My new book Translating the Bible Literally aims to provide some answers to these questions. By comparing the history and translation methods of three literal English Bible translations, the book helps understand what is meant by the term ‘literal’ and how it can be that literal translations can differ from one another. Please note that it is not the purpose of the book to show which of the Bible translations under consideration is the ‘most literal’ of the three.
The idea of comparing the history and translation
of the King James Version, New American Standard Bible and English Standard
Version came about during my studies in translation at Aston University in
Birmingham, England. During that time, I had encountered different opinions in
various Christian circles as to which was the ‘best’ or ‘most literal’ Bible
version. I had my own opinions on each of these three different versions, but
these were admittedly formed more by the opinions of others and not so much by
my own study of the subject matter. Seeing my dissertation requirement as an
opportunity to further my own knowledge and understanding of the history and
translation of these three versions, I embarked on this project. I found both
my research and my writing experience to be fascinating, enjoyable and
rewarding. Some of my findings were more or less what I had expected, but
others surprised me and made me re-evaluate my opinions about each of the three
Bible versions.
Recently, I have revised and updated the contents of my dissertation so that it can be published as a book with the title Translating the Bible Literally. This is what you can expect from the book in terms of content:
Recently, I have revised and updated the contents of my dissertation so that it can be published as a book with the title Translating the Bible Literally. This is what you can expect from the book in terms of content:
Following a short foreword, the preface and
acknowledgments, the book starts with an introduction to the topic (free sample
below).
This is followed by individual chapters on the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version. For each of these versions, the following is considered: the historical background for the translations, the translators themselves, the translation principles and methods that were followed, the reception of the new translation at the time as well as more recent statistics about its popularity as seen in Bible sales and opinion polls.
This is followed by individual chapters on the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version. For each of these versions, the following is considered: the historical background for the translations, the translators themselves, the translation principles and methods that were followed, the reception of the new translation at the time as well as more recent statistics about its popularity as seen in Bible sales and opinion polls.
The final chapter of the book considers and
compares selected translation examples from the Gospel of John in each of the
three versions, in particular how these versions have made use of italicised
words and marginal notes in order to ensure that the translation reflects the
original text as closely as possible.
Following the conclusion, there are a total of
fourteen appendices, which make up a large part of the book. The appendices
provide the names of the translators of the different versions, the complete
text of the prefaces to the Bibles (which all provide information regarding
their translation methods and choices) as well as two larger charts providing a
comparative listing of all italicised words and all marginal notes in the
Gospel of John for each of the versions.
It is my hope and prayer that this book will
further an interest in studying the history, the languages, the translations
and – most importantly – the message of the Bible. May God receive all the
glory.
Free excerpt from the introduction
The
task of a Bible translator is certainly not an easy one. From the very
beginning, Bible translators have been criticised and condemned for their
efforts. Take St. Jerome, the translator of the famous Latin Vulgate Bible, as
an example. He already feared the reactions of others even before he started
working on his translation. When asked by Pope Damascus to undertake this task
in the fourth century, Jerome replied,
The labor is one of love, but at the same time it is
both perilous and presumptuous—for in judging others I must be content to be
judged by all. … Is there anyone learned or unlearned, who, when he takes the
volume in his hands and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled
tastes, will not break out immediately into violent language and call me a
forger and profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the
ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections in them?
Jerome did, however, take this risk and carry out the
task of translating the Bible. And as expected, or maybe even more so than
expected, his fears of being criticised for his translation of the Bible proved
to be well founded. In AD 395, he felt compelled to write a letter defending
his translation ‘against the accusation of ignorance and falsehood’. Later in history, however, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate
became the Bible of choice for the Roman Catholic Church, and at the Council of
Trent (1545-1563) it was declared the only ‘right and official’ Bible to the
exclusion of all others.
Other Bible translators in history were similarly
criticised and condemned for their efforts. In the 14th century,
John Wycliffe, the translator of the first complete Bible in English, was
denounced by Archbishop Arundel simply for the act of translating the Bible
into English, without any consideration for the quality of his translation:
This pestilent and wretched John Wyclif, of cursed
memory, that son of the old serpent … endeavoured by every means to attack the
very faith and sacred doctrine of the Holy Church, devising – to fill up the
measure of his malice – the expedient of a new translation of the Scriptures
into the mother tongue.
At that time, the Roman Catholic Church, whose
influence spread across Europe, insisted that the Bible be read only in Latin,
and therefore a translation of the Bible into the mother tongue was viewed as
an attack on the authority of the Church. Wycliffe died a natural death in
1384, but some forty-four years after his death ‘Pope Martin V insisted that
Wycliffe’s body be exhumed, burned, and his ashes cast into the river’.
Two centuries later, during the time of the
Reformation in the 16th century, Bible translators such as Martin
Luther in Germany and William Tyndale in England were still being branded
heretics by the Roman Catholic Church, partly also because Luther and Tyndale
wanted the people to be able to read Bible in their own language. Tyndale
suffered a martyr’s death. In 1536, strangled and burned at the stake for his
convictions. Luther, on the other hand, was fortunate to receive protection
Protestant prince-elector and live in one of the German states that supported
translation of the Bible. Over time, the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church
towards Bible translation changed, so that a translation of the Bible into the
mother tongue became more and more accepted.
Today, the Bible is the most translated book in the
world. By the end of the year 2015, the complete Bible had been made available
in 563 languages and the New Testament or other Bible portions had been made
available in a further 2,372 languages.
The English speaking world alone is flooded with a
vast amount of Bible translations, and new translations of the Scriptures are
continually being published. In this day and age, the question no longer seems
to be ‘Should we translate the Bible?’, but rather ‘How should we translate the
Bible?’. In answer to the second question, Bible translator and translation
scholar Eugene Nida has distinguished between two different methods of
translating the Bible – namely, to aim for either formal equivalence or dynamic
equivalence. Formal equivalence translations are also referred to as literal or
word-for-word translations. According to Nida, this kind of translation is
‘basically source-oriented; that is, it is designed to reveal as much as
possible of the form and content of the original message’. A dynamic
equivalence translation in contrast, directs its attention ‘not so much toward
the source message, as toward the receptor response’. These kinds of
translations are also called free or sense-for-sense translations. Both of
these methods can be applied to Bible translation, but Nida tends to encourage
the aim of dynamic equivalence to ensure that the focus is more on translating
the message of the Bible rather than translating the actual words of the Bible.
It is quite understandable, therefore, that these two
different methods also bring about different results in English Bible
translations. It is also quite understandable how there may be a variety of
dynamic equivalence translations, depending on the audience for which the
translation is made. There are special English Bible translations geared
towards children, youth, feminists, deaf people and people who speak Cockney or
street slang, just to name a few.
At the same time, however, there are quite a number of
English Bible translations which all claim to be literal. How can this be? Are
literal translations not supposed to be an accurate reflection of the
individual words of the original text? If this is the case, then why do literal
translations differ from one another? Are some translations more literal than
others? Are there different concepts and perceptions of what constitutes
literalness in Bible translation? These are some of the questions that will be
addressed in this book.
Links to different websites and formats where you
can buy the book
WestBow Press
hardcover paperback e-book (ePub, Mobi, PDF)
No comments:
Post a Comment