I am currently reading a text dedicated to Thomas Lambdin, a pioneer in translating ancient Semitic texts. As I have been reading the various articles, dedicated to various aspects of translation, linguistics and philology, an interesting thought has come to mind.
One of the main responsibilities of the translator is to communicate meaning to the reader. The challenge is to take the words, from a different language, and find an equivalent meaning in the reader's language, that will communicate what the author intended. One of the biggest areas of struggle is that of culture. When the translator is attempting to communicate the author's original intent, the presumption is made that he actually understands the author. But this is probably too great of an assumption.
Consider just how broad a field of understanding is included in the author of any age or of any culture. There is the language itself, the culture in which the language has developed, the idioms, figures of speech, slang, etc. that the author, even unconsciously, intimately understands, which the translator does not, in fact, cannot. Serious, long term work must be done, on the part of the translator, to get himself to a position in which he genuinely understands from where the author is coming. This means massive work in history, language, culture, to name a few categories.
It was at this point that an interesting perspective came to mind. One can see how massive an undertaking it is to adequately translate an ancient text, simply on the grounds of the multiple fields of knowledge. But consider a different approach. The level of work required for someone of the second century to translate something from the first century is actually quite minimal, especially if the author and the translator are from the same culture.
Now reproduce this work multiple times. B translates A, and then C translates B, and then D translates C, etc, etc.
My point is this. The Protestant world has put huge time and effort to create fresh, new, academic translations of the Bible and then from these translations have sought to understand Jesus, the apostles, and the first century Church in new ways.
But this falls into the problems of the multi-generational translator. What if instead, as the Orthodox church has done, we allow the natural progression of tradition, handed down A to B to C to D, to direct our understanding of apostolic faith?
In short, I am suggesting that many have erred in trying to reach back too far and have over-extended human capabilities, in trying to create new, fresh understanding. Instead, we should rely upon the tradition of the church, as it has held, protected, taught and passed down its beliefs and practices since the first century.
One of the main responsibilities of the translator is to communicate meaning to the reader. The challenge is to take the words, from a different language, and find an equivalent meaning in the reader's language, that will communicate what the author intended. One of the biggest areas of struggle is that of culture. When the translator is attempting to communicate the author's original intent, the presumption is made that he actually understands the author. But this is probably too great of an assumption.
Consider just how broad a field of understanding is included in the author of any age or of any culture. There is the language itself, the culture in which the language has developed, the idioms, figures of speech, slang, etc. that the author, even unconsciously, intimately understands, which the translator does not, in fact, cannot. Serious, long term work must be done, on the part of the translator, to get himself to a position in which he genuinely understands from where the author is coming. This means massive work in history, language, culture, to name a few categories.
It was at this point that an interesting perspective came to mind. One can see how massive an undertaking it is to adequately translate an ancient text, simply on the grounds of the multiple fields of knowledge. But consider a different approach. The level of work required for someone of the second century to translate something from the first century is actually quite minimal, especially if the author and the translator are from the same culture.
Now reproduce this work multiple times. B translates A, and then C translates B, and then D translates C, etc, etc.
My point is this. The Protestant world has put huge time and effort to create fresh, new, academic translations of the Bible and then from these translations have sought to understand Jesus, the apostles, and the first century Church in new ways.
But this falls into the problems of the multi-generational translator. What if instead, as the Orthodox church has done, we allow the natural progression of tradition, handed down A to B to C to D, to direct our understanding of apostolic faith?
In short, I am suggesting that many have erred in trying to reach back too far and have over-extended human capabilities, in trying to create new, fresh understanding. Instead, we should rely upon the tradition of the church, as it has held, protected, taught and passed down its beliefs and practices since the first century.
No comments:
Post a Comment