This will be my last post on translation theory for a while. Generally speaking, there are four qualities that we strive after for a good translation: accuracy, clarity, naturalness, and acceptability. So far, I have already talked about accuracy and clarity. For this post I will discuss naturalness and acceptability.
Naturalness
One of the targets of translation is that the translation would be natural in the receptor language. This is perhaps one of the simplest targets and also one that is the most difficult to achieve. My experience has been that if you hand a bilingual person a text and tell them to translate it into their other language, they will automatically try to translate word-for-word. Word-for-word translation does not work for many reasons, but one reason is that the final product fails the test of naturalness.
One aspect of translation called collocational clash. This means that languages tend to conceptualize actions differently. For example, the Kwakum do not use their normal word for “eat” when they are talking about mangoes. Instead they use the verb that usually means “to suck.” So, if I was translating something from Kwakum into English, I could translate it “and they were sucking mangoes.” I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t seem very natural to me. It almost sounds like some sort of idiom that must mean something else. No, I would translate in English “and they were eating mangoes.” This is not a less “literal” translation, it is just that the English word “suck” does not overlap with the Kwakum word, such that in English we need to use the verb “eat” in this particular situation.
In listening to the book Anna Karenina the other day I heard the narrator say, “She was head over ears in love.” Head over ears? That is just not natural in English, at least not the dialect I speak. Instead, we say “head over heels in love.” I have no idea why we say that, but that is what we say. Even if in the Russian it is “head over ears,” it is better to translate it as “head over heels” because it is more natural.
I would personally distinguish between clarity and naturalness in that clarity obscures the meaning, but with naturalness, the meaning is understandable, it just feels wrong. If I were to translate Psalm 1:1 following the Hebrew grammar, I would omit the “to be” verb. So, I could translate, “Blessed the man who…” I think everyone would get it, but it doesn’t sound like good English. I would argue that the ESV translation, “Jesus reclined at table in the house” (Matthew 9:10) is unnatural. I get what it means, but I would never say it that way. Perhaps our British friends would find this more natural, but to my American ears, it sounds unnatural.
A goal for a good translation is that it sounds natural. That is to say, it is translated into “good English” (or Kwakum or whatever). The grammar, the wording, the vocabulary choice, should sound like it was written by a native speaker. One of the ways we seek to achieve naturalness is through oral drafting. Our drafting team does not look at the text of Scripture ahead of time, but instead hears it read orally and then orally reproduces the first drafts of the translation in Kwakum. It is later written and tested, but this oral step helps produce a more natural translation.
I would say that it is occasionally necessary to have a phrase that is less natural for the sake of accuracy. For instance, throughout the OT God often says, “As I live…” and then makes a promise to do something. This is a type of oath formula from biblical Hebrew. People use it too, saying, “As the Lord lives…” In Kwakum, people would more naturally swear saying, “In the name of God…” However, in testing we have found that people understand that when God says, “As I live…” it is describing a oath. So, it is less natural, but people still understand it and for the sake of accuracy, we have gone with “As I live…” I would say, however, that normally you don’t have to make this compromise. Most of the time, you can translate accurately and naturally, but it takes time and effort.
Acceptability
The final category of a good translation is that it is acceptable. Katherine Barnwell says this in her book Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in Translation Principles,
Is there anything in the form of the language that might cause church leaders or others to reject the translation? Is there anything that could cause offense? Consider the following:
- The style of translation – are they happy with the kind of language that is being used? Is it too conversational? Or is it too formal?
- The dialect chosen – often a very sensitive issue; resolution involves careful study of dialect differences and attitudes.
- The choice of specific key terms, especially if these differ from those in a major language version that is used in the area concerned. (One published New Testament in Nigeria was almost rejected by the church because of the term used to translate “wine.”)
- Issues related to the members of the translation team and the denominations they represent. (Barnwell 2020:30)
We have run across the issue of “acceptability” a few different times. Some churches have been preaching in Kwakum for a while, which means they have already chosen some key terms on their own. This has been difficult, because if we decide on a different term, it could mean entire denominations will refuse to use our Bible. So far, I think we have been able to be faithful and keep the peace.
Another instance is when we translated the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. When she called out to Joseph, she said, “Lie with me!” (Genesis 39:8). In English, this is pretty tame, but when we tested this in Kwakum people were shocked! The phrase “Lie with me” in Kwakum is basically an expletive, and extremely crass. It was clearly not appropriate for a Bible translation. We found a different way to communicate what she meant that sounded more seductive and less crass. This was an issue of acceptability.
You may have caught the scent of a danger in the issue of acceptability, though, when we ask the question, “Is there anything in the form of the language that might cause church leaders or others to reject the translation? Is there anything that could cause offense?” The truth is, there is a lot in the Bible that causes offense. Jesus once said, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:56). Even his disciples were offended with that one. Rather than asking, “is there anything that could cause offense?” I think we should ask, “Is there anything that causes unnecessary offense?” The Bible should offend people in the places where God wanted it to be offensive. We should not try to remove those offenses. In fact, when we do, we remove the Gospel itself which is “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:22). Rather, we should seek to do everything we can to remove unnecessary stumbling blocks.
I don’t want to go into the whole debate, but I will just say that I do not believe it is appropriate to remove the divine familial language in the Bible to avoid offense with Muslims. I believe that this is taking the idea of acceptability too far. Perhaps that will be another blog post.
Well, this post ends the series on Bible translation principles. I wish I could communicate how hard this all really is. It is a constant game of trying to think of how to best communicate meaning in a vastly different language and culture. It reminds me every day how blessed we are to have the Bible in English, and to have so many options. I hope that thinking through these issues will bless you in this way too.
