Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA

From: Jean Valentin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mar, 16 Fv 99 03:59:52 +0100

Taking this discussion to a different direction, what should we say about the ancient versions? Putting aside the question of their textual type proper, can we say the same variety of translation technique exists? And what can present-day Bible translators learn about this? With the notable exception of the targumim, can't we say that ancient translation hold a certain balance between extreme literality and extreme paraphrase? Sometimes I'm afraid that the present trend to be more paraphrastic represents a break with the tradition: do you think that the churches gave enough attention to that problem, and does this break involve theological reorientation as well? What are the risks and benefits, etc, etc... These are a few questions that seem interesting to me... To you too?

Jean V.

_______________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
e-mail : [email-masked]
_______________________________________________________________
"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqué est inutilisable"
_______________________________________________________________

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:16:57 -0600

>Taking this discussion to a different direction, what should we say about the ancient versions? Putting aside the question of their textual type proper, can we say the same variety of translation te…

They *are* interesting questions. It is noteworthy that we want the
ancient versions to be literal, but want modern translations
(generally speaking) to be understandable -- which means *not*
being precisely literal.

Personally, I don't think it is possible to achieve the right balance --
everyone who reads the Bible should have several translations.

I would suspect that the tendency toward less literal translations comes
out of the Protestant tradition that everyone should read the Bible.
A priest could be expected to understand Latin or Greek, or a literal
translation such as the Douai version or (in the Orthodox churches)
the Old Church Slavonic -- but ordinary people need something they
can understand without having to study theology.

But as regards the versions, I think they vary greatly. It seems to
me that the Latin versions are usually the most literal -- if for no
other reason than that they can preserve Greek word order and, to a
large extent, noun and verb forms. I don't have any Syriac or Coptic
(I can't really say I have any Latin; I can't read it without a
dictionary and a grammar :-), but I understand that neither language
can convey Greek that precisely.

So the question then becomes, *given the limits of the language*, how
literal are the translations? And to what extent can we trust them on
any given sort of variant?

Our own Jimmy Adair has done some really good work on this subject.
I hope he is still working on it -- and can share his latest if
there is any "latest."
Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:10:50 -0500 (EST)

> I hope he is still working on it -- and can share his latest if

Thanks for the plug, Bob.  My two articles on the subject are not
extremely recent:

"A Methodology for Using the Versions in the Textual Criticism of the Old
Testament," Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20 (1994):  111-142. 

"'Literal' and 'Free' Translations: A Proposal for a More Descriptive
Terminology," Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 23 (1997): 143-171. 

I hope that my revised dissertation cum M.A. thesis will see the light of
day this year, so that I'll have something a little more recent (although
actually written before either article!) to offer.

Although we all use terms like "literal" and "free" (or "paraphrastic")
and have an intuitive idea of what they mean, it often happens that a
translation is literal in some ways and free in others, so to describe it
as one or the other can be both imprecise and misleading.  

For example, the Vulgate is often extremely conscious of following the
word order of its Vorlage (literal), but it exhibits great variety in
rendering conjunctions and connecting adverbs (free).  The Targums are
often quite consistent in rendering one Hebrew word with a single Aramaic
word (literal), but they use all sorts of circumlocution to avoid certain
anthropomorphic references to God (free).

Similarly, modern translations may be literal in some ways and free in
others.  The NASB generally uses a single vocabulary item to render the
same Hebrew or Greek word (at least in a given context), but should the
Hebrew text of Psalms imply something other than strict monotheistic
beliefs on the part of the authors, the translators of NASB resort to
"scribal corrections"(!); for the literal rendering, see the Revised
English Bible!

Ps 82:1b

[God] judges in the midst of the rulers (NASB).

[God will] pronounce judgement among the gods (REB).

Ps 8:5a

Thou hast made him [humankind] a little lower than God [footnote: or "the
angels"] (NASB).

Yet you have made him little less than a god (REB).

NASB is in good company here, following a scribal tradition that lies
behind the MT of Deut 32:8: "Elyon ... set the boundaries of the peoples
accoring to the number of the sons of Israel"--4QDeut-j [thanks to Dave
Washburn for the reference] reads "... sons of Elohim" (also LXX-848 Arm).
As I noted in an earlier post, the change was apparently effected to
strengthen the monotheism of the verse.

Jimmy

******************************************************
James R. Adair, Jr.
Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion
******************************************************