Lost in Translation

So I just started reading Frye's The Great Code (finally). Yes, I'm one of the unfortunate few who has not received my copy yet. And right off the bat one of Frye's many observations caught me: "reading a translation is a settling for the second best" (4).

How true. Just this morning I was studying French with a classmate of mine. We were translating a short story into english. Some sentences we had to reword 3 or 4 times until we got an english equivalent that might slightly resemble what the french author originally intended. It was at least enough to get the general gist and meaning. But it frustrates me how much really is lost in translation.

I ran across this verse a few weeks ago. The KJV (King James Version) reads like this: “Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.” (Proverbs 15:17) Well that makes good sense. But I originally found it in the NLT (New Living Translation): “A bowl of vegetables with someone you love is better than steak with someone you hate.” This translation kind of made me laugh. I ended up sending it to a friend of mine as a joke in the KMT (Kathryn Macklin Translation): “A bowl of grass with someone you love is better than a cream-filled donut with someone you hate.” Really, as the translation becomes more modern, it just…sounds different to me. I suppose it’s not exactly worse, that’s really a matter of opinion. But it definitely loses something. It’s like in my last post, one reason I enjoy the Bible so much is because it transports you to that time, to the time when Jesus walked the earth. You get to see their values and daily trials – walking to the well everyday to draw water, sacrificing animals, etc. things we just don’t have to deal with in today’s society. But that disappears; it’s watered down with each translation. I found it also in another translation called The Message: “Better a bread crust shared in love than a slab of prime rib served in hate.” What’s with the subject change?? I suppose it doesn’t really matter, but why exactly did The Message find it more effective to speak of bread crust instead of vegetables?

Biblica is one of the largest Bible and Christian literature ministries in the world. They publish, they translate, they distribute, they do it all. But they have recently taken it upon themselves to publish a new translation of the NIV. Christianpost.com quotes Keith Danby, president and CEO of Biblica, explaining Biblica’s stance on the revision, “We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand.” This is understandable. It made me think of Frye’s idea that “words are ‘put for’ thoughts” (7-8). So does it matter what translation it is as long as it gets the thoughts across? Danby further explains, “We’re looking for a translation that is above all accurate – that says what the original authors said in the way they would have said it had they been speaking in English to the global English-speaking audience today.” Alright then, let’s give this a shot: "So, this one time God, made the earth and heaven and some stuff. And he like made this other dude who ran around naked and God gave him a girl friend. And he looked at all the stuff he made and was like, yeah, this is pretty cool. Then when the dudes on earth sinned he made the one guy a pair of baggy jeans and his girlfriend a mini skirt.” . . . okay, so maybe that’s the stoner's version, but still. Certainly it wouldn’t be my first choice to read the King James Version all the time. I grew up with the NIV and it is still my first choice. But at what point should we stop revising it? Are we losing the root of God’s word with each translation?