that translators are traitors in the sense that they always (and necessarily)
fall short of conveying the total meaning of a text in one language into another.
His personal struggle early on to translate into English all the rich nuances of
Spanish, his own first language, convinced him that any “literal” word-for-word
translation strategy will prove both impossible and ultimately unhelpful. As he
points out, even so-called literal Bible translations like the ESV reflect countless
interpretive decisions and departures from strict literalism. With literary sensitivity
Silva explains that a faithful translator is obliged to convey in clear and
readable form, not only the meanings of individual words and phrases, but something
also of the structure, rhythm, and emotive elements of the original text.
Ultimately the “accuracy” of a translation should be measured by the degree to
which a translator has achieved all of these things. Silva sees the good translator,
not as a traitor, then, but as someone who responsibly “transforms a text by transferring
it from one linguistic-cultural context to another.”
Kenneth Barker, longtime member of and spokesperson for the Committee
on Bible Translation, which has among its many translation achievements the
New International Version, sagely observes in chapter 2 that every group of Bible
translators must establish at the very outset the type of translation they intend to
produce. This in turn requires a conscious philosophical positioning of their
translation project. After emphatically rejecting as naive the possibility of meaningful
translation without at least some degree of interpretation, Barker
acknowledges that a group of translators may choose to pursue a philosophy that
leans either toward formal equivalence or toward dynamic equivalence. But he
argues that it is also possible to adopt a balanced or mediating translation philosophy
that combines the strengths of these respective options while avoiding
the weaknesses inherent in their more extreme forms. Barker presents the NIV
as an example of such optimal balance in its intentional pursuit of the four highly
desirable translation characteristics of accuracy, clarity, beauty, and dignity.
D. A. Carson (chapter 3) begins by noting two opposing trends in recent years:
(1) the virtual triumph of functional-equivalence theory across the scholarly disciplines
relevant to Bible translation, and (2) the contrasting rise of what he calls
“linguistic conservatism”—a popular movement with a strongly expressed preference
for more direct and “literal” translation methods. By pointedly challenging
a couple of representatives of this latter perspective, he builds his case for
functional equivalence as the only responsible approach to Bible translation for a
general readership. As he then points out, the ideological gulf between the practitioners
of these two competing approaches is nowhere more evident than in the
recent debate over gender-accurate language in Bible translation.
Carson devotes the remainder of his essay to sounding a caution on the limitations—
and even risks, when taken to excess—of functional-equivalence
theory. Responsible practitioners of functional equivalence will not make “reader
response” the supreme criterion in translation decision, nor will they concede the
skeptical assumption of an impassible dichotomy between message and meaning.
He calls for limits on a variety of other factors as well, from the pursuit of
comprehensibility and stylistic elegance at all costs to the dubious incorporation
of opinionated study notes in the published text of Scripture.
Mark Strauss addresses current issues in the gender-language
debate. The chapter is essentially a response to various charges leveled by Vern
Poythress and Wayne Grudem against recent gender-accurate Bible translations
(see The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Word
[2000]). Strauss begins by listing a surprising number of important areas of agreement
between the two sides—shared convictions about the nature of authoritative
Scripture, the translation enterprise, and even gender language itself.
Strauss then moves on to critical areas of disagreement between the two
camps. Most of these, he suggests, are rooted in different understandings of linguistics.
Throughout this section Strauss repeatedly concedes that the genderinclusive
approach may in some cases sacrifice some of the nuances of the original
text. But such losses, he insists, are unavoidable and “come with the territory” of
translation work. He urges the opponents of gender-inclusive translation to be
equally up-front about the dimensions of meaning they are compelled to sacrifice
through their approach. At the very least there should be a cessation on both sides
of emotive charges that the opposition is deliberately distorting the Word of God.
The late Herbert Wolf, a longtime member of the Committee on
Bible Translation, reflects from his own experiences on the communal dimensions
of translation. He begins with a carefully nuanced acknowledgment that
translators belong to larger communities and traditions that powerfully inform
and shape (but—and here he shows his epistemological optimism—need never
completely determine) their reading of the biblical text.
Wolf also sees great benefits in the fact that most recent translations of the
Bible have been group projects—not least that group arrangements enable translators
to pool strengths and purge idiosyncrasies; and here he speaks (as only an
experienced translation practitioner can) of the humbling aspect of having one’s
work tested and improved by peers. He also sees translation as communal in the
sense that it draws from related fields like archaeology and linguistics, a point
he illustrates with fascinating insights from the field of rhetorical criticism.
Finally, the potential readers of a translation also constitute a most relevant community,
inasmuch as responsible translation decisions will always factor in readers’
anticipated responses to the text.
In chapter 6 Charles Cosgrove reflects on the values that should inform and
the approach that should characterize a Bible translation methodology compatible
with the legitimate aspirations of postmodernism. The defining feature of
such a legitimate postmodern approach, he suggests, is best encapsulated in theadjective holistic. Under this rubric he first considers translating the Bible as a
whole (that is, as a canonical integrity), then translating the whole communicative
effect of Scripture (that is, its genre and medium, as well as its language), and
finally, translation as an activity of the whole people of God (the democratization
of translation).
Cosgrove’s first point—translating the Bible with canonical integrity—
raises such difficult issues as whether the translation of the Old Testament should
be guided in any way by how the New Testament purports to quote it. His second
point affirms the postmodern trend to “challenge traditional distinctions
between form and content and the hierarchy that subordinates one to the other.”
At the same time, he notes, the postmodern view is properly sensitive to the enormous
challenge (and downright trickiness) of achieving holistic equivalence in
any communication transfer between distinct cultural-linguistic systems. Finally,
Cosgrove argues that “the democratizing or ‘flattening’ cultural effect of postmodernity—
epitomized by the Internet” means that the age of officially authorized
versions is permanently over. He anticipates such a future scenario with
optimism, because he believes that the inevitable diffusion of translations will
only make the fullest sense of Scripture more accessible to all.
Post a Comment