Comments on: Top Translation Traps: Seductive Translations

By: John

John — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:02:59 +0000

Actually, I would say that The Message is vivid/poetic, not clear. It reads like a piece of creative writing (which it is), not a clear reflection of the basic meaning of the original (cf. CEV).

I’ve never quite warmed up to The Message, but I believe it does what it intends, and that is not to be clear but to be “gripping”.

Just my rather unrelated thoughts.

By: WoundedEgo

WoundedEgo — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:42:07 +0000

Someone has suggested that the third gospel was prepared for Paul’s legal defense. There does seem to be the suggestion that the text was written to an official:

Lu 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, **most excellent** Theophilus,

Ac 23:26 Claudius Lysias unto **the most excellent** governor Felix sendeth greeting.

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:31:31 +0000

What clues do we have to determine the relative formality of the text, when dealing with the way a language was used 2000-3000(+) years ago?

Excellent question.

Even without the added complication of the passage of time, register (formality, informality, crudeness, irony, etc.) is one of the hardest aspects of a foreign language to detect. I would guess that we’re missing a lot of the nuances of the ancient texts. Even so, I think we should be clear on what our goals are.

And at the very least, we can often detect changes in style. It’s hard to know what they represent, but these changes do tell us that a uniformly formal translation, for example, or a uniformly chatty one, is unlikely to be accurate.

I also think that we might have better luck with Greek than with Hebrew, because we have more extra-Biblical sources to help.

By: WoundedEgo

WoundedEgo — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:59:44 +0000

If I am not mistaken, “Thus saith the lord” was not vulgar language, even when it was written, but was a form used for lofty effect. We would not say, “Thus saith Dad, do the dishes…,” nor would they. That is what I read in some commentary or other, I believe.

By: Peter Parslow

Peter Parslow — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:45:35 +0000

What clues do we have to determine the relative formality of the text, when dealing with the way a language was used 2000-3000(+) years ago?

Similarly, how do we spot idioms, let alone discover what they originally meant, complete – presumably – with their original connotations? I’ve enjoyed having several of Paul’s allusions to contemporary Greek writers pointed out, but I guess there were more, and earlier – including to writers we no longer have access to.

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:23:14 +0000

Thankfully “resonates” is on the decline. Used to drive me nuts.

Indeed.

A little typo at “falling pray”.

I’d love to call it a typo — which I’ve now fixed — but if I’m going to be honest, I just spelled it wrong (hardly the first time, and surely not the last).

By: Scripture Zealot

Scripture Zealot — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:18:17 +0000

Thankfully “resonates” is on the decline. Used to drive me nuts.

A little typo at “falling pray”. A good word to mis-type (sp?).

Thank you for the post.
Jeff

By: WoundedEgo

WoundedEgo — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:09:02 +0000

Equally subjective is the appeal of making the translation more “orthodox,” more “harmonious” or “more scientifically accurate.”

The NETBible has shown significant integrity in avoiding “back-translation,” which is the practice of mistranslating a Hebrew text to agree with an NT citation from the LXX.