Translation Theory

Traddutore, traditore!

Rodney J. Decker, Th.D., copyright 1998, all rights reserved.

Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania
 Terminology
 Donor language, the language from which a
translation is made (= the text being translated)

 Receptor language, the language into which a

translation is made

 Gloss, a useful translation equivalent (often of

the unmarked meaning of the word) (see BAGD)
 Terminology
 Meaning
 The sense of a word that can be expressed in a
definition (see LSD)
 Some words can be defined apart from a referent,
though they may have a referent in a particular
context
 E.g., twelve” can be defined as a number
indicating a specific quantity, but there is no
referent unless it is used in a context that
mentions, e.g., “the Twelve” = the disciples)
 Terminology
 Referent

 to what (or whom) the word points (some words

are only referential, e.g., “Paul,” and cannot be
defined)
 Differences between languages
 Vocabulary
 Semantic domains, words in various languages
have varying ranges of meaning, the specific
semantic domain of one word (e.g., filevw, which
includes love, like, kiss) does not exactly overlap
with the semantic domain of its closest equivalent
in another language (e.g., “love,” which does not
normally include the more general term “like”
and never means “kiss”).
 Vocabulary
 Quantity of words, languages have different size
vocabularies, which points out quite clearly that
there can be no word-for-word translation, else
how could we translate koine Greek (vocab. of
about 5,500 words) into Hebrew (which has only
about 4,000)?
 Differences
 Morphology/inflection, languages have
different systems of inflection which impinge
on translation as to how word function is
indicated, etc.

 Syntax, varies widely from language to

language; a strict formal equivalence,
maintaining the same word order, results in
nonsense:
 Differences
 Verbal system, Hebrew and Greek do not
grammaticalize temporal reference (English
does).
 Culture-related terms: weights, measures,
dates, currency, calendars, time; how do you
translate when the “scales” of each language
are so very different?
 Differences
 Style

 How does one translate when good style in

one language is considered poor style in
another?

 E.g., an abundance of passive voice and

particles = good Greek style, but poor English
style
 Context and Semantics
 Illegitimate totality transfer: the fallacy of
reading all a word’s semantic domain into
every individual usage of the word to find
“more meaning.” cf. Amplified Bible;
sermons that build multiple points from
different meanings.
 Importance of context (“Context is king.”)
king.”
The most important factor in determining the
meaning of a word is the context.
 Word-for-word “translations”
 KJV, 1611 preface
 “Another thing we wish to advise you about, gentle
reader, is that we have not bound ourselves to any
uniformity of phrasing or to any identity of words.
Perhaps some, noticing that some scholars have been as
exact as possible that way, would wish that we did the
same. Most assuredly we were extremely careful. We
made it a matter of conscience as was our responsibility.
When the word meant the same thing in both places, we
did not vary from the sense from what we had translated
before. For there are some words that do not have the
same meaning everywhere.
 Word-for-word “translations”
 “However, it would mince the matter to express the same
notion by the same particular word…. Such would smack
more of fastidiousness than wisdom and would evoke
more ridicule from the atheist than profit for the devout
reader. Has the Kingdom of God become words or
syllables? Then why should we be in bondage to them
when we may be free? Or use one word precisely when
another word would be no less appropriate? … Add to
this the fact that squeamishness in words has always been
counted the next step to trifling. The same is true about
fastidiousness in names.
 Word-for-word “translations”
 “Further, we cannot follow a better pattern for style than
God Himself. If He used different words in Holy Writ,
and indifferently, for the same thing in nature, then we, if
we are not superstitious, may take the same liberty in our
English translations from Hebrew and Greek. (“The
Translator’s to the Reader, §16.)

 RV, 1885, Lightfoot’s dictum: “the same English

words to represent the same Greek words … as far
as possible in the same order” (NET preface, 7).
 Social contexts (sociolinguistics; Carson, ILD, 65-67)
 Translation Models
 “It is impossible not to lose something when
you translate an extended text from one
language to another” (Carson, ILD, 58).

 Usually something not in the donor text is

added as well! (e.g., separate forms for “we
inclusive/exclusive” in some languages;
differing temporal reference systems, etc.)
 Translation Models
 “There is always some loss in the
communication process, for sources and
receptors never have identical linguistic and
cultural backgrounds…. The translator’s task,
however, is to keep such loss at a minimum”
(de Waard & Nida, FOLA, 42)
 Translation Models
 Unhelpful categories

 “Literal” (because most who use this term assume

that it equals “more accurate, superior, faithful,
exact”; besides, just what does “literal” mean?)

