The art of translation

As many of you know, when it comes to the philosophy of translation there is a broad range of approach.  One end of the spectrum looks for equivalent words in what is called the target language. At the other end, the concern is to make sure that what the author said in the source language is correctly represented in the target language. The word for word approach translates words while the other approach translates meaning. For instance, the ASV renders Proverbs 3:34 as, “Surely he scoffeth at the scoffers; But he giveth grace unto the lowly.” The Message translates the same verse with, “He gives proud skeptics a cold shoulder, but if you’re down on your luck, he’s right there to help.” Some might ask, “But isn’t the first a translation and the second a paraphrase?” The answer is a qualified Yes, but in a sense all translations are paraphrases because they all restate a given text in another language.
       But some will ask, “Doesn’t the word for word approach give you what the original text actually says?” My answer is that all translation involves interpretation. For instance, the ASV translates the first two words of Rom 3:4 with “God forbid,        ” but neither English word is in the Greek, me genoito (“not come into being”). The goal of all translation is to give the contemporary reader a correct understanding of what the original author wanted to communicate. The problem for the first approach is the non-literary result of handling words so mechanically. Words rarely have a single meaning that fits every possible context. As the noted linguist, Eugene Nida, insisted, “Words bleed their meaning from context.” The question for the second approach with its freedom to select a right word in a given context is that the translator could, in the process, create what he would like the text to say. So while each approach has its challenges, both have a role to play when it comes to the art of translation.
       With this in mind let’s look at what Solomon was saying in Proverbs 3:34. The NIV, probably the standard English translation right now, has as the subject of the verse “mocker.” The ESV represents the original text as saying, “Toward the scorners he is scornful,” while the TEV says, “He has no use for conceited people.” Which is better – mocker, scorner, or conceited? As I hear it, “mocking” is rather specific (“to attack or treat with ridicule”) while “conceit” is much broader. Which is better? To look for the answer the translator must go back into Solomon’s culture with the Hebrew word, find out from the literature of the day how the word fell on the ears of those who first heard it. Would “mock,” or perhaps some other synonym, represent to us today what the original meant to people then? But, you say, “Isn’t that what scholars do?” and I would say, “Yes.” Let’s trust they have done the necessary research and let us hear the text as the first listeners did.
       One thing is certain and that is that English translations are among the very best in the languages of the world. We can accept with confidence the work that continues to be done in the field. God will make sure that what He wants us to know will be adequately translated to all who desire to hear.