riches old and new, you are going to advocate a translation that is traditional in some ways but innovative in others. I have yet to see this component of things adequately discussed on Better Bibles, a grave oversight in my estimation.

I agree with Rich that reference is a matter of degree, but I don’t see how that is a game-changer. In any case, the whole question of naturalness is more complex than people have so far let on. Here’s an example from the Psalms:

First in Biblish:

The fool says in his heart, there is no God.

Now in DE:

The fool thinks to himself, God does not care.

It’s an example, I think, of what is lost and what is gained in DE translation. There is a sense in which it is not possible to understand how the word atheist in our culture has been and continues to be used without access to the Biblish version.

Furthermore, since Pascal at the latest, if not before, one cannot discuss these matters without reference to the heart, which is a vital anthropological and metaphysical concept in our culture, with analogues in most other cultures. So you cannot just eliminate it from the translation without considerable loss.

Basically, the Psalms text, once one translates it in DE translation, no longer coheres with the very history of reception it set in motion. At the very least, this result is extremely paradoxical.

For other reasons, of course, I value the DE translation. Heart-speech does reference the thought process. The language of existence does reference relationality. As when a Sicilian mother tells her disobedient daughter, “Non esiste piu per me.” That’s very strong language that says, “I don’t care about you anymore” (though it also says, paradoxically, the opposite at the same time, just as Dio non esiste “God does not exist” does in all the languages I know).

And here’s a wrinkle. A very well entrenched use of scripture involves lifting a single verse out of context and using it as a motto for life or thought for the day. In view of that use, what kind of translation is more suitable? Please discuss.

If the answer comes back right away, a DE translation, naturally – I will be very disappointed. A question like this deserves careful thought, not a knee-jerk reaction based on either/or logic.