 “Word-for-word” and “phrase-for-phrase” and

“thought-for-thought” (cf. Carson, ILD, 70)
 Translation Models
 Interpretive (all translation is interpretive,
even formal equivalent ones)

 “Every reading of a text by a finite being is an

interpretation of it…. translation is never a
mechanical task…. Translators must
understand the donor text, or think they do,
before rendering it into the receptor text”
(Carson, ILD, 72).
 Theoretical models
 Formal equivalent: a translation that seeks to
translate from one language to another using the
same grammatical and syntactical forms as the
donor language whenever possible.

 “Consistent execution of formal equivalence is

impossible, and if one opts for the axiom ‘as
formal as possible,’ one frequently ends up with a
translation that actually distorts much of the
meaning in the donor text” (Carson, ILD, 70).
 Theoretical models
 Functional equivalent: a translation that seeks
to represent adequately and accurately in
good receptor-language grammar, style, and
idiom that which the words and
constructions in the donor language
conveyed to the original recipients.
 “The closest natural equivalent in the
receptor language, both in meaning and
style” (NET preface, 7 n.4)
 Theoretical models
 Dynamic equivalence: “The quality of a
translation in which the message of the
original text has been so transported into the
receptor language that the response of the
receptor is essentially like that of the original
receptors” (Eugene Nida, The Theory and
Practice of Translation, 202).
 It seeks to make the same impact without
regard to the form of the original language.
 Theoretical models
 Paraphrase: A simplified summary of the meaning
found in the donor language. “A paraphrase tells
the reader what the passage means, whereas a
literal translation tells what the passage says”
(Metzger, 148).
 Practical continuum
 More formal
 More functional
 “No translation is exclusively formal; none entirely
avoids formal features” (Carson, ILD, 69).
 Range of contemporary
translations

More Formal More Functional Paraphrase

Young’s NETn NKJV NETtxt GNB/ CEV Living
RV/ ASV KJV RSV NIV NLT Phillips
NASB NRSV Cottonpatch
 Teachout
 “The science of translation is both one of the
easiest and one of the most difficult of tasks. It is
easy in the sense that any beginning student of
language can develop confidence quickly in making
wooden translations—rendering the original in
hard-to-understand one-to-one correspondences. It
is most difficult in the sense that much expertise is
needed in both the source language (the original
text) and the target language (the translation) if a
person is to arrive at a good translation.
 Teachout
 “The task is made more difficult because one
(ideally) has to interpret accurately and fully and
yet not read in foreign ideas that are not innate to
the text”
 “Early in his ministry, the writer believed that a
strict, word-for-word rendering was always best.
However, as his knowledge of Hebrew syntax
improved, it became more and more evident that this
method can, if uniformly used, actually be a
hindrance to an understanding of the true sense of
the original.
 Teachout
 “For a passage to be properly translated, it must
represent adequately in good English grammar
that which the Hebrew words and construction
conveyed to the original recipients. To do less
actually accomplishes the opposite of the
translator’s intention; that is, by trying to render
a text in a ‘literal’ word-for-word manner, the
translator (in actuality) keeps the reader from
properly understanding the complete message of
the Hebrew original.
 Teachout
 “Therefore the translator with this methodology
unintentionally robs the English reader of truth,
insofar as he does not adequately convey all of
the intended ideas in the text.”

 Robert P. Teachout, Th.D., “Notes on

Translation,” unpublished, Detroit Baptist
Seminary, [ca. 1979].
 Cultural issues in translation
 “White as snow” in Irian Jyra = “make dirty”
(black people sitting around a fire and get
white ash on them = dirty!)

