tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33673692.post7016275510205734271..comments2023-05-26T00:57:16.379-07:00Comments on Bob's Log: On translation and limitsBob MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33673692.post-12746112788615834902009-04-07T22:59:00.000-07:002009-04-07T22:59:00.000-07:00Mark - thanks for the note - I translate purely fo...Mark - thanks for the note - I translate purely for the joy of it. I grew up with the King James version which frequently uses creative synonyms and thereby obscures the form of the poetry - I love the KJV and its history, but it is severely misleading at times. A very good example is Psalm 51. This is a sequence of three cells each of which has God's righteousness at the centre of several concentric circles. The meaning is focused by the recurring words. (See <A HREF="http://bmd.gx.ca/psalms/852.htm" REL="nofollow">this</A> diagram)<BR/><BR/>As a two-year-old, I cannot claim any 'superiority' and I would be happy for feedback - but I know I have put out too much volume too quickly. Such is the nature of the passion to see. I am happy for meaning to sink in - but I am suspicious of the control sometimes implied in 'understanding' - for we are not 'in control' in that sense but must be open to hearing things again for the first time, to borrow a phrase.<BR/><BR/>Tomorrow after the 7:00 Mass at St Barnabas, there is a short recital which my daughter is giving on that very small organ - if you are close enough and free, perhaps we might meet.<BR/><BR/>At the St Barnabas <A HREF="http://stbarnabasvictoria.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Sunday School</A> I have been teaching 5 minutes of Hebrew a week - the children are intrigued... and one of them is now reading psalms in Hebrew.Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33673692.post-57089279268401797072009-04-07T18:10:00.000-07:002009-04-07T18:10:00.000-07:00Thanks for reading and critiquing my article. I a...Thanks for reading and critiquing my article. I appreciate the interaction. However, I would like to correct a couple of misreadings of the articles (not that these are your fault, it is likely my lack of clarity). First, I was not criticizing literal translations, rather I was upset with those who teach their congregations that literal translations are more the word of God than meaning- based translations. If you re-read the quote, you will see that I am referring to the "claim of superiority." This claim from the pulpit damages the body of Christ by directing those in need of clarity away from such versions that are better able to reveal God's truth to them.<BR/>Secondly, the point of meaning-based translations is not to unravel the mysteries of the message that are part of the original author's purpose. Rather it is to present the original text in a form that is understandable to the modern day reader within the language and cultural context with which they are familiar. Your critique assumes that meaning-based translations are seeking to be commentaries beyond the meaning of the text. The reality is that literal translations often obscure the text beyond that which the original readers would have understood. Meaning based translations seek to restore that understanding.<BR/>The one criticism of meaning based translations which is quite valid is the inability to carry over certain nuances of humor, poetic impact, etc. However, I would argue that no translation is completely successful in this, and when literal translations try to find one English equivalent for a particular Greek or Hebrew term, such as, say, "sarx", for the purpose of indicating connection with other passages, they do injustice to the meaning of the passages.<BR/>My recommendation is that people should study with a variety of translations. <BR/>I also found it interesting that we are neighbors. I also live on the island near Victoria and have just returned from another month of Bible translation in Pakistan.<BR/>All the best<BR/>MarkMark Naylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33673692.post-29685572707413804472008-09-10T07:57:00.000-07:002008-09-10T07:57:00.000-07:00To Surrey from Chicago - bravo - another local blo...To Surrey from Chicago - bravo - another local blogger in this subject area... If you get over to the island - feel free to get in touch. I am usually at St Barnabas church - high Anglican liturgy.<BR/><BR/>Now about literal - Nimrod 'before the Lord' is quite literal. לִפְנֵי יְהוָה - literally l-pnei is in the face of and is often translated as 'before'. It could also be 'in the presence of'. Blue letter bible lists these counts for KJV: before 1137, face 390, presence 76. My Hebrew Latin concordance gives these meanings: facies, superficies, vultus, aspectus, conspectus, persona, pars anterior, frons, acies (ferri), antea, olim, coram, ante (de loco et tempore), antequam. (I hardly ever use this - it was a gift from my first Hebrew teacher!)Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33673692.post-74123305912386366572008-09-09T23:10:00.000-07:002008-09-09T23:10:00.000-07:00I wouldn't consider it trouble. I'm not one for po...I wouldn't consider it trouble. I'm not one for polemics myself. I follow you and actually agree with you for the most part. I would suggest though that while "literal" is the typical term for what you're describing, it isn't necessarily a helpful one. As you said it, "before the Lord" is a marvelous archaism - that's not literal that's archaism. I get frustrated at time with the assigning of traditional translation English forms with the term literal. The thing is, the article your criticized gives the same impression.<BR/><BR/>What is literal is what you described in the beginning of your comment and I agree. I want both though. I want word play and contemporary language in my translation.<BR/><BR/>I hope I'm making sense?<BR/><BR/>By the way, I noticed that you're on Victoria, that's got to be beautiful. My wife and I just moved to Surrey from Chicago two weeks ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33673692.post-16659341588914477362008-09-09T17:07:00.000-07:002008-09-09T17:07:00.000-07:00MikeI hope I am not in too much trouble here. I do...Mike<BR/>I hope I am not in too much trouble here. I don't usually engage in polemics. I am quite biased in favour of literal translations whenever it is possible to retain word play, word order, or equivalent humour in the target language. <BR/><BR/>I have also taken the phrase "these articles" to be referring to the articles on translation on the site in question.<BR/><BR/>Given that, I am taking offense (mildly) at several implications in the article: that the meaning should be clarified for those who are not capable of going behind the translated text. <BR/><BR/>To take two examples: Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. 'before the Lord' is a marvelous archaism - before his face, in his presence, etc are invoked. For this to be 'explained' - means that the reader will not get the resonances with other passages. Assuming that the reader is going to grow in the Lord, I think it essential that such resonances not be disturbed.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, the phrase 'stands in the way of sinners' - remove 'stands in the way' and the resonances with being 'in the way' i.e. in the way of the Lord lose their power. Explain one and you have to explain them all. That's fine if you can come up with an equal music to the Hebraism. <BR/><BR/>Or take 'Adam knew his wife' - people should know what this means and where it is appropriate to read it in other contexts. To say Adam had relations with (NASB) had sex with (NOB), or made love to (GWT), or had connection with (BEB) his wife, is forlorn to say the least.<BR/><BR/>Most importantly it completely misses the knowledge of God and the human expressed in Genesis 3:5,7,22 and again and again in the following verses and books. Readers should know that a word can have more than one connotation and that meaning is known in the larger pattern. So יָדַע is 'know' and it is used many times in many places and you have to think it out in order to understand. That sort of thinking eventually makes people capable.<BR/><BR/>Note: NOB is No One's Bible.Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33673692.post-82516653301365658822008-09-09T14:36:00.000-07:002008-09-09T14:36:00.000-07:00Bob, I struggle to follow your criticism. I agree ...Bob, I struggle to follow your criticism. I agree with every thing you wrote, but do not understand how it stand against the sentences you quoted...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com