Muslims claim that the original Arabic Koranic text is untranslatable and that all “translations” are “interpretations.” Is the Bible translatable and are there only “interpretations”?[1] The required length of this essay makes it impossible to do a full treatment of the issue. What I will attempt, however, it to give a cursory outline of the issues that are involved in Bible translation and their bearing upon the church.
THE CHALLENGES OF LANGUAGES AND TRANSLATION
The translation of the scriptures began as early as 270 BC with the Septuagint. To date, 2,500 languages do not have a Bible translation.[2]
There are therefore immense needs and opportunities in the field of Bible translation; however there are a commensurate amount of problems which the translator faces. Firstly, no two words are exactly alike. Secondly, the vocabulary of any two languages will vary in size. Thirdly, different languages have different syntactical rules. Fourthly, languages differ in their stylistic preferences.[3]
THE BIBLICAL PRECEDENCE FOR BIBLE TRANSLATION
Despite these challenges the Bible implies that it is imperative that the Church produces the Scriptures into each of the world’s languages.[4] I shall restrict myself to two New Testament evidences.
Firstly, the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20[5] confers upon the Church the responsibility of presenting the Word of God to each ethnolinguistic people group. The eleven are commanded to make disciples of all the nations,[6] and to teach them everything He (Jesus) had taught them. This command to make disciples of “all the nations” is a charge to go beyond the boundaries of the nation of Israel[7] with the message of God’s Kingdom into the linguistically diverse peoples (especially Gentiles) of the world.[8] Notice Jesus’ uses of the imperatival participle “διδάσκοντες” expresses one of the components of “making disciples.” The root verb is one of speech which necessitates transference of all that Jesus had taught His disciples into the vernaculars of “all the nations. In order for any people group to hear the gospel it has got to be in their vernacular or another learnt language.
The second evidence is in Acts 2:1-12 where on three occasions we are told that believers were enabled to speak in other languages.[9] Adjith Fernando suggests that one of the immense implications of this passage is that we need to learn the “heart language” of people and share the gospel with them in that language.[10] Luke tells us that “…Jews from many nations[11] ….were bewildered to hear their own languages being spoken by the believers.” These Jews said “we hear them speaking the languages of the lands where we were born!...we all hear these people speaking in our own languages about the wonderful things God has done!"[12] Luke then proceeds to give an extensive catalogue of fifteen linguistically diverse nations which the people represented.[13]
The believers’ enablement by the Spirit to speak of “the mighty works of God”[14] demonstrates God’s grace in accommodating His revelation in human languages.[15] It also shows that what the onlookers form the Jewish Diaspora heard were true and accurate declarations of God’s deeds in languages which were at first a curse upon humanity. God transformed a symbol of Babel into a medium of exuberant praise and declaration of His might works. Thus one can give an emphatic yes to the question: Are the Scriptures translatable?
TWO TRANSLATION PHILOSOPHIES
Everyone is agreed that the Bible endorses its translation and that they should aim at translating the “meaning” from the source-language into the receptor-language.[16] The question, however, is: How does the translator transfer the meaning from the source-language into the receptor-language? There are two different philosophies which seek to answer this pertinent question: Formal Equivalence and Functional equivalence.[17]
Formal Equivalence
1 Corinthians 2:12-13 reads, “we have received…the Spirit…from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us… And we speak of these things in words…taught by the Spirit…”[18] Paul claims that his words are Spirit inspired. Because of this, many well meaning translators will not go beyond a word-for-word translation until the proper transfer of meaning necessitates a slight shift in syntax and grammar.[19]
This philosophy requires the translator to choose one of a limited number of meanings assigned to each Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek lexeme or word. The translator then fills in the words that belong in the sentence and at the same time follows the syntax (or from) characteristic of the original language.[20] Accordingly, nouns are translated by nouns, verbs by verbs, prepositions by prepositions, et cetera. Proponents of this philosophy believe semantic equivalence and Formal Equivalence are identical. This supposed to be “accurate” renderings have proven to be awkward, unnatural, incomprehensible, amusing, and in the words of Eugene Nida, “tragically misleading.”[21]
Notwithstanding, Formal Equivalent translations are indispensable for those who do not know or have a limited knowledge of the biblical languages as they are valuable in helping to: identify the formal structure of the original text; examine Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek idioms, figures of speech, and formal patters of language; trace recurrent words; identify textual ambiguities;[22] trace formal verbal allusions;[23] identify, become familiarized, and appreciate an author’s unique style and use of words and therefore being able to see how the original authors expressed their meaning; be aware of the historical distance between the original authors, readers, and contemporary readers.
