Musings... Dr. Black's BLOG
Comments on Translation Issues Affecting the ISV®
[Introductory Thoughts]
[The ISV Heritage: Where We Got our English Bible]
[The Poetry of the International Standard Version]
[Zechariah 12:10 — Look Upon Me Whom They Pierced]
[The Disciple Whom Jesus Kept on Loving?]
[John 3:16 — God Loved the World So Much!?!]
[John 18:4 — Whom Sweet Whom]
[John 21:15-17 — Sloppy Agape]
[Acts 2:38 — Baptism for Forgiveness?]
[1 Corinthians 13:4-7 — An Ode to Love]
[Ephesians 5:32 — Mustering Mystery out of Musterion]
[Philippians 1:27-30 — Good Citizens]
[1 Timothy 3:2 — "Teachable" or "Able to Teach"]
[Titus 1:12 — On Poets & Liars: When is Poetry Poetry?]
[Hebrews 1:1 — Alliteration in the Bible]
[Hebrews 6:1 — "Press on" or "Be Carried Along"?]
[Hebrews 12:1-2 — Too Much Lettuce?]
[James 1:17 — Good Giving?]
[James 2:14 — Can Faith Save?]
Introduction
I should like to begin with a confession. As
a translator I am an amateur. Then again, so was Jacque Amyot, who created a French style
by translating Plutarch. So was Sir Thomas North, who in turn translated Amyot so well
that even Shakespeare could quote Plutarch in English without changing a word. So was John
Wyclif, who worked on the first complete rendering of the Bible into English.
When Jerome produced the Vulgate, he
doubtless considered himself an amateur, as did Martin Luther when he produced the first
German language translation of the Scriptures. The truth is that hardly anyone wants to be
a professional translator, mainly because the occasional translator is generally better
off than those who, making a living at their task, are obliged to accept almost any
assignment.
Having said as much, I sincerely hope that I
do not lose my amateur status by making the following remarks on the International
Standard Version (ISV) translation. The problem of translation may be treated from three
angles: adequate comprehension of the text to be translated, adequate handling of the
language translated into, and everything that happens in between. All these processes are
fraught with various and sundry difficulties.
A bit of autobiography may help to illustrate
the point. A few years ago I had the pleasant duty of giving a lecture at the University
of Madrid for a symposium on the Gospels. The lectures were to be published in an
anthology. Whether through naiveté or audacity (I am given more to the former than to the
latter), I elected to present my lecture in Spanish. Upon finishing my little talk, the
organizer of the symposium approached me and said (much to my surprise), "Your
lecture was excellent, but before we can publish it we will have to translate it." It
never occurred to me that the university would have to hire an accomplished and amiable
professional to translate my Latin-American Spanish into the Castillian dialect—that
is, into Spanish Spanish.
This anecdote is mentioned here not because
of any contribution it may have to inter-lingual enlightenment, but because it shows that
my Spanish essay, though adequately conveying the sense of my English original, failed to
the extent that it ignored the nuances of expression that make a translation acceptable to
its particular audience.
My experience as a lecturer in Spain (and
later as a preacher-teacher in German-speaking Switzerland) paid real dividends in
testifying to the fact that translation is a difficult art that at best can strive for but
never reach a final perfection. However, there is no need for hopelessness and still less
for exaggerated criticism of any attempt at translation at all.
Remarks such as the old Italian pun on the
translator being a traitor are rather over-polemical, I think, and, as such, are beside
the point. The ISV is far from perfect, but neither is it a traitor. Indeed, in many
places I believe it to be a definite improvement over its worthy predecessors. But
it’s time to get down to cases. |
