Ryken Understanding English Bible Translation

The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach
1. Auflage 2009
ISBN: 978-1-4335-2275-8
Verlag: Crossway
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 0 - No protection

E-Book, Englisch, 208 Seiten

From the KJV to the NIV, NLT, ESV, and beyond, English Bible translations have never been as plentiful as they are today. This proliferation has also brought confusion regarding translation differences and reliability. This book brings clarity to the issues and makes a strong case for an essentially literal approach. Taking into account the latest developments in Bible translation, Leland Ryken expertly clarifies the issues that underlie modern Bible translation by defining the terms that govern this discipline and offering a helpful Q&A. He then contrasts the two main translation traditions-essentially literal and dynamic equivalence-and concludes with sound reasons for choosing the former, with suggestions for using such a translation in the church. This book will appeal to thoughtful readers who have questions about Bible translation; individuals, churches, and ministries in the process of choosing a translation; and college and seminary students and faculty.

Leland Ryken (PhD, University of Oregon) served as professor of English at Wheaton College for nearly fifty years. He served as literary stylist for the English Standard Version Bible and has authored or edited over sixty books, including The Word of God in English and A Complete Handbook of Literary Forms in the Bible.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Ryken, Leland

Leseproben

2

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT
ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION

THE ISSUES SURROUNDING English Bible translation are complex. Much of the writing on the subject is so technical that laypeople might well despair of ever understanding the process. In this chapter I will clarify matters by asking and answering a series of questions that frequently surface in regard to English Bible translation. In answering the questions in my own voice, I have pictured myself as responding to questions posed by an interviewer.

1) Isn’t all translation interpretation? If so, aren’t essentially literal and dynamic equivalent translations basically the same?

The favorite motto of dynamic equivalent translators is that “all translation is interpretation.” The statement is so misleading that an immediate moratorium should be called on its use.

There is only one sense in which all translation is interpretation, and it is not what dynamic equivalent translators usually mean by their cliché. All translation is lexical or linguistic interpretation. That is, translators must decide what English word or phrase most closely corresponds to a given word of the original text. I myself do not believe that “interpretation” is the best word by which to name this process, but inasmuch as it requires a “judgment call” on the part of translators, there is something akin to interpretation when translators decide whether, for example, the Israelites were led through the wilderness or the desert.

All translation is “interpretation” on the lexical level. But this is the least of what excites dynamic equivalent translators. In fact, they are often impatient with finding the right corresponding word and eager to interpret the meaning of a word or phrase for the allegedly ignorant modern reader.

2) What do dynamic equivalent translators primarily mean when they speak of all translation being interpretation?

They primarily mean interpretation of the content of a statement—in other words, exegesis and commentary. For example, lexical interpretation of Psalm 23:5b yields the translation “you anoint my head with oil.” A typical move by dynamic equivalent translators is to translate that statement as “you welcome me as an honored guest” (GNB). What I have labeled lexical interpretation has actually been bypassed in the second rendition, since the translators who produced it make no claim that the words honored guest appear in the original poem. The translators have interpreted the metaphoric meaning of the image of the anointed head. The two types of interpretation that I have noted belong to different realms and cannot accurately be placed on the same continuum.

3) What’s so objectionable about the motto “all translation is interpretation”?

It is objectionable because its effect is to conceal a basic difference that exists between the rival translation philosophies. The sleight of hand that dynamic equivalent translations hope to perform with their cliché “all translation is interpretation” is to conceal the irreconcilable divergence that exists between retaining the words of the original and substituting an interpretation of meaning in place of those words. The hoped-for effect of the motto is to imply something like the following: “See—all translation is interpretation, and the liberties that dynamic equivalent translators take with the original are just part of the normal work of translation.”

Well, those liberties are not a necessary part of translation. Dynamic equivalence introduced a new type of interpretation into the translation process—a type that essentially literal translators regard as license. To remove the imagery of the statement “he who has clean hands and a pure heart” (Ps. 24:4, esv and others) and replace it with the statement “those who do right for the right reasons” (cev) is to do something with the text that was never regarded as normal translation practice until the appearance of dynamic equivalence. All translation is emphatically not interpretation as we find it in the second translation quoted above.

