Presently, as the topic is too big for one post, I am beginning to blog a short series of posts dealing with the truth about the categorization of Bible versions as more or less “literal.”
Within popular Bible
translation theory and method it is perhaps the most widely perpetuated myth,
namely the artificial categorization of translation philosophy according to a
degree of “literalness,” by creating a polarized “literal-to-paraphrase” diagram (with
“interlinear” at one extreme and free “paraphrase” at the other extreme).
The following two diagrams (both originally from Zondervan I think)
whereby “literal” is contrasted it with free “paraphrase”:
Like many myths, such diagrams are not without merit and do contain elements of truth.
The first post in this series begins by discussing
where the diagram seems to succeed in saying something true.
Part 1: What is "Literal"?
There is some truth
to the notion that some versions are generally more or less “literal” than
others. And at the left extreme (Interlinear and NASB) we can honestly say that
the NASB does fall relatively close (closer than the others in the diagram) to an
“interlinear” approach to translation (interlinear being a method that preserves
the original words and simply supplies English words directly below every Greek
or Hebrew word).
But what exactly
counts as “literal” is problematic. The notion of something being “literal” is
a subjective judgement. The complexity of language means that there are
potentially infinite ways different people might choose to represent speech from
one language more or less “literally” in another language.
Are, for
example, any of the following successfully “literal” translations of the first
verse in Matthew (without footnotes)...?
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: (NASB 1977)The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: (NASB 1995)
Most “literally”
Mt 1:1 is composed of the Greek words:
Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ
which might be “literally”
represented by replacing each word with an English word, that is, by using an
“interlinear” method of representation:
Book of-record of-Jesus Anointed son-of David son-of Abraham
Already we can
see that the notion of “literal” quickly degenerates into a provisional,
“makeshift” representation even though I have already begun here to make
decisions about which English words to capitalize, and to add other punctuation
(which is needed in English but not in ancient Greek) to make it look more like
a translation and less like an interlinear. I have also attached “of” using
hyphens (for genitive cases) in order to indicate that the number of words
chosen does not match the number of Greek words. So I have still not sufficiently
managed to “translate” into English the sense of the entire Greek verse (grammatically
and/or semantically). Granted, our verse has no verb and is not really a
complete clause (sentence). Still, we are hovering at the boundary between
translation and interlinear.
“Book” is,
however, somewhat anachronistic here in that “books” (in the modern “book”
format) did not really exist yet … scrolls and wax tablets existed … so “book” here
would have to mean something like “scroll” or “document” or “record,” which is
why many Bible versions avoid the term “book” in Mt 1:1. “Book” seemed like a
suitable “literal” equivalent for “biblos” probably because of the etymological
histories and usages of both words where similar enough (“biblos” [papyrus-bark]
and “book” [beech-bark] extended by both to be used for creating a record by means
of writing: apparently the English word “book” originally meant “writing
tablet” and is probably etymologically connected with “beech” as in the name of
the beech-tree, OED 2nd ed., 1989).
But is the
etymology of “book” really relevant here? Not really, we don’t expect readers
to read words etymologically! In fact if we want a “literal” translation to
work we are hoping that readers can automatically recognise that the chosen
English words take on meanings based on the source culture, not the target
culture. An example like “book” might not be too unsatisfactory so long as the
reader can resist imposing more modern ideas of “book.”
But why stop at
“book”? Why not go more literal and translate “biblos” as “papyrus”?
Unfortunately it seems one can always find ways to go more “literal” when it
comes to representing individual words … but at what cost to the sense of
sentences? A “literal translation” still
has to deal with “sense” of the words and (preferably) of the sense of words
used in combination. Thus “biblos Yesou,” as a phrase, determines that “papyrus
of-Jesus” is insufficient as a translation (sense-wise), and so we see that “more
literal” begins to become nonsensical and inaccurate (since the medium of
writing material is probably the wrong sense to take). Hence more “literal” eventually
leads to a nonsensical interlinear. We cannot adequately relay meaning by
simply providing fragmented pieces (interlinear glosses).
And what about transliteration?
Almost all Bible versions will choose to transliterate certain words (such as
with χριστοῦ
as “Christ” in Mt 1:1). Transliteration primarily intends to carry over the phonetic
sounds of the source (here Greek) and is presumably for when the target
language (English) lacks a good translation “equivalent” (another common
example is using the word baptize for βαπτίζω, rather than using a translation
such as “wash” or “clean” or “cleanse”).
