Over the last two weeks we have examined the scriptures as to their origins and the different English translations. In this article we will take a look at some of the most basic issues of translation in order to better understand why translations can be so different.
We begin with choosing which texts to translate. The reality of all translation is that we do not have any of the original manuscripts of either the Old or New Testaments. The Old Testament was copied over hundreds of years and an authoritative edition (The Masoretic Text) was arrived at between the 9th and 15th centuries as hundreds of texts were compared and decisions were made about which was the best reading. In addition the Masoretes (Jewish Scholars) added vowel pointing to the Hebrew texts (Hebrew has no vowels only consonants). This entailed making interpretive decisions because different Jewish words can have the same consonants and are only differentiated by their usage…so by adding vowel pointing the Masoretes decided the meaning of many words and texts.
Likewise the New Testament is contained in hundreds of early partial manuscripts and papyrus fragments. The earliest Pauline and Gospel manuscripts we have are from around 200 CE, while the first complete New Testament is from about 300CE. Fortunately most of the early manuscripts and papyrus are very similar. While this does not clear up all issues of which text is best, it means regardless of the texts chosen, the basic outline of the Greek scripture will be very similar.
The second significant translation issue arises when deciding about whether to translate texts word for word or phrase for phrase. The differences in the ability to understand the text can be considerable depending on which choice is made. There are two major problems with word for word translating. First there are often a wide variety of English words which correspond to the Hebrew/Greek words (so an interpretive choice has to be made). Second is the fact that meaning is usually transmitted by combinations of words as much as by the individual words themselves. By translating word for word much of the original meaning can then be either lost or misrepresented. Phrase for phrase translations can be inaccurate as well because the translator has to decide the meaning that is being conveyed in the original language and then attempt to present that meaning in a new language and culture (again calling for interpretive choices).
The next issue concerns the choice between a very literal translation and a translation which attempts to maintain linguistic attributes such as poetry or metaphor. Let's look at metaphor. An example might be the metaphor of "the way." A literal translation of the Hebrew might make the word "way" into "road", as if the scripture it talking about a literal road. The problem is that the word "way" while appearing to refer to a road might in fact be referring to following God. A more literal translation then can lose the meaning of the original text, while at the same time being true to the words and phrases in the original language.
Finally we arrive at cultural relevance. This is the issue of how to deal with ancient practices and concepts. Should they be translated in a very literal manner or should a translator attempt to make these practices and concepts understandable in a new cultural context? An example might be translating "new wine into old wineskins." A translator must decide if it is best to simply find the closest words to use, or to find a cultural example which conveys the meaning in a better way (a translator in Papua New Guinea translated it as new vegetables in old bamboo, because the effect would be the same…the new vegetables that are being cooked inside the old bamboo would burst out and be ruined).
The bottom line is that every Biblical translation we read is formed by hundreds of interpretive choices. Our challenge then is not to dismiss scripture because of this…but to read the Bible with open eyes and open minds trusting the Spirit and the community to help us understand what is before us.
No comments:
Post a Comment