Foreign languages, I realize, are not for everyone. Many can go throughout their whole lives content to read Scripture in their native language. I certainly don’t blame them for doing so. Translating Scripture can be like portaging through a swamp—a mire of depth, interpretation, and meaning. That being said, the ability to translate things such as Scripture offers valuable insight into the meaning and difficulty of the text that we take for granted. When the language is not our own (e.g., Latin or Greek) it forces one to scrutinize the grammar and the vocabulary and it forces one to reflect on the meaning of the text. Below, I’d like to share not only the experience of translating but also show how anyone, even those who just read English, can get more out of parables and texts that they thought were boring or easy.
I’ve been doing both ancient and koine [Biblical] Greek for some time. In no way would I consider myself a master of that language. For me, a master would look like some of my professors who can just look at the text, identify it, read it as if it were English, explain it, and teach it. Can I get there in 10 years? 30? I don’t know. As it stands, I remain a beginner after almost 7 years. Learning the basics of a language and grammar are different than playing with the language, seeing how the language is used by various authors, and learning from context how certain words should be translated.
In order to translate well, in my opinion, the translator must do a few things: first, he must translate such that he puts the author in his [the translator’s] own words, i.e., “Do I understand what I said, and do I understand what he said?” Secondly, the translator must write in such a way that his audience understands, both the author and the author in his transplanted language.
When I translate my goal is not never assume an idea is in the text—it tends to be more fun and accurate when what you expect out of the text is in now way what the text looks like. The words should be allowed to speak for themselves first, especially in Scripture. When the text is before us, however, we inevitably ask ourselves “What does this say?” and “Does it mean what I think it means?”
When interpreting and translating one might say, ‘Jesus saved us from our sins and by his blood we are redeemed. Any work I do cannot aid me in my salvation. He died once for all, so when Paul talks about faith he must mean “you are saved by faith.” Moreover he means that we are saved by “faith alone.”’
More complicated versions of this way of thinking can produce even more interesting thoughts and reasons for translating something this way or that. Catholics, Protestants, classicists, etc. can all enter in with some very grand ideas about how various phrases are supposed to look.
In the quote I offer below you can see how the same passage may be taken to mean something completely different. I’ve underlined sections where there is some significant difference, and made bold specific terms.
An example from Ephesians 1:3-6
King James Version
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
New International Version
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
My Translation
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blesses us in every spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ, just as He chose us in Him from the beginning of creation to be holy and blameless before Him in Love, setting us apart for sonship through Jesus Christ in Him, according to His benevolent will, in praise of His glorious kindness which He freely bestowed on us in Him whom He loved.
Now I’ll admit that even I made some mistakes along the way, and these other two translations corrected me. I had written the last phrase “whom He loved” originally as “in love” because I had simply forgotten to translate the participle. This little experience then caused me to reflect: the translators of other Bibles, typically, know their grammar and are careful. How, then, could such drastic differences emerge in translation?
The only key to understand such phenomena is “tradition,” both in the common and sacred sense.
When I translate which dictionary do I use? Oxford’s Liddell and Scott or Walter Bauer’s Lexicon—typically time period would tell me when, most of the time. Am I using the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition? Am I using something else? We as intermediate translators are subject to the texts we use, much like many students of many disciplines are at the mercy of the Encyclopedia they happen to trust.
Then there’s the matter of who taught you how to translate. Was he a strict grammarian or was he interested in making a readable translation? In all these things, “predestined,” as used by these two translations on Ephesians, is not evident from the text itself, but rather it is an interpretation on the text.
The Greek, in many cases, is a simple phrase or a mixture of concrete images that, over the course of time became proper and specific terms. How does one determine what these simple terms mean? The truth is that it can only come out of a tradition that lives the faith, struggles with the content of revelation, and then a people that tries their best to pass it on to the next along with all their wisdom and experience.
The tricky part becomes “Which tradition do I follow?” For many Protestants, this doesn’t enter their theological reasoning, let alone their historical one (though, sadly, this is true for far too many Catholics). Tradition requires as much investigation and scrutiny as Scripture does.
Tradition is seen by some as only a “man-made” thing and never a thing concerning God. For man, God comes to replace human ingenuity, human thought, and human actions. God either “covers up” our humanity or “puts it aside.”
The Catholic Church teaches from her sacred Tradition that God has always been interested and involved in mankind, existing in human history, never more strongly than when He sent His only Son to live among us. God, for us, “lifts up our humanity” and transforms it by grace, thus restoring our human nature to be as God intended.
