[B-Greek] Translation Considerations checklist: Suggestions?

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue May 4 01:22:28 EDT 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Hoffman" <markgvh at gmail.com>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 3. maj 2010 19:56
Subject: [B-Greek] Translation Considerations checklist: Suggestions?


>I am teaching an Advanced Greek class, and I have split the class into
> translation teams working on translating Luke 16:19-31, the story of the
> rich man and Lazarus. As one part of the course, we have spent nearly the
> whole semester working through each verse of the text, doing all the
> textual, lexical, exegetical ... work.
> Now I am asking them not to simply translate the Greek but to compose a
> translation of the text. (In my mine, there is a difference...) I was unable
> to find any resource that concisely described the types of things I wanted
> them to keep in mind as they worked. So, I have tried to compose and
> organize a list of considerations when composing a translation. Here's the
> introduction I wrote:

>... That is, we are trying
> to produce a translation that is faithful to the original Greek text, will
> stand independently from our explanation of it, and will communicate
> effectively to its readers.

I would say that your 3 points are good and very important, starting from the 
last one:

1. Will it communicate effectively to its intended audience?

If this is the goal, then a formal equivalent translation will more or less fail 
unless the intended audience knows the meaning of the text already. But your 
list of considerations seems to allow for the student to choose to make a FE 
translation.

If 1. is the goal, it also influences what is meant by faithful to the original 
text. Faithful in terms of communicative effect or in terms of a mirroring of 
the Greek grammatical structure? Recent advances in linguistics and 
communication theory would suggest the first of these, but hundreds of years of 
tradition in Bible translation will suggest the second. When we did a 
communication test of a Danish translation of Galatians in a normal high school 
class, their reaction was one of amazement that they could understand the 
translation without problems. Their experience of the Bible indicated a book 
that is supposed to use obscure language. A team of theologians tried to mimick 
the style of Mark in his gospel, but we had to trash their translation. When 
they redid it, they were so free that we had to pull them back towards the 
original text.

The historical and cultural gap between the original and new audience is a 
special challenge that is addressed well by Relevance Theory and it is hinted at 
in your second point - will the text need additional explanation in terms of 
footnotes to be understood?

I think producing a communicative translation is a good exercise, because a 
student can easily produce a FE translation without having understood the 
intended meaning of the Greek text very well, but a communicative translation 
requires that the student has not only understood the words and grammar, but the 
intention of the text as a whole within its context. A communicative or dynamic 
translation allows the translator to express nuances and attitudes that are lost 
in a FE translation, but it is risky and does require an advanced knowledge of 
both Greek and the receptor language. A communicative translation also allows 
for the use of idioms which makes the translation come alive. The only idioms 
found in a FE translation are Hebrew and Greek ones. For instance, in Luke 16:25 
in Danish we translated something like this: "But remember, my friend, that you 
were living on the sunny side of life while Lazarus was suffering." (Now he is 
getting too much heat, but that is an accidental undercurrent.)

Carl says that translation is an art, and to a certain extent I agree. But there 
are many skills involved that can be taught and learned. Unless your students 
have also taken several courses in communication theory and translation 
principles, I doubt how sucessful the result will be. But it will be a good 
exercise anyway.

Another challenge that is difficult to handle is an unclear original. When I 
translate books or pamphlets from English to Danish, I sometimes run into an 
original text that is quite unclear. Occasionally I can contact the authors so 
that they have a chance to redo and clarify the original, but in most cases I am 
faced with a dilemma. Should I maintain the lack of clarity or should I make my 
best guess at what the author probably meant in context and translate that? If 
it is poetry, then lack of clarity is fine, but if not, then a lack of clarity 
will decrease the communicative effect.

Iver Larsen
Translation Consultant




More information about the B-Greek mailing list