"word for word" or "thought for thought"? 직역이냐 의역이냐

[soso]

"word for word" or "thought for thought"?

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/word-for-word-or-thought-for-thought.6056/

글자 대 글자 해석인 직역 해석은 원 의미에 가깝게 번역하여 좋지만

언어 표현 방식이나 단어가 포함하는 의미 영역이나 배경이 서로 다른바

어색한 번역으로 이해하기가 어려운 단점이 있고

의미 대 의미 번역은 모국에에 적당한 의역이라 이해하기가 쉬우나

원문을 이해한 번역자의 주관과 배경이 개입할 소지가 있기에

원문 내용을 소위 훼파?할 수 있다는 염려가 나오지만

서로 조금씩 차이나는 다양한 번역을 읽으면

한 문장을 다양한 각도로 볼 수 있기에 이해의 영역이 확장되어 좋다 보이니

직역이 옳다 의역이 옳다 하며 핏개 올리며 싸울 필요는 없다 생각되고

특별히 성경의 저자는 성령님이시고 성령님께만이 성부 하나님의 생각을 아시므로 (고전 2:11)

성령님의 인도를 구하며 성경을 읽으면 올바른 이해를 할 수 있지만

단지 독자의 지식과 이해력만 의지하여 성경을 읽으면(렘 17:5 참고)

제 아무리 행간을 잘 읽는 상상초월의 독자라도 하나님의 심중을 알 수 없고 (사 40:13)

율법에 대가-전문가들인 바리새인 장님들처럼 신구약 66권을 왼종일 더듬어 읽어도

단 한 줄의 산 진리도 발견하지 못하여 burn out 탈진할 것이므로 요주의하시고

아래의 토론을 읽으시기 바랍니다

weinhold

I am interested to know your opinions on translation philosophy, a topic that the most recent conference of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) sparked in my mind. Below are some of my thoughts following the conference. I present them with the hope of generating fruitful dialogue on this board.

The debate over translation philosophy seems to have been instigated by proponents of the recent English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible. In the preface to the ESV, the translation committee includes a statement clarifying their approach to translation:

"The ESV is an "œessentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on "œword-for-word" correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a "œthought-for-thought" rather than "œword-for-word" translation philosophy, emphasizing "œdynamic equivalence" rather than the "œessentially literal" meaning of the original. A "œthought-for-thought" translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture."

Leland Ryken and Wayne Grudem were two of the more well-known adherents to the "œessentially literal" translation philosophy who spoke at ETS, and both criticized quite candidly "œdynamic equivalence" translations, such as the New International Version (NIV), Contemporary English Version (CEV), New Living Translation (NLT), and The Message (MSG).

While proponents of the "œessentially literal" translation philosophy are certainly well intentioned in their approach to the debate, it seems, at least to some, that they have overstated their case. During sessions that I attended, "œessentially literal" advocates appeared to venture beyond the stated translation philosophy of the ESV toward a more aggressive polemic against "œthought-for-thought" translations. Ryken, for example, charged "œthought-for-thought" translations with being more concerned with reading level than accuracy to the original documents, and Grudem pointed to numerous places in "œdynamic equivalence" translations where the alleged meanings of words were altered dramatically or omitted entirely.

Advocates of "œdynamic equivalence" took issue with the insistence of those in the "œessentially literal" camp, who portray their translations (especially NLT and MSG) as somehow less faithful to an evangelical doctrine of Scripture. "œWord-for-word" proponents may have grounds to criticize more radical translations like MSG, which translates Psalm 51:10-11, "œGod make a fresh start in me, shape a Genesis week from the chaos of my life. Don´t throw me out with the trash, or fail to breathe holiness in me," but those in the "œessentially literal" camp remain guilty of failing to distinguish between radical translations like MSG and more chastened ones like NIV. Indeed, it seems rather obvious that although the translators for MSG and NIV share a vaguely similar translation philosophy, each employs their philosophy to a different extent and toward different ends. In the future, "œessentially literal" advocates would be wise to make sharper distinctions in order to avoid scrunching all "œthought-for-thought" translations into the same category.

The "œword-for-word" approach to translation has produced several excellent English Bibles, and both the academic and church communities have recognized those efforts. I want to underscore my respect for "œessentially literal" translations like the ESV (I bought two at the conference). But I sincerely wish that the same people who worked so hard to produce such excellent Bibles would be comfortable letting their work be an excellent Bible translation without the need for disparaging other translations, a practice that smacks more of an effective sales strategy than responsible academic interaction.

LawrenceU

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor

Apr 18, 2005

#2

While I was not there, I believe they were drawing a line of distinction without bashing. By definition if you draw a line of demarcation you will offend someone. And the NIV and MSG are not very good translations. For what it's worth, there is no 'literal translation - word for word'; it is an impossibility linguistically. There are those that are closer to that than others, but none are literal wfw.

jfschultz

jfschultz

Puritan Board Junior

Apr 18, 2005

#3

There is a spectrum of "translations" with the NASB on one end and the KJV, NKJV, and ESB clustered near it as "word-for-word" translations and paraphrases like MSG and TEV on the other end. The NIV is somewhere in the middle.