The act of translating, and sometimes disagreeing on what the passage means, is not human folly. One word may carry with it a variety of meanings. One phrase may carry with it a variety of effects. Those who are attentive to God’s will and who are humble will still hear the same passage differently. Is this wrong, a fault of the listener, or a fault of the text? God gives to each of us what we need. “Give us this day our daily bread” (Mt 6:11). For one his bread is a consolation and for the other a reproof.
The Word of God is not only text, but a voice that permeates all dispositions, lives, cultures, and ages. Translating allows the words to speak more clearly, or less so, depending on what God intends. Indeed “you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to infants” (Mt 11:25).
The first principle of reading or translating Scripture, friends, is humility at the greatness that stands before you. Never be content to read Scripture once or understand it in only one way. “I sought wisdom openly in my prayer … I inclined my ear a little and received her, and I found for myself much instruction. … My heart was stirred to seek her, therefore I have gained a good possession. The Lord gave me a tongue as my reward, and I will praise Him with it” (Sir 51:13, 16, 21-22).
9 thoughts on “The Experience of Translating”
Pingback: The Experience of Translating - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration
Thank you for an interesting article. I have recently become more aware of the limitations of reading Scripture in translation. Every translation into English is an act of interpretation. Some English translations (more formal) involve less interpretation, some translations (more dynamic) may involve a great deal of interpretation by the translator.
Can we really comprehend the meaning of the text when we read in translation? I am beginning to have my doubts and we fool ourselves when we think that we have the original text in front of us when we read in English.
I also wonder how well the biblical language experts, especially with the Koine Greek, know the language, the usage in context, and the true meaning of the language. Do we really know what a word or phrase meant at the time, or are we projecting onto the language a more modern understanding, thinking that we understand the usage of the language at the time. If we do, then we are not getting the original meaning of the text.
You raise an interesting question and one that is not too different from what the early Jewish converts may have asked themselves. Heck, even the Jews asked themselves that question within Judaism when they were dispersed across the Empire (e.g., Syria, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, etc.). The Jews asked, “How can anyone understand the Torah, or God’s word, without speaking Hebrew?”
Formal translations could, in fact, have just as much interpretation as “dynamic” translations. All the same, conveying anything into a language is ‘interpretation’ as much as it is a ‘struggle to understand.’ Taking in the Word of God is like a wrestling match, whether we read or translate.
Another problem, however, arises: ‘is only one language inspired? The problem of different translations exist even in the original. For the sake of length I didn’t include a discussion about the “Midrash” tradition in Scripture wherein Scribes and Rabbis would scrutinize the Law and Scripture down to its tiniest letter. They would come up with fantastic examples and analogies, sometimes complimentary and other times contradictory. But for the Jews, especially how they were taught Scripture, they found that God’s word carried many meanings. Does this mean all were right? Of course not, but they even accepted different tellings of the same type story because of what it could bring about–e.g., 2 creation accounts in Genesis.
Scripture in translation can be a bit jarring–certainly there are some head-scratching phrases. But I believe we can comprehend Scripture in English just as the Chinese can in their own tongue. Yes, it will express itself differently, but then that helps us to reflect on what is truly God’s word–a specific word? Or rather a Person, a power, and a grace?
Biblical and language experts are, from my experience, truly experts. But even experts can be swayed by their teaching, premises, prejudices, or even error. Nevertheless, we have a wealth of texts that allow us to understand words and their usage. Are they 100% complete? Never will be, but they are comprehensive all the same. Likewise, we can’t help but transport an ancient word or meaning to a modern one–we have to understand it after all. It doesn’t mean, however, we just guess or from something proximate.
Man 2000 years ago lives on the same planet and our comment nature and affections link us–this is why we can be moved by Augustine’s Confessions 1600 years later.
It’s a difficult balance and one that’s likely not achieved except through diligent study and even more diligent prayer.
Matthew, thank you for your response. In many respects, the Hebrew language/Old Testament is an even more complex issue than the Greek language/New Testament. This is one reason why my questions focused on the New Testament.
I was always under the impression that formal equivalence, the word-for-word approach to translation, lends itself less to interpretive “creativity.” The more dynamic, or phrase-for-phrase approach is the translation, the more room there is for interpretation to enter into the translation process. Of course, the choice of a word during word-for-word translation may be as much of a challenge to accuracy as the dynamic equivalence approach. And my understanding is that a word-for-word translation from Greek to English would be very unreadable, hindering understanding. So I guess a balance must be reached, readable in the translated language, but as close to the original language as possible. And it is also true that much of the word play of a language is lost in translation.
