The answer to the above question is, ‘No, you don’t.’ You simply would get nothing out of each sentence. It’s like those words on the puzzle pages of newspapers where you’re given a quotation and asked to put the words in order. Mean you if what I know.
I was thinking about this yesterday reading an article about Bible translations. By that I mean currently existing translations. I tend to nod off during some discussions on translation history, because I’m not really a history guy, and because I consider it sufficient to know that Eve was tempted by a Septuagint in the garden.
So every once in awhile I check out Kouyanet, the blog of Eddie and Sue Arthur, who work for Wycliffe and admittedly don’t write very much about English Bibles. Still, even if you don’t understand everything, if you have an interest in something it’s good to immerse yourself in what other people are talking about, even if you feel like a car wash attendant in a room of automotive engineers.
Anyway, they recently linked to this article, Lost in Translation by David Shaw at the website of The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches in the UK, and while I personally found the whole article informative, I thought I’d give you a short word-bite from near the end:
…Some argue that because God inspired the words of the original texts that we should try to translate on a word-for-word basis as much as possible. While there is some truth in this, it’s also a rather naïve view of translation. After all, what’s the best translation of “Au revoir”? Well, “Goodbye”. We’ve translated two words with one word, but that’s a good thing because we have clearly conveyed the meaning. To take a biblical example, borrowed from Rod Decker’s excellent brief review of the ESV (see the further reading section below) here’s a word for word ‘translation’ of 2 Corinthians 6:12:
“Not you are being restricted in us you are being restricted but in the intestines of you.”
Of course, that won’t do. And it proves that any translation will have to rearrange and change words in order to convey the meaning. The KJV reflects a more standard English word order but still doesn’t make much sense:
“Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.”
The ESV moves further away from the Greek word order and imagery:
“You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.”
That makes more sense but the nature of the ‘restriction’ isn’t clear. Enter the NIV, which says:
“We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.”
Has this made more significant changes to words of the original? Certainly. But doesn’t this also convey the meaning more clearly and effectively than the other options? Just from this example we can see that every translation has difficult decisions to make, but the great advantages of the NIV – its accessibility and clarity – still stand.
That’s just a sample passage to whet your appetite to finding more reading on the topic of translation. I hope it resonates somewhere in the intestines of you.
Intelligent comments welcomed, but if you’re an NIV-hater or KJV-onlyist, please resist the temptation.
- Eddie and Sue Arthur previously at Thinking Out Loud: The Politics of Bible Translation March 11, 2012
- and another of my favorite columns by them we linked to in 2008, the whimsical We’re Running Out of Translation Names. (That was our title, they called it English Bible Version Generator.) July 31, 2008
- or the equally cynical Definitive Guide to Bible Translation Terms. May 31, 2011
- or simply type “Bible Translation” in quotes in this blog’s search bar in the right margin; you’ll find it’s a recurring topic here.