For the first time, I think I'm in disagreement with Dr. Leithart, or maybe only Jordan. While I think that translations are permissable and perhaps helpful, I think that working from the original language is best and I do have grave suspicions about translations. When you work with a translation, you are interacting with a translator, not the text or original writer. The more I read of Paul's letters the more I think that most translations miss a tremendous amount. Even the "scholarly" NRSV is crap. In reading the Greek or Latin (for other church writers, e.g., Augustine), you can see the words which become weighty theological terms. Also, what authority does a translation have? In regards to Jordan's point of Daniel 2-7 being written in Aramaic, what's the point? And the NT was written in Greek ... ooh. Maybe this means we won't live Hebraic, covenantal lifestyles, but I don't see how a portions of scripture being written in different languages is a mandate for translations?
I recall a professor pointing out that God's giving commands to Adam and Eve was a translation from God's thoughts into human language; the stories of Adam and Eve (unless they were Hebrew speakers—not impossible, I suppose) were translated into Hebrew. From one perspective, the whole of history is about the translation of God's word into every language, and the translation of his commands and promises into lives transformed.
I've no objection to working from the originals when possible, but I won't call my aching friends to learn Greek before they can hear the good news of purpose and freedom and wholeness.
And as for the “scholarly” NRSV being crap: strive for the best translation you can…and realize that God does amazing things through people who barely lisp his name aright, but seek to serve him nonetheless: if we see the sort of jars he carries his treasure around in, we'd be thankful for any word at all.
Posted by ronlusk at November 12, 2003 07:32 PM
Oh dear!
It's true that all translation is interpretation, but that doesn't make translation "second best". The very first sign of the Holy Spirit at work in the Jerusalem church was the translation of th gospel!
It is very wide of the mark to call the NRSV "crap". Set aside the "scholarly" claim (though I reckon it's a true one) -- surely no version of Bible is worthless.
Something is lost from an author’s meaning if a translation is not reflective of her actual words, format, and style.
Something is also added to an author’s meaning when a translator strays from a predominately literal exercise into the area of dynamic equivalence. That something is the translator’s own interpretation of the text.