Functional Equivalence[24]
Whilst Formal Equivalence seeks to reproduce in the receptor-language the equivalent of the source-language[25] message in terms of form, Functional Equivalence seeks to reproduce in the receptor-language the closest natural equivalent of the message of the source-language, primarily in terms of meaning and secondarily in terms of form. This philosophy does not disregard the form of the original languages. Conversely, it uses the grammatical and lexical form of the original provided the original meaning is communicated accurately. Hence, “lexical and syntactical semantics must always take precedence over lexical and syntactical forms.”[26] This is because a word has no inherent meaning in its sound or form, but from the “conventional meaning” attributed to it by a specific sociolinguistic group.[27]
However, Functional Equivalent translations are prone to abuses and or pitfalls. These include: oversimplification or destruction of the literacy or artistic integrity of the translated text;[28] destruction of specialised “biblical vocabulary,”[29] verbal allusions and parallels;[30] and allows for interpretative bias.
THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF TEACHERS
The various linguistic challenges as well as the different translation philosophies make the need for teachers[31] within the church more daunting.[32] In relation to Bible translation, I believe there are at least three reasons for this need.
“To Translate is to Betray”
Firstly, whilst all translators seek to be faithful to the original text, translation is an inexact science, and as a result, some meaning is either lost or added in any translation whether formal or functional. [33] This is due to the fact, as we have already seen that no two languages are identical - for example, in terms of vocabulary and syntax. Consequently certain nuances in the source-language are either untranslatable or difficult to transfer into the receptor-language. These will only be made clear to the contemporary reader as the teacher expounds the biblical text. The teacher’s responsibility therefore would be to make sure that the meaning that is lost or added in translation is explained to those under his or her care.
Elucidation
Teachers are also needed to elucidate/clarify the translated scriptures. One of the complaints levied against some adherents of Functional Equivalence is that they strive to perform the work of the pastor/teacher. They have ignored the fact that biblical illiteracy is at the heart of the problem with contemporary Bible readers and that the novice will never perceive the meaning of the biblical text until he/she has resolved him/herself to much Bible study. How can the beginner or the novice understand significant biblical terms such as propitiation, justification, righteousness, sanctification, et cetera but by becoming familiar with the Bible and by the vital role of teachers who expound the biblical text?[34]
Peters refers to some of Paul’s writings as being “hard to understand.”[35] Certainly Peter is not implying that most believers will find most of the Scriptures unfathomable; nor is he proposing that such difficulty was the intention of its authors;[36] but that there are some passages of Scriptures which are not easily understood. Surely, the mysteries of the sacred Scriptures will not be solved by any new translation whatever its quality, respectability, and underlying translation philosophy. Like Christ, the teacher is to make perplexed truths clear and to effect the edification of the hearer.[37]
Contextualisation and Application
Finally, teachers are needed because of the barriers which stand between the original biblical audience and the contemporary reader.[38] In Titus 1:9, Paul speaks of good teachers as those who are able to make the established Christian doctrine bear upon the lives of their hearers. Therefore, after the Scriptures have been translated local teachers need to not only to elucidate the meaning of a particular passage for the original audience, but to properly contextualise and apply that same passage to his/her audience.[39]
CONCLUSION
Translating the word of God into all the world’s ethnolinguistic communities is one of the Church’s responsibilities. Let us support the many those missionaries who are all over the world translating the scriptures whenever and however we can – whether prayerfully, financially, et cetera. After the Bible has been translated may the Lord will gift His Church with teachers who will elucidate, contextualise, and apply the sacred text.
__________________________________________________________________
[1] For a discussion on this matter see, Carson, D.A. ”The Inclusive Language Debate – A Pleas for Realism (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1998), 72. Also, see Strauss, Mark “Form, Function, and the ‘Literal Meaning’ requested notes pg 17-18.
[2] In addition to these languages 1,700 translation projects are on the way.
[3] An example of this would be the use of the passive voice in Greek and Hebrew. In Jamaica our English teachers encourage us to use as little passives as possible. However, in Greek there is a high regard for the use of passives. For these and more see Carson pg 47-76 and MacRae, Allan A. “The Problems of Translation” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978) pg 37-44
[4]There are over 6,000 of these. For some useful statistics visit http//www.wycliffe.org/language/statistics.htm
[5] See also Matt.24:14; 26:13; Mk.16:15; Acts 1:8; Col.1:23
[6] For a summary of the usage of this phrase as used in the New Testament see Piper, John, Let the Nations Be Glad-The Supremacy of God in Missions (IVP: Leicester, 2003) pg 186-188.
[7] See Matt.10:5-6 and 15:24
[8] Matthew emphasises the nations see 1:3-5; 2:1-2; 3:9; 4:15; 8:5, 11, 28; 11:21-22; 15:22; 16:13; and 27:24. look up
[9] vv 4 6,8,11. Thus, the Church is enabled by the Spirit to fulfil the Commission of Matthew 28.
[10] Fernando, Adjith, The NIV Application Commentary – Acts (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1998) pg 86.
