Bi181 – Response
To be honest, based on the title “Introducing Bible Translations” I thought this
course was going to be quite dull and I didn’t expect to get anything from it since English is not my native language. But I was so wrong! This course was really
interesting and even funny. Never before have I taken as many notes compared to how short this course was. Mark Strauss caught my attention already in the first segment with his excerpt from “Crazy English”. I would say that a greater understanding of how translation works, is what I will remember the most from this course. I was aware of the formal/functional equivalences before this course, but this was the first time someone really described them to me in a deeper sense. I think this kind of teaching would be very benefitable for so many Christians, simply because many Christians have an opinion on which bible translation is the best translation.
I will be honest, I come from the perspective that formal equivalence is the only true translating philosophy because that philosophy “best” render the original
meaning of the text. Now I realize that I have been very wrong (or right, depending on what you mean with “original meaning”). When a translation is true to the original form, something will be lost when translated into another language. The text will seem more archaic and sometimes don’t even make sense to our modern minds. On the other hand, I appreciated that Strauss lifted both good and bad things with both translating philosophies. I can see that the formal equivalence is much better when you’re studying word allusions throughout the Bible (which I enjoy) and you get more in touch with the Greek and Hebrew idioms used in the original text. I appreciate Strauss’ statement that it is always best to read many translations. Now I clearly see the benefits of reading and comparing many bible translations, ranging on a wide spectrum. While the ESV can help med see the original form and repeated use of certain words, the New Living Translation can help me see the more modern meaning of the text. I have a strong feeling that many of the strange verses in the Bible are strange simply because they contain old foreign idioms, metaphors or collocations, and not because they contain strange theology.
And here is why I think this teaching would be benefitable for many Christians. I don’t think it is just isolated to one language, but I think the formal/functional
equivalence dichotomy is present in every language which has more than one
translation of the Bible. On the one hand, you have people who are eager to preserve the “original meaning” of the text. Often that results in very literal
translations and a love for archaic language. Typically they don’t change their
translations or Bibles very often (or ever). On the other hand, you have people who simply want to understand the text. They don’t mind change their translations often and they enjoy reading bible translations that they understand. I have been part of the former “tribe” and have been very suspicious of translations that are called “paraphrases” or less literal (you should be aware that for a long time we’ve only had 2-3 translations in Swedish of both the OT and the NT). I have viewed them as sub-level Bibles and haven’t really bothered to read them. I have a lot of friends who think the same way and we have all read the same translation. A couple of years ago a new Swedish translation was released covering both the OT and the NT. A translation which is quite similar to the NIV. I remembering reading it and thinking “is this what this verse really means”. By translating many idioms into colloquial Swedish I actually understood some verses better than I had from reading my more literal translation.
Now when I have heard Strauss explain how translation works and how the meaning of the text is most often better conveyed by a functional equivalence, I much more appreciate the “paraphrases” I once disliked. I think his teaching would be very useful for many of my friends who are all part of the literal “tribe”. If they would understand that the true meaning of the text can be obscure in a literal
translation but more fully revealed in a paraphrase, I think they also would start to appreciate other translations than the one they are currently using. Let my end with a good quote from Strauss summarizing how a literal translation (or even the Bible) is not an end in itself:
“The kingdom of God is about the message of the text, not the words, not the formal features of the text.”
Kind Regards
/ Henrik