The Feigned Ignorance of the Existence of Other Translations

In my previous post I mentioned a correlation between the lack of variety in available Bible translation approaches and the fact that most Bibles are intended to stand alone (as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ style, that is, as producing Bibles to be used for both study and liturgy, by a wide audience). This is especially true of large committee Bible translation projects where the goal tends to be the out-dated idea of providing a new ‘standard’ translation that would monopolize the market of readers.

This means a missed opportunity for new Bibles to pursue the variety of translation methods (since they are all competing for the ‘word group’ and ‘clause’ level translation method, see previous post).

Today I’m following up the discussion of the implied correlation between the lack of variety and the ever-increasing number of new Bible translations.

It is no secret that the number of Bible versions created in the English language is vast—the number is in the hundreds (or thousands if one counts different editions). So it is strange that new Bible translations appearing in English usually overlook the obvious fact that many of their intended readers will own and read more than one translation.

Many Bibles appearing in English are produced as though they were intended to be read in ignorance of other translations/versions. I suppose it is partly a consequence of marketing (compare how TV networks rarely like to acknowledge the existence of other TV networks in their broadcasts). Such ‘ignorance’ is obviously pretend.

In the real world many readers (especially Bible college students, pastors, religious educators, and Bible study groups) are not so ignorant and so they do not forego reading their Bibles in various English translations. Granted many readers do gravitate to one Bible to use as as their primary Bible for practical reasons, but this does not obviate comparative use of more than one version at various times.

So what difference does this ‘feigned ignorance’ make for Bible readers? I suggest that it not only reproduces an ignorant reading experience (leaving it to the more inquisitive readers to go search out for themselves alternative translations) but that it is partly responsible for the never-ending over-production of new Bible translations in English.

We have already noted that multiple translations are a necessary phenomenon due to the nature of translation. This should be clear from the previous blog post. Here’s how Julio Trebolle Barrera stated it (italics added):

The biblical text is loaded with such richness of meaning in its smallest details that any translation can offer no more that [sic] a few of the many aspects which philological, historical and theological study find in the text. In effect, it is really always necessary to provide several alternative translations. This is one of the reasons why the student of the Bible cannot forego study of the original languages.

The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (Trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden; New York; Koln: Brill, 1997), 126.

Here we will focus on the necessity for English readers of having access to multiple translations.

The point is widely acknowledged by those who study translations (and taken for granted by students of translation studies). For example, Tommy Wasserman concludes that

multiple translations that complement each other are necessary. There is certainly a great need for translations with different levels of language and with varying degree of interpretation, aimed at different addressees and purposes; the translation for the experienced reader should not necessarily be the same as for the first time reader; likewise, those who read the Bible to prepare sermons could need another kind of translation than those who read it as a book for culture. . . . The ideal would be a broad range of translations that could, so to speak, build a bridge into the world of the Biblical authors. . . . idiomatic translation . . . needs to be complemented with the literal translation, not least in order to enrich and amplify the target language and bridge the gaps between our modern world and the Biblical one.

“Theoretical Orientations In Bible Translation: AComparative Analysis of Two English-language Bible Versions” (2001)

Similarly, Philip Sumpter (in his article “English BibleTranslations: An Overview of Current Versions”) found that “None of the authors [translation theorists] cited in this article, each involved in translation projects themselves, claim that only one translation or translation type is sufficient.” (italics added)

So it is refreshing when a translation stops behaving like a TV network and acknowledges the mutual existence of other contemporary translations. This was a welcome feature of the NETBible when it appeared (online 1996; in print 2005) which does occasionally make reference to other versions in the footnotes when discussing an ambiguous passage. The most extreme endeavour in this vein would probably be the Comprehensive New Testament (2008) which provides references to twenty other commonly used English versions for every New Testament verse!

Whilst we should not expect that every new version can or should go to such extremes (and the CNT has its own agenda in doing so), we might at least expect that more Bibles are translated with the knowledge that their translations exist in mutual dialogue with other translations, and to make this fact more transparent to readers.

The myth that a newer Bible will be the version to end all versions (or the one and only Bible translation to be read by its faithful readers) in reality does little to reduce the outpouring number of new versions. In fact it would seem to hinder the proliferation of new Bibles because it fails to properly address the need for necessary complementary translation types that theorists have identified. This in turn is reflected in the production of Bible versions which inherently aim to supplant and compete with rather than supplement and complement.

Ultimately, there remains an ongoing need for newer Bible translations. What is needed, however, is for such translations to improve their awareness of what they are and how exactly they might be achieving what they are setting out to achieve in relation to other translation efforts, by paying attention to what translation theorists and other experts have known and studied about the translation enterprise.

I will follow up the matter with some examples soon.

Truth and Myth in the Literal-Free Diagram (part 4)

I’ve been way too busy lately to blog. But I’m finally now able to add a ‘part 4’ that I’ve been wanting to add since the last post! The current series is because I felt it was important to have something on the internet that critiques the traditional ‘diagram of translation theory’ (sometimes I've called it 'literal-to-free' diagram and sometimes 'literal-to-paraphrase' diagram). In other words something brief that will broaden the horizons of those who will undoubtedly encounter its (mis)use. 

Part 4 concerns the ‘size’ of a ‘unit’ being translated.

The ‘unit size’ being translated may theoretically be quite large or quite small. But, for whatever reason (and there lies a thesis or two!), in almost all English Bible versions the chosen unit size is very similar.  

So in theory a translator could chose to translate a whole paragraph at once (as a single large ‘unit’ that tries to relay the larger ‘point being made’, namely the various rhetorical and social implications being implied) or at the other extreme could chose simply to translate word-by-word, or perhaps at an even smaller scale to translate all the ‘morphological’ elements within a single word (for example the parts of a ‘compound word’, including prefixes and affixes -- we discussed this point briefly in part 1 for Mk 1:1 for εὐαγγελίον eu-angelion (literally “evangel” but traditionally either “gospel” or “good news”, though more effectively “proclamation [of salvation]”). 

It’s probably no surprise that our old friend the ‘literal-to-free diagram’ again does not really help to display the differences. That is, it does not cope well with displaying the different unit sizes employed by each translation. The fault this time lies not so much with the diagram but with the lack of variety of Bibles that translate ‘above’ the size of a ‘sentence’ (that is, larger than clause-level). As a rule, almost every English version only translates somewhere between the ‘phrase level’ (or ‘word group’) and the ‘sentence level’ (or ‘clause complex’).

Putting this observation alongside the traditional diagram produces something like the following:

This time what the diagrams does help to demonstrate is that there is hardly any difference between the alleged ‘extremes’ using the traditional literal-to-free diagram! We’ve had to shrink the diagram down to squeeze between only three or four ‘levels’.

Essentially this is just what Stanley Porter has argued (and whence the above table derives) in:

Stanley E. Porter, “Assessing Translation Theory: Beyond Literal and Dynamic Equivalence.” Pages 117–45 in Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. 

The reason for the lack of variety will probably have something to do with the fact that most English Bible versions are designed to stand alone (not many are deliberately made to be used primarily in conjunction in another existing translation). This means that there is an inherent pressure to find a compromise between the potential extremes (as there would presumably not be something else to gauge such an extreme against for comparative purposes). 

However, the more English versions that are produced makes such an assumption seem more and more ridiculous (anyway, that’s another tangent we could easily follow up…no doubt another time).

I’ll resist saying that’s all for this series this time (on the literal-to-free diagram) but I really would like to move onto other matters…

In all, I think that the diagram still has some utility if the issues raised here (including parts 1, 2, & 3) are also taken into account.