[11] Lit every nation under heaven. Not every single nation but those in the Greco-Roman world situated around the Mediterranean basin – every nation in which there Jews. Stott 63.
[12] Acts 2:1-5 How many languages were represented? NLB.
[13] Those from the east of Palestine, Judea, Asia Minor, North Africa, Rome, the Island of Crete, and Arabia. See Kistemaker Simon J., New Testament Commentary - Acts (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1990) pg 82. and Bruce¸ F.F. The New London Commentary on the New Testament – The Book of Acts (Marshall, Morgan & Scott: London, 1954 ) pg 62
[14] v11
[15] As is the case with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
[16] Source-language is also known as the donor-language. The receptor-language or the target-language.
[17] Strictly speaking all translations exist on a continuum between Formal Equivalence and Functional Equivalence.
[18] NRSV. Emphasis mine.
[19] For a response to this objection see Dillard, Raymand B., “Some Objections to Idiomatic Translations” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978) esp pgs 110-112.
[20] http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossf.htm#formalequavilence. In reality, Formal Equivalent translators have no choice but to adjust the grammar and syntax of the source-language in order to produce a reasonable recognizable and understandable translation in the target-language. Hence the saying, “So frei wie nötig, so treu wie möglich” – as free as necessary, but as accurate (faithful) as possible.”
[21] Nida, pg 5
[22] Therefore Formal Equivalence reduces the possibility of interpretative bias.
[23] Strauss, pg 158.
[24] Also known as “idiomatic,” “ thought-for-thought,” “dynamic equivalence,” “free translation,” and “meaning-based translation.”
[25] Throughout this paper the terms “source-language” and “original” will be used interchangeably to refer to the of the Scripture in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
[26] Stauss, pg 157.
[27] Ibid, pg 159. In addition to words, Functional Equivalence proponents believe meaning is expressed in word relationships, phrases, clauses, sentences, and the use of idioms. Cultural and historical contexts are also important.
[28] http://www.godsword.org/cgi-bin/gwstore.cart_id=9940795_21571&page=scholar3.htm
[29] Propitiation, expiation, or a sacrifice of atonement?
[30] For the issue of verbal allusions and parallels see, Strauss, pg 13.
[31] Ones who are immersed constantly in the history, culture, symbolisms, genres, and theology of the Bible.
[32] Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28f
[33] See Carson Inclusive, pg 59-61.
[34] Heb 5:12. See, Fisher Milton C. “Normative Principles for Bible Translating” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978) pg 21-22, 23-27 on the subject of “lowering the terminology of the Bible for each succeeding generation.”
[35] 2 Pet.3:15-16
[36] Barns Notes. Electronic version.
[37] Lk 24:27; 1 Cor 12:30; :5,13,17; The Ethiopian eunuch wanted someone to explain to him what D.A. Carson describes as a “grammatically clear text.” Carson, D. A., “The Limits of Dynamic Equivalence in Bible Translation,” in Evangelical Review of Theology 9 (1985): 212
[38] These include language, culture, time, and covenant Duvall, J.S and Hays J.D., Grasping God’s Word (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2001) pg 22.
[39] See Tit 1:9. Raymond B. Dillard has given a interesting response to the objection that Functional Equivalence translators are taking upon themselves the role of pastors. “Some Objections to Idiomatic Translations” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978) esp pgs 113-115.
Beekman, J, and Callow J., Translating the Word of God (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1978)
Bock¸ D.L., “Are Gender-Sensitive Translations Safe or Out?” in The Bible Translator (UBS Technical Papers vol.56, No 3, July 2005) ed Towner, P.H., et al.
Carson, D. A., “The Limits of Dynamic Equivalence in Bible Translation,” in Evangelical Review of Theology 9 (1985)
Carson, D.A. ”The Inclusive Language Debate – A Pleas for Realism (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1998)
Dillard, Raymond B., “Some Objections to Idiomatic Translations” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978)
Duvall, J.S and Hays J.D., Grasping God’s Word (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2001)
Fernando, Abijith, The NIV Application Commentary – Acts (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1998)
Fisher Milton C. “Normative Principles for Bible Translating” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978)
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossf.htm#formalequavilence.
http://www.godsword.org/cgi-bin/gwstore.cart_id=9940795_21571&page=scholar3.htm
http//www.wycliffe.org/language/statistics.htm
Kistemaker Simon J., New Testament Commentary - Acts (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1990)
MacRae, Allan, A., “The Problems of Translation” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978)
Nida, Eugene A. “The Book of a Thousand Tongues” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation vol 4 (Presbyterian and Reformed: Phillipsburg, 1978)
Piper, John, Let the Nations Be Glad-The Supremacy of God in Missions (IVP: Leicester, 2003)
Strauss, Mark “Form, Function, and the ‘Literal Meaning’ requested notes
No comments :
Post a Comment