 “Stand at the door and knock” in some

cultures implies a thief! (Only a thief knocks
to see if anyone is home before robbing the
house; a friend will shout, not knock.)
 Cultural issues
 “Nurse a baby” in Australia = hold a baby
(not: breastfeed)
 “Heart” in its biblical sense is equivalent to
“gall bladder” in some Philippine tribes and
“liver” in many African contexts.
 “Son of man” in Kouykon Indian dialect of
Alaska and Canada = “son of any man” =
“bastard, illegitimate son”—not an appropriate
translation as a title for Jesus Christ!
 Cultural issues
 Snake meat vs. eel (In Other Words, June 84)
 “God of the Dead” (In Other Words, Ap. 89)
 Taboo language (In Other Words, Ap. 89)
 Inclusive Language
 We should not automatically assume that any
“agenda” that seems to come through in a
translation must be a translator’s bias.
 It may well be a reflection of the Bible’s
agenda—which is often different from various
politically-correct agendas in contemporary
Western culture.
 Our task is to accurately represent the original
whether we like what it says or not.
 Inclusive Language
 Must distinguish between:
 “Gender neutral” translation and
 “Inclusive language”
 Gender neutral attempts to eliminate any
reference to gender, whether of God or people
(e.g., “God our heavenly parent”).
 Inclusive language seeks to use terms that are
as inclusive in the receptor language as in the
donor language.
 Inclusive Language
 Legitimacy of individual choices depends on
the extent to which the languages overlap.
 To what extent has English changed in the last
50 years?
 Has what began as a political agenda become
more generally “mainstream”?
 It doesn’t matter if you like the changes, but it
does matter what contemporary language
means.
 Inclusive Language
 We do not have a commission to reform
language or to impose grammatical
preferences on our audience.

 We do have a commission to communicate

accurately and clearly the truth of the gospel.
 Inclusive Language
 Would you approve of missionaries going to
the Philippines and insisting on changing the
Tagalog language to suit their preferences
when preaching the gospel?
 Or would you expect that person to
communicate in fluent Tagalog?
 Is it helpful to offend people in your
proclamation of the gospel? (Other than by
the offense of the gospel itself?)
 Inclusive Language
 I used to resist such changes vigorously, but
that was when these changes were found
only in the radical feminist literature.
 In many parts of the country these changes
have now gone “mainstream.”
 As a result, I have had to rethink my prior
opposition and gradually begin to use more
inclusive language.
 Inclusive Language
 I would suggest that the approach taken by
Carson’s Inclusive Language Debate and by the
NET Bible are the best solution at the present
time.
 I resist “gender neutral” translation, since
that violates the original text, but where the
original is not gender specific, then I think
that we should use equivalent language in
our translation—and in our preaching.
 Inclusive Language
 The contemporary “flap” re. the NIV’s
revisions was blown out of proportion by a
“watchdog” group who allowed their agenda
to blind them to genuine cultural issues.

 Their reaction is understandable since they

have taken as their social mission the
opposition of any and all forms of the
feminist agenda.
 Inclusive Language
 But the feminists won this cultural battle long
ago.
 Contemporary English language usage has
changed—for better or worse.
 Our job is now (as always) is to communicate
in the language of the people.
 Misc. issues
 Purpose of a given translation:
 Judge on the basis of their stated purpose. There
is no one translation that is best for all purposes.
Note the contrasting purposes of: GNB, NIV,
NKJV.
 Use of italics
 Traditionally italics have been used to indicate supplied
words, but contemporary use is to indicate emphasis.
 How do you decide what words are essential and what words
are optional? (A very difficult decision at times!)
 Note that the NIV has chosen to use half brackets to mark
questionable additions: e.g., “the glory of the one and only
›Son” (Jn. 1:14).
 The KJV, by contrast, has “the glory of the only begotten of
the Father,” leaving the reader to figure out who the only
begotten is. Since the context is very clear that the reference is
to the Son, other translations have supplied it for clarity.
 Note the the NET Bible always appends a f.n. when it
explicitly supplies the referent.
 Use of italics
 Some portray the KJV as the model in its use of
italics to indicate words supplied, but its more
generous use of italics (by contrast with the NIV’s
more restrained use of half brackets) is sometimes
overdone; e.g., 1 Cor. 14:2 supplies unknown—an
illegitimate addition that is not implied in the
context.
 Basic Resources
 John Beekman and John Callow. Translating the Word of God. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.
 D. A. Carson. The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1998.
 Jan de Waard and Eugene Nida. From One Language to Another: Functional
Equivalence in Bible Translation. Nashville: Nelson, 1986.
 Jack Lewis. The English Bible: From KJV to NIV. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
 Louw, Johannes P., ed. Meaningful Translation: Its Implications for the
Reader. New York: United Bible Societies, 1991.
 Bruce Metzger, “Theories of the Translation Process.” BibSac 150
(1993):140–50.
 Mark Strauss. Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and
Gender Accuracy. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1998.
 Robert J. Williams, “The Science of Translating the Greek New Testament
into English.” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968.