4) Are the labels “dynamic equivalence” and “functional equivalence” good descriptors?

No; they are as misleading as the motto “all translation is interpretation.” The newer term functional equivalence is even more deceptive than its predecessor, and it is no wonder that enthusiasts for that approach have latched onto the new label.

Both labels name a process of finding an equivalent in the receptor language for a statement composed in the donor or native language. Functional equivalence seeks something in the receptor language that produces the same effect (and therefore allegedly serves the same function) as the original statement, no matter how far removed the new statement might be from the original.

For example, in searching for a metaphor to express how delightful he finds God’s law, the poet in Psalm 19:10 landed on “sweeter also than honey / and drippings from the honeycomb” (most translations). A dynamic equivalent translator asks, now what does someone in modern Western society find as tasteful as the ancient poet found honey to be? What in modern experience serves the same function as honey in the category of “something that tastes sweet?” One translator’s answer: “You’ll like it better than strawberries in spring, / better than red, ripe strawberries” (message).

In slight contrast, dynamic equivalence widens the scope beyond functional equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is not primarily interested in corresponding effect. Instead, dynamic equivalence is interested in finding equivalent words or expressions for the original even while departing from the terms used by the biblical author. For example, if the original says “Lord of hosts,” dynamic equivalent translators judge that “Lord Almighty” is an adequate lexical equivalent for the original. If the original says “the hearts of the people melted and became as/like water” (all translations that render Joshua 7:5 literally), the other philosophy thinks that a suitable equivalent of the metaphor is “the Israelite army felt discouraged” (cev) or “the Israelites . . . lost their courage” (NCV) or “their courage melted away” (NLT).

5) What makes the labels “dynamic equivalence”and “functional equivalence” objectionable?

Those labels cover only a fraction of what the translators actually do during the process of translation. Correspondingly, the activities that fall into these two categories constitute a relatively small part of what I discuss in this book. Dynamic equivalent translators smuggle in a huge agenda of further activities that have little to do with finding an equivalent for something in the original text. Here is a list of activities that make up the major portion of what dynamic equivalent translators do:

make the style of the English Bible as contemporary and colloquial (or nearly so) as it is possible to make it;

change figurative language into direct statement;

add interpretive commentary in an attempt to make the Bible immediately understandable to a modern reader;

replace theological vocabulary with everyday vocabulary (true of some but not all dynamic equivalent translations);

reduce the vocabulary level of the original and of traditional English translations;

shorten the syntax of the original and/or traditional English translations;

bring masculine gender references into line with modern feminist preferences.

Very little of the process I have just described involves finding equivalent terminology or “functions” for the original text. My objection to the labels dynamic equivalence and functional equivalence, therefore, is that they are misleading and deceptive as descriptors of the phenomenon that they are designed to name.

6) Is the claim true that essentially literal translation is no more than transliteration?

The claim was made in print by Mark Strauss in a review of my earlier book.1 (Strauss coauthored a book that makes the opposite claim that all translation—even literal translation—is a form of paraphrase.2 ) A transliteration of Psalm 32:1 reads, “Blessedness of forgiven of transgression, covered of sin.” An essentially literal translation is totally different: “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” The charge that essentially literal translators “forget that [the process involves] translation rather than transcription” should be labeled for what it is—frivolous and irresponsible.3

7) Is it true that linguistic theory has made it obsolete to speak of the difference between what the original text “says”and what it “means?”

No, linguistics has not proven that. The only kernel of truth in the statement is that meaning is ordinarily embodied not in individual words but in more complex word combinations such as phrases, clauses, and sentences. The exception would be in a one-word communication, where the single word embodies the meaning.

The attempt to discredit the distinction between what a passage in the Bible says and what it means is yet another way in which dynamic equivalent translators attempt to phrase the issues in such a way as to make it appear that all translation is really a version of dynamic equivalence. To clarify the matter, we can compare the two columns in Chart 2.1. The left column translates the words of the original into...