What is truly God’s word . . . the text or a Person, a power, a grace? Both. And as Sacred Scripture is God’s revealed word, it is our gateway to the Person, the power and the grace of Christ.
All this said, I still wonder, however, about the ability of a translated text to capture the full essence of the Word, and that, invariably, something essential is lost in translation.
When I have trouble I turn to a lexicon. When one lexicon is unsure, another offers something different, you can begin to see how even learned and specific books struggle with the text. Word-for-word can not only be stiff, but wrong. Dynamic translations can depend too much on what’s colloquial. Sometimes something comes out confusing or quizzical because it’s meant to be that way. Some translate away mystery and paradox.
I would be careful, however, to say that the text *is* the gateway.
Rather, it is *a* gateway. Without interaction and an experience with Christ the person who calls us by name the text will have no effect. But Scripture has its own power to instruct–in some ways it’s a good place to prepare one’s heart for Christ but also a place where those who claim to be God-fearing are challenged.
Tradition and Scripture both reveal to us, in their own way, the Revealer. They are lights of Light itself.
Again Matthew, thank you for your response. I, in fact, struggled with “a gateway” vs. “the gateway” in my earlier response and settled on “our gateway.” In the last few years, as an initiate into the Church in 2009 from an unchurched background, I have come to believe that the primary way to focus on the reality of Christ is through Scripture. As the revealed Word of God, Scripture is the foundation to our faith. Not solely, but primarily. To the degree that I understand it, I fully respect and believe the Magisterium’s teaching on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. And I admit I have more to learn here.
I believe that the recent tendency toward “cafeteria Catholicism” is based, in large measure, on distance and unfamiliarity with Scripture. Too many Catholics pick and choose to believe that which they are comfortable with and neglect or discard that with which they are uncomfortable. This is easier when Scripture is not the primary source of our interaction and experience of Christ. A dedicated refocus on the totality of Scripture, the entire canon and not a canon-within-the-canon approach, would help to correct this tendency.
Most of Catholic tradition is founded on some element of biblical interpretation . . . the Fathers of the Church almost always referred to Scripture in their writings. Unlike today, theology then was based to a significant extent on Scripture. That is what I mean when I say that we need to return to Scripture as our gateway to Christ, a return that is also fully cognizant of the role of Tradition, with Scripture as its primary guide.
My experience, of being a cradle Catholic, a student of Scripture and Tradition, and a seminarian is that “cafeteria Catholicism” is brought about more by a negligence of both Scripture and Tradition in equal measures.
“Cafeteria Catholicism” is something where one picks and chooses more from disregarding why the Church teaches something.
The fear I run into when people talk about Scripture as “primary” is that there’s housed within such a disposition that Scripture is pure and perfect, and if we only read it we’ll get it. Tradition then gets mixed with “men being all to human” and then it takes a servant’s role to Scripture. Both help each other, and both are inspired by God. How, why, and even if require no small amount of diligence.
You have to remember that tradition needed to come before Scripture; how could someone be swayed by Scripture if it were never lived? How could Scripture relate God if men, inspired by the Spirit, had never first experienced God.
Scripture is important and irreplaceable, and a great deal of modern theology is more Scriptural than you may think. All the same, we have 2000 years to reflect on on top of Scripture.
If you make Scripture the guide to Tradition, you’re making a premise about what’s not even in Scripture. If you’d like, please read my many articles on Tradition on my blog, or my article here on Scripture and Tradition.
Matthew, I appreciate your response. I certainly agree that tradition came before Scripture and that sola Scriptura is unbiblical. I also agree that this issue is more complicated . . . the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.
My major point was that Scripture, as God’s revealed word, must be reemphasized within Catholic teaching . . . while fully recognizing the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Catholics need to make the Bible more central to their faith. It is not that we have to make Scripture dominant over Tradition, it is that more lay Catholics need a more solid foundation in the Bible, while recognizing the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.
I believe that it would be much more difficult to practice “Cafeteria Catholicism” if Catholics were more firmly grounded in Scripture . . . the entire canon and not a canon within the canon, which is the tendency for too many today.
Much modern theology seems to be premised more on man-made philosophy than on the Bible . . . which is why so much modern theology has strayed from what has traditionally been held. This is an observation from much reading that I have done and may have been more dominant in the recent past within academic theology than it is today. I assume that your seminary education is more traditional than most academic theology, while still being open to refinement.
Thanks for the excellent discussion and providing us with the article about the challenges of translation.
Pingback: Trackback