[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: translations
Gregory Jordan writes:
If they *tried*, with a literal translation, to do theological/word
studies, they would probably make huge mistakes, since they wouldn't be
trained to know what they were looking for, or what stood behind the
text. At most the advantage of a literal translation for a
non-specialist would be the ability to draw a few more connections
between related passages than would be possible in a dynamic equivalent
translation.
I disagree. I believe there is immense value in reading material in
the original language whenever time and language skills
permit. In the case of Greek literature - such as the Iliad - the
beauty and meter of the original Greek simply cannot be duplicated in
translation. Period.
In the case of scripture, I believe the benefits are twofold; first,
the difficulty in translation 'stretches your mental muscles.' Second,
one develops an appreciation for the relative strictness or
interpretive nature of the various translations (NIV, KJ, etc.) that
one uses in the course of most Bible reading. I have an inherently
suspicious mind; I want to know if the translation is more literal or
interpretative. I cannot know this without referring to the original
Greek.
I freely admit that I do not have the academic background in language
that many who use this forum have; however, why should 'novices' be
restricted to only reading in the Bible in translation? Every
specialist in New Testament studies started out as a beginner, once.
I presume most of you want to know for yourselves what the text says
rather than rely on others' say-so; hence the 'pilpul-ish' nature of
these discussions.
The major concern I have as a journeyman translator is the use of
dictionaries; are the provided translations truly what the word means,
or has it come to mean that because of a contextual use in a particular
passage? Here, I agree that a more extensive linguistic background
would be helpful.
Mary Ann Davidson
madavids@us.oracle.com