tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post113512522740197082..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: How to translateWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1135359325540576702005-12-23T09:35:00.000-08:002005-12-23T09:35:00.000-08:00Funky, you wrote:I do, however, have problems with...Funky, you wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>I do, however, have problems with dissidents within and critics without the Church who wish to overturn aspects of historical Christianity by translating in ways that suit their agendas.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with you! The trouble is, just as one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, so one person's dissident is another's prophet. The priestly hierarchy in Jerusalem in Jeremiah's time and again in Jesus' time rejected Jeremiah and Jesus as dissidents. The priestly hierarchies in Constantinople and Rome have in the name of historical Christianity rejected as dissidents all kinds of reformers, as well as all kinds of heretics. Now I don't want to stir up sectarian bad feeling here. You are welcome to follow the teachings approved in Rome. But please remember that this is only one strand within historical Christianity, one which is perceived by outsiders as having its own biases. There are not many points on which its particular doctrines impinge on Bible translation, but the point about Jesus' brothers is one of them.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1135262159372513712005-12-22T06:35:00.000-08:002005-12-22T06:35:00.000-08:00"The problem as I see it is that tradition very of...<I>"The problem as I see it is that tradition very often carries bias with it - although of course we don't recognise this if it is our own tradition!"</I><BR/><BR/>I certainly recognize it. If this site teaches me nothing else, it'll be precision in linguistic expression! ;)<BR/><BR/>Obviously I have no qualms with the biases of Sacred Tradition. I'm even OK with purely academic translations of Scripture that do not rely on ST resolve ambiguities, but sincerely seek to simply translate the language as well as possible. I do, however, have problems with dissidents within and critics without the Church who wish to overturn aspects of historical Christianity by translating in ways that suit their agendas.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667550997520673156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1135249725628677252005-12-22T03:08:00.000-08:002005-12-22T03:08:00.000-08:00Funky asked about the role of tradition in transla...Funky asked about the role of tradition in translation, in the context of the need for care about avoiding bias in exegesis, i.e. Wayne's step #2. The problem as I see it is that tradition very often carries bias with it - although of course we don't recognise this if it is our own tradition! For example, one tradition is that Mary the mother of Jesus remained perpetually a virgin, therefore Jesus' so-called brothers could only have been his step-brothers or cousins. A translation according to tradition might use "cousins" or "step-brothers" in place of "brothers". But there is no basis for this tradition anywhere in the biblical text; indeed Matthew 1:25 seems to imply that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus' birth. Therefore, in this case to translate according to tradition is to introduce a doctrinal bias into the translation.<BR/><BR/>Now it is easy for me to see this example, but not so easy to see the bias in my own understandings. I have recently been accused in long discussions on <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/list/index.html" REL="nofollow">the Bible Translation list</A> of importing a Trinitarian "bias" into the Bible in preferring to translate John 1:1c as "the Word was God". I think I was able to defend myself adequately from this accusation, but such matters are by no means trivial!Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1135223760670617772005-12-21T19:56:00.000-08:002005-12-21T19:56:00.000-08:00I didn't mean to imply that the orginals were free...I didn't mean to imply that the orginals were free of bias. I meant only that I find biases introduced by translators distasteful.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667550997520673156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1135199683219263572005-12-21T13:14:00.000-08:002005-12-21T13:14:00.000-08:00For those people who know me (or think they know m...For those people who know me (or think they know me), it might surprise them, but I tend to think that Funky Dung's (interesting name!) and Rey's concerns are quite right. However, how I would solve it is to reword Wayne's #1 to something like: <I>How did the original author say what they said?</I> Using the word <I>What</I> means to me something very, very close to what #2 says. I think the emphasis should be on the <B>how</B> and not on <B>what</B> (though I suspect what I'm saying is what Wayne means).<BR/>The idea that I'm trying to get at is that the first step involves extensive observations of the grammar and lexis that sits on the printed page. It is this detailed work that safe guards the potential danger of #2. The detailed work must <B>also</B> involve how the physical evidence (the words and grammar) coheres and holds together with each other and the overall context. These kinds of observations are rarely considered in literal translations and yet they are the very things the original audience used to disambiguate the original text.<BR/>It seems to me that the typical arguments (as mentioned by Funky Dung and Rey) against doing #2 seek to de-doctrinalize the original text or seek a translation that allows, or even promotes, multi-doctrinal interpretations. In other words, Funky Dung mentioned, <I>"dynamic equivalence translations are polluted with doctrinal biases."</I> The fact is that the original is permeated with doctrinal biases--the correct ones, of course, but they're still there. The whole point of #2 is to capture <B>those</B> doctrinal biases. Ironically, if we actually did that perfectly, no one would agree with it! The difficult part is making sure #1 is done so well that #3 is emminently supportable by the evidence for #2.<BR/>In any case, I really don't see how one can gain any level of accuracy without doing #2.Mike Sangreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06436714466682782260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1135184741256823362005-12-21T09:05:00.000-08:002005-12-21T09:05:00.000-08:00#2 worries me. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it ...#2 worries me. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is a step that must be handled with great care. There have been a lot of heresies spread in the name of what authors "intended" to communicate. I realize that translating without interpreting is neigh impossible, which is part of why I asked you via email about the role of Tradition in translation. I think a lot of people who like the ESV and other "literal" translations are afraid that dynamic equivalence translations are polluted with doctrinal biases (or at least ones they don't like).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667550997520673156noreply@blogger.com