5 Views of Accuracy in Translation

Very thoughtful evaluation of the different views of accuracy.

The only quibble I would have is that you suggest that the people espousing 1-3 would call accuracy non-essential.  From their perspectives it is essential, but means something different.  Your entire piece seems to assume that "word-for-word" or "formal equivalence" is by definition accurate.
  
Personally, I see dangers of 'formal equivalence' (1) if taken to extremes. An example would be that the 'genitive case' in Greek may be formally equivalent to the 'of phrase' in English, but there are times

Edward J Kotynski  Thank you for reading my post. I am trying to understand different views of accuracy in contrast to whether a specific rendering is actually accurate or not. In other word, how do I make sense of all the claims of accuracy and faithfulness. I think the traditional approaches place more emphasis on accuracy to the source and less on comprehension by the reader. Yes, I also see dangers of "formal equivalence". I think those committed to more formal renders need to consider the importance of naturalness and comprehension more. Translation is difficult. Not everyone handles the difficulties in the same way.

Edward's point about accuracy not being the same as "formal equivalence" is a good one. Sometimes, because of grammatical restraints, formal equivalence is impossible. Sometimes, because of semantic mismatches, formal equivalence leads to inaccurate meanings. To that, I would just add the simple notion that a translation can be formally equivalent and be so incomprehensible as to have almost no meaning at all. This, as many have pointed out, cannot be considered accurate. 

Relevance Theory is helpful in grasping this because it puts an emphasis on meaning as understood by the hearer. In that sense, any equivalence that the translation has with the original text is irrelevant if it is not understood by the reader/hearer. 

So I might reword your third option above and add a different category: Accuracy is inextricably linked to Comprehension.

Matt A Thank you for reading my blog post. I agree that accuracy and comprehension are linked. When the two are in conflict, which receives priority? As I note in the blog post, the two major translations of Nida and his colleagues differ in how to translate John 1:1-2. It appears that they differed in what information the readers needed to arrive at an accurate understanding.

Matt A The view of "Accuracy as essential" says that when accuracy conflicts with comprehension or naturalness, accuracy wins. So, instead of adding implicit information to the text to assist the reader, a footnote might be used. I don't see the "accuracy as essential" view as being identical to formal equivalence in translation.

Aaron, was Nida actually involved in the translations of John 1:1-2?  If so, I agree that he errs on the side of being too 'free'.  I have always thought of Nida as being more on the 'dynamic equivalent' side of things which I think of as still prizing accuracy.  Personally, when you say 'accuracy' it still feels like you are talking about 'formal equivalence' or 'literal' translation.  I think I am getting this from the fact that you are using phrases like "accuracy conflicts with comprehension".  I cannot imagine a translation being accurate without comprehension.  I do not see these as in tension but comprehension as essential to accuracy (as Matt suggests).  I think, perhaps, it would be helpfu to define what you mean by accuracy.

Some other questions that I'm sure are regularly raised in relation to accuracy: 1) What is the role of paratext? 2) How much should church education be involved (i.e. should we expect the church to make up for what is 'lacking' in the translation)? 3) What role does translation have in evangelization (i.e. do most people become Christians through reading the Bible or through paraphrase) and does this affect translation strategy?  4) What do we do about poetry or literary devices when/if these are part of  both the medium and the message of a text?  5) Should we experience and engage in secular translations to help put Biblical translation into perspective?  6) To what degree should the reader feel like they are experiencing culture shock when they read the text?  7) To what degree should the reader feel only shock when the text would have been shocking to its original readers?  8) What is the goal of the translation (i.e. is it for the non-believer, for personal devotions, for liturgy)?  9) Does it matter if the text will be read (e.g. if you make the Lord's prayer more accurate, but the Christians refuse to use the text because it sounds different than they learned growing up)?

I'm sure I have said too much already!

Edward J Kotynski Thanks for engaging more. I like your 9 questions! These are some of the questions I ponder and attempt to write about because, in a sense, they are questions that touch on the nature, purpose, and function of the Bible.

I don't think that accuracy and comprehension have to conflict, but it depends on how you view accuracy and comprehension/clarity. Let me get back with you as I think about this.

Edward J Kotynski When I speak of accuracy in the context of John 1:1-2, to keep with a specific example, I think the traditional translations are accurate because they communicate the meaning of the text. The functional equivalent approach allows for translating the meaning of the text as well as the meaning of the message or implied information that the writer would have had and the original readers as well. If you accept that you can add implicit information, and it's for the benefit of the reader's comprehension and not just random implicit information, then you can come up with "In the beginning was the one who was called the Word, ..." or "In the beginning, when the heavens and earth were created, was the Word", or other implied information. So, if you agree that specific implicit information can appropriately be added for the sake of comprehension or some other benefit to the reader, then you might also say that you are accurate and faithful to the original "message", i.e. text and implicit information.

I prefer to translate the meaning of the text and refrain as much as possible from including implicit information which has been declared part of the "message" of the text. 

To shift to a theological question, if I translate the text as well as a tradition of implied information along with the text, is that adding to the canon of Scripture?

Matt A Edward J Kotynski I appreciate the in depth explanation of relevance theory and communication. I appreciate theoretical linguistics and agree that it has an important point in the study of communication and translation. I've been reading Nida in some depth and have concluded that, at time, he enjoy linguistic theory but doesn't always relate it to translation. On the other hand, major points about translation are not based on theory at all. For example, the view that the Biblical writers wrote to be understood. That is not a linguistic statement but a historical one, and one that rests on an assumption about their motivation. A careful perusal of the prophetic literature, especially Daniel, will reveal that at least one Biblical writer didn't always understand what he was writing himself. He didn't assume that God's message was not meaningful or not intended for him. I would prefer to say that the biblical writers wrote at the prompting of the Holy Spirit and that there message was understandable to the extend that God intended it to, from fully comprehensible to incomprehensible as in the case of the hand writing on the wall that Belshazzar saw and Daniel interpreted in Daniel 7. I think this is important because the idea that biblical writes wrote for comprehension then becomes the grounds for translators translating for comprehension. What is the definition of comprehension, by the way? It appears to be immediate comprehension with minimal to no reference to notes or helps, and outside a community of faith. William Wonderly was very clear in his view that their translation approach was for those with the least knowledge of the Bible; if that is your audience, then you definitely have to translate with clarity. I'm not saying we translate for the most educated and leave everyone behind. I'm also not saying we translate to be misunderstood. But I do think there is a place for translating with the understanding that some passage will not be fully understood apart from the community of faith. Some food for thought.