Does
transliteration count as more “literal” or less “literal”? If transliteration were
to be considered (always?) more literal then it is interesting that no Bible
versions have chosen the word “genesis” to “translate” (transliterate) γένεσις
in Mt 1:1 - doing so would give us
(The) book of genesis of-Jesus Anointed Son of David Son of Abraham
and readers
might then notice not only that the first verse is
functioning as a title for the whole Gospel of Matthew as well as a description
of the first two “historical” chapters (a “genealogy” and birth “origins story”)
but would also note the probable allusion being made to the same formulaic
expression βίβλος γενέσεως (book of-genesis) used several times in the early
chapters of the book of Genesis in the Greek OT, which translated the Hebrew
phrase sefer toledot (stories of family generations/genealogies). So
transliteration might sometimes be considered as more successfully literal (as “genesis”
is here), but not necessarily always.
Finally, I must mention compound words. Let's look at the first
verse in Mark (with an interlinear):
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]
beginning of-the gospel of-Jesus Anointed [Son of-God]
The word I’m interested in here is εὐαγγελίου
(which might be transliterated as “evangel” but no Bible versions I know
transliterate this compound word as evangel). By compound word I mean that it
has two (or more) parts which can (in theory) each be translated separately.
Many Bibles consequently translate τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου
as “of the Good News” (or “of the good news”). Should we always split up
compound words like εὐαγγελίου? Probably
not. Bible versions do not have any strict method for always translating separately
the parts of Greek compound words with separate English words. In fact most
compound Greek words should probably not be split up, just as most compound
English words are considered as whole words.
The question here for εὐαγγέλιον
is: Is “Good News” more “literal” than “Proclamation”? Perhaps a more literal
translation for the “eu” prefix is “well” or “wellness.” But perhaps more
literal would, in fact, be to translate the “eu” prefix with its intended
meaning within the Gospel of Mark, namely as “salvation” or “victory” or “peace” given that the word belongs
within the “semantic domain” of heralds, kings and kingdoms. . . .
Conclusion
In this first
post (in my series dealing with truth and myth in the “literal-to-paraphrase diagram”) I
have briefly discussed “literal” (at the left extreme) by looking at two simple
verses (Mt 1:1 and Mk 1:1) neither of which contained difficult grammar or strange speech idioms. Even here we found we could always find ways of going more “literal,”
but at the cost of losing meaning. Since translation is about relaying meaning,
when more literal leads to a disregard for meaning, it can no longer be
considered translation but merely an interlinear representation. On this much
our diagrams may actually be in agreement with the above points.
Unfortunately the
“diagrams” above are not very clear about the significance of the boundary
between interlinear and a “literal translation” like NASB. They might seem to
suggest that “interlinear” is simply an extreme form of literal translation
whereas in reality an interlinear is not really a translation if it only
translates the broken pieces. Some Bible versions attempt to
position themselves very closely to the boundary between “interlinear” and
“translation” probably in the hope that they will provide more insight into
individual words by playing chicken with an interlinear approach. But more
“literal” does not necessarily lead to more “accuracy of meaning,” especially as
“literal” ultimately depends on interpretation of words in combination. When it comes to the
translation of grammar of clauses (sentences), the issue of what might count as
more literal is not a simple cut and dry issue.
Transliteration is sometimes more
successfully “literal” (as is “genesis” in Mt 1:1) but transliteration is not
usually considered to count as translation (even though used by most Bible
versions!). Similarly, compound words do not usually require splitting into
separate words but this is again not a clear cut issue. Likewise, interlinear “piecemeal
glosses” are not really translations when they ignore grammatical combinations
of phrases and clauses.
So in conclusion, since interlinears do not
translate the meaningful combination of words, an “interlinear translation” is
really an oxymoron (self contradictory). And to further complicate things we
could talk about “machine translation” (translation performed by a computer)
where an attempt at translation (to reproduce meaningful grammar) has been made
but inadvertently falls short as unsuccessful, ultimately landing us back in
the realm of the nonsensical, piecemeal interlinear.
In the next post (part 2) I plan to discuss some issues regarding the “placement” (relative positioning) of certain
Bible versions on the “mythical diagram.”
