Comments on: Reflections on the nature of Bible translation

By: cantueso

cantueso — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:15:01 +0000

In Spanish there is a great translation made by some Domenicans. It is not the translation offered by Catholic web sites, but it was the official version in Franco’s time. The translators are Nacar Fuster and Colunga Cueto.

So?

It is a good example of the basic problem. I am a translator and the trade slogan is: If it is beautiful, it is not faithful. If it is faithful, it is not beautiful (and in Spanish, instead of “it”, it would be “she”…..)

My primary language was German, but I could never read any Bible until I saw that Nacar Colunga translation. All the English translations that I have looked at strike me as drab, sometimes because of their archaisms, sometimes because of clumsy attempts to sound like the next guy.

By: A Call for Coherency Scholarship « Better Bibles Blog

A Call for Coherency Scholarship « Better Bibles Blog — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 06:02:18 +0000

[...] Call for Coherency Scholarship David Frank posted Reflections on the nature of Bible translation. And I really like what he said. So, I thought I would interact with it a bit (and hopefully [...]

By: David Frank

David Frank — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:51:10 +0000

John Hobbins, I agree. The term I use for this is that sometimes translators “overtranslate.” What I am really pondering is what translation is all about. In keeping with the sentiment of my post, I do believe that different Bible translators or translation committees with different approaches to translation all want to translate the original text as completely and as accurately as possible. We get different results that could all be considered proper translations of the same text because of the fact that there are different ways to say the same thing, because of different audiences that the translators have in mind, and because of different ideas as to how best to capture the meaning of the source text as completely as possible. Yes, overtranslation, or over-explicating the text, is one of the ways that a translation might go somewhat astray.

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:40:32 +0000

Perhaps every committee on Bible translation should have a subcommittee. We could call it the Department of Redundancy Department.

By: John Hobbins

John Hobbins — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:20:27 +0000

Interesting conversation.

I think it’s true that theologians are averse to underspecification.

But I think translators are averse to underspecification, too.

Translators love to make the source texts clear and understandable. Even if that means rewriting them in the sense of eliminating “extraneous information” they contain, and adding new redundancies to emphasize what is thought to be essential.

By: Rich Rhodes

Rich Rhodes — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:40:45 +0000

Bob, Underspecification is a technical term in linguistics. At one level it refers to situations in which it is not necessary to store all the information in a linguistic unit because the patterns of the language allow the information to be supplied from context. For example, Turkish suffixes contain high or low vowels. You only need to know if a vowel is high or low, whether it is front or back, round or unround is supplied by the preceding vowel. The usual analysis of this is that the vowels in Turkish suffixes are underspecified. In this sense it is merely the flip side of redundancy. But the kind of underspecification that is of most interest for Bible translation is semantic/pragmatic. In one of my old posts I discussed this point. It's worth quoting the relevant paragraph. In actual communication context is everything. The essence of language is that it gives you just enough information to pick out of the context what it is that the speaker intends to communicate. Why do we call red hair red? If meanings were absolute we would call it orange. It’s red because it has a reddish cast compared to blonde hair. We say red because that’s enough information to enable you to pick out the right class of hair colors. If you order a sandwich in a deli you’re likely to say: A ham and cheese on rye, please. Hold the mayo. Not I’d like to order a ham and cheese sandwich on rye bread, but don’t put any mayonnaise on it. It's this kind of underspecification that theologians seem not to want to allow for.

By: David Frank

David Frank — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:15:24 +0000

Bob MacDonald, I have some historical references that indicate that Matthew’s gospel was originally in Aramaic. The Greek form of it that we have is apparently itself a translation. And of course, all of the quotes of Jesus in the gospels would seem to be a translation. I don’t think Jesus ordinarily spoke Greek.

By: David Frank

David Frank — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:10:22 +0000

Mark Denning, no the Gordon-Conwell Doctor of Ministry degree is not what I had in mind, though I should have remembered that important development. I have a lot of confidence in that program, and I would have been interested in it myself, except that I already have a doctorate and couldn’t justify at this point in my life going for another one. I’ve met and interacted some with Dr. Roy Ciampa, and I know Dr. Bryan Harmelink, and if you are interested in the theory and practice of Bible translation, and have the right prerequisites, that is a study program I would recommend.

By: Scott W

Scott W — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:07:38 +0000

A good article by a NT scholar who has recently been engaged in English Bible translation work for a major translation about the complexity of this task exegetically and theologically:

http://www.pointloma.edu/Assets/PLNU/Viewpoint/VP+TPhillips+Fall+2009.pdf

By: Mark Denning

Mark Denning — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:32:19 +0000

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary has recently announced a Doctor of Ministry degree with a focus in Bible Translation. The primary faculty mentors are Dr. Roy Ciampa & Dr. Bryan L. Harmelink. Is this the program you are referring to or are there others you have in mind?