Many modern Bible versions, in an attempt to become more readable, have followed a translation philosophy of dynamic or functional equivalence, rather than exact equivalence. The only problem is, while some might think the meaning is equivalent, to others the meaning might not be equivalent enough - it might be altered or somewhat lost. This might have been avoided if the translators had sought to translate more exactly.
Here's an illustration that explains what I see happening:
I once did a pastel on paper, depicting Manly beach, NSW - in the Impressionist style. Being an Impressionist work rather than a work of Realism, I included only those details that had left an impression on me.
Most of my friends found my finished work acceptable - some, admirable. But one day I showed it to someone, and he was aghast. "Where's the clubhouse?!" he asked/exclaimed. In the limited detail of my Impression, I hadn't included the Manly Surf Life Saving Clubhouse. Never having been a Manlysider myself, I hadn't been able to appreciate the iconic importance that the clubhouse held to many locals. The building didn't make a lasting impression on me - so I didn't include it in my Impression of the scene. But unbeknownst to me, this person who was now viewing my work had once lived in Manly, and over many years had grown quite attached to the sight of his beloved clubhouse. To him it was untenable therefore that any depiction of Manly beach could ever be considered adequate without including the clubhouse. To him, it couldn't really be considered a picture of Manly at all!
In the same way, a modern translation committee might take a text of Scripture then render it in a modern way which they think sufficiently expresses the meaning of the original. They've produced their 'impression' of the Scripture rather than aimed for 'photo realism'. And most people might think the work of 'impression' is wonderful, and be be blessed by the modern version. But someone else might read it and be aghast. He might be aware of some aspect of truth which is present in the original but is altered or missing in the modern rendering. It may be an aspect of truth which had become important in his Christian experience. To him it might be untenable therefore that any version of the Bible should ever omit or alter that aspect of truth in the original. To him, it couldn't really be considered a real Bible at all!
That illustrates the limitations of dynamic or functional equivalence. The only way to avoid it is to aim for exact equivalence as far as is possible.
In my opinion, the role of a faithful Bible translator should ordinarily be to attempt exact equivalence with the original as far as is possible - like a work of photo-realism rather than an impressionist work.
There may be a role for interpreting the sense of Bible passages too - but that role ordinarily belongs elsewhere than by altering or ommitting parts of the Bible-text itself. At least, if that's what a Bible version is doing, then that ought to be stated so in the foreword, rather than claiming translation superiority.
I quite enjoy the Aussie Bible, and the Amplified Bible at times. But in the same way that no matter how many impressions or abstractions an artist does of a scene, it's always important to prioritize keeping the original scene in mind or keeping photos or photocopies of the original scene in our possession so that we can always give relevance to any modern or future interpretive works - so it is always important to preserve the original text of Scripture as exactly as possible so as to give relevance to any modern or future interpretive versions.
No comments:
Post a Comment