As one moves away from a "word-for-word" translation the "bible" becomes a fallible human commentary rather than the Word of God.

The TNIV is really taking the thought-for-thought translation another step from the NIV.

BTW, several members at my church were interested in the way I use my Palm in the service. I have book-marked the scripture readings and can follow along as they come up in the worship service. I show them the program and that I have several translations (ASV, ESB, KJV, and NKJV) handy. They seem disappointed that I don't have NIV on there.

Also, putting my money where my mouth is, I just got a ESV Reformation Study Bible. The text of the Bible in the NKJV version is a single column with side references and notes. The ESV version uses a two column layout with a center column for cross-references and footnotes at the bottom of the right column. Also the font used for the Bible test seems a bit larger and easier to read.

NaphtaliPress

NaphtaliPress

Administrator

Staff member

Apr 18, 2005

#4

This is why I never understood the force of the argument against exclusive psalmody, that we are not singing the psalms really because it is not a word for word translation. When we read the Word of God that is not a strict wooden literal word for word translation (which none are as observed above) we are reading the word of God; same goes for singing the psalms. One is simply a translation suitable for reading, the other one for singing. See http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/paraphrases.htm

Others may have what they believe are suitable arguments for singing things in public worship other than the Psalms but this one I think is not a sound one, as the article referenced demonstrates in my opinion. I post it here because it covers some pertinent info on the problems of translation from one language to another.

weinhold

weinhold

Puritan Board Freshman

Apr 18, 2005

#5

Originally posted by jfschultz

There is a spectrum of "translations" with the NASB on one end and the KJV, NKJV, and ESB clustered near it as "word-for-word" translations and paraphrases like MSG and TEV on the other end. The NIV is somewhere in the middle.

When asked directly about his model for understanding the various translation philosophies at ETS, Leland Ryken explicitly denied a spectrum based conception in favor of a sharply bifurcated model: essentially literal and dynamic equivalence. That paradigm also prevails implicitly in much of the literature promoted by ESV supporters. I agree with you that a better model for mapping the translation philosophies behind our English Bibles consists of a spectrum, although I would place both the ESV and NIV close to the middle. To draw a sharper distinction is, to me, an unhelpful overstatement.

BlackCalvinist

BlackCalvinist

Puritan Board Senior

Apr 18, 2005

#6

I always thought of the NIV as a 'hybrid' of dynamic and functional equivalency. In many places, the NIV is word-for-word - probably about 60-65%. Just my observation.

There's only ONE dynamic equivalence translation I can recommend in good conscience so far (and only for 'reading' not memorization and study) - the NLT.

I love the translation of Romans 9 here:

What can we say? Was God being unfair? Of course not! For God said to Moses, "I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose." (Exodus 33:19) So receiving God's promise is not up to us. We can't get it by choosing it or working hard for it. God will show mercy to anyone he chooses. For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, "I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you, and so that my fame might spread throughout the earth." (Exodus 9:16) So you see, God shows mercy to some just because he wants to, and he chooses to make some people refuse to listen.

Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not listening? Haven't they simply done what he made them do?" No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to criticize God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who made it, "Why have you made me like this?" When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn't he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into? God has every right to exercise his judgment and his power, but he also has the right to be very patient with those who are the objects of his judgment and are fit only for destruction. He also has the right to pour out the riches of his glory upon those he prepared to be the objects of his mercy-- (Romans 9:14-23, New Living Translation)

DocCas

Inactive User

Apr 20, 2005

#7

Being a firm believer in verbal inspiration I tend toward versions that use a more formal equivalent translation philosophy and away from those that use a more dynamic equivalent philosophy.

However, being sane (somewhat), I also understand that translation from one language into another is never an exact science, especially when translating a Synthetic language such as Greek into an Analytical language such as English. There will always be instances where a more dynamic equivalent translation will better serve than a more formal equivalent.

So, I guess my position would be that I prefer a more formal equivalent translation where possible but allow the use of dynamic equivalence when necessary. :)

kevin.carroll

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior

Apr 21, 2005

#8

Translations present a few challenges for us:

1. All translations are interpretations. No matter how "literal" or "dynamic" a translation may claim to be, there are always going to be interpretations sneaking into the text.

2. Some translations in English are just wrong or some texts should not be in the Bible (end of Mark? John 8?) but won't be touched by translation committees for fear of marketing backlash.

Both of these factors point to the need of ministers to be savvy in the original languages. Any pastor who does not labor in the original does his flock a disservice, in my opinion.

BTW, as a guy who has studied seven languages, I agree with those who say translation is inexact. To translate something well, one must remain faithful to the original, yet render it well in the target language. NIV fails sometimes in the former; NASB fails a lot in the latter.

If you can only study in English, use multiple versions.