note: in this post I do not intend to summarize the exhibit because we are all going to go there but rather analyze my thoughts on the exhibit. This seems kind of obvious but I thought I should add that...
That concept (that I would later define and look up) hung in my mind as I explored the Life and Legacy of the King James Bible Exhibit at the basement of the Harold B. Lee Library. The exhibit conveyed an overwhelming sense of competition and strife associated with the emergences of the different translations of the bible. I found the definition ironic given, in my mind, that to be authoritative there should be one source not many different contradicting sources.
I am a very curious person by nature and something fundamental to my personality is a quest for definitive, absolute knowledge and not relative knowledge. Thoughts like "how can the Bible contain absolute knowledge when there are so many different ones?" meandered their way through my brain as I walked through the exhibit. It seemed as if everything was up for a debate or a revision when it came to the Bible. Why are there so many different translations of the Bible? (blog post title verse: 2 Nephi 29:3)
The concept that this definition evokes combined with engaging the physical exhibit made me realize something simple and a little obvious and yet very profound. I realized that there might be something fundamentally wrong with the idea of translating in general. If there is not something amiss, there is definitely a paradox to consider.
On one hand, knowledge should be freely transmitted and available to everyone. After all, I was reminded at the exhibit that the King James Bible was translated for the common man to understand. Imagine a world without the concept of translation. Knowledge would remain within the culture that discovered that particular nugget of knowledge (if not culture then to those who could understand the given language, but again learning another language would prove to be very difficult). John Wycleff was among the first to introduce this idea. He believed that the Bible had inherent truths that deserve to be made known to every man regardless of his social status, economic upbringing or level of formal education. In other words he believed that the Bible should be read by every man on earth. It was not to be with held from anyone.
On the other hand it is undeniable that with each successive translation a piece of literature becomes more and more diluted, polluted and consulted. The bias of the translator seeps through and often times suffocates the original author's intentions and ideas. Especially with something of such invaluable worth as the Bible even the most minute alteration is unwanted. In comparison we can see with the Book of Mormon which was translated only once by divine authority that plain and precious truths were taken or changed from the Bible. From the Geneva translation to the Bishops bible we observe in the exhibit a battle between different translations, represented through different schools, monasteries, scholars and even kings.
The clash between the benefits and costs of translating and not translating the Bible reminds me of the discussion we had in class about patents. Dr. Burton brought up that depending on the situation uncontrolled/free/"open source" as they say online knowledge is not always beneficial to society. Knowledge in certain areas is best progressed through protective laws to aid patent holders. These laws guard the ownership of a certain piece of knowledge from the general public.
In the end I believe the benefits out way the costs or at least it is inevitable and necessary to carry these costs. For example the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has officially declared the Bible to be true as far as it is translated correctly. The church also declares the King James Version of the Bible is the Bible most correct among all other translations. It is the Churches way of saying that we just need to do our best. Another important fact that many people lose amongst their debates over which Bible is the best forget that the real and absolute authority is God Himself not the words which were copied, translated or even mistranslated by imperfect humans.
Accurate translations are something that I have found are really hard to do. I don't speak a second language fluently, but I have studied some Spanish, as well as some Greek and Hebrew. Within these languages there are words that have layers of meaning, that literally might mean one thing, but have connotations and relations to other words and to the culture, so that we have no corresponding word for it in English. As you said, we just do our best and work with what we have got. So yes, sometimes it is up to the translator, and their understanding of the meaning and of both languages to find the best match for a word or phrase, and sometimes translators disagree. How do you translate the idea of "cat got your tongue", or the famous Greek hospitality, Xenia? It is difficult and when it relates to the Word of God Himself, we are left in the dark until we have a perfect language that can match ours and His perfect understanding.
ReplyDeleteTotally true Morgan. This is something I have realized a lot lately because I volunteer as a medical translator for spanish speaking patients and their doctors. For me it is super fun because it is really challenging and almost adrenaline filled like a sport. I always do my best but obviously the phrase "lost in translation" doesn't come from no where. I feel especially bad when because of my own shortcomings I don't communicate the message exactly as I wish I could. Luckily it hasn't caused any problems, and luckily it isn't as crucially important that I get the very word correct like when translating the bible, but it is still tough and important. Any of you who know two languages probably understand me perfectly.
ReplyDeleteActually what I do is not translating - it is better said interpreting. Translating being writing and interpreting being an oral thing. Oral translations I would argue are much easier even than writing, although in writing you don't have the time constraint.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mike, it's easier to interpret rather than translate. I think that is partly because body motion and expression can contribute to how someone interprets something. But with written words, you don't have that.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI guess my computer must not be seeing things well because I didn't see this up at all yesterday.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to translation, short of learning all the languages yourself, I feel like it is most effective to have many different good translations. Each translation will choose different words and phrases, by comparing these different choices you can reconstruct the complexities of the original.
An interesting question with translating is do you translate the words or the idea. A good example of this is translating Jesus' statement "I am the bread of life" into Chinese. Do you render it "I am the bread of life" preserving the words or "I am the rice of life" preserving the central idea.
As far as the discussion on interpreting vs translating, I would argue that interpreting is "easier" because you are given more leeway. In something you translate, because you have more time, you are expected to get a very good final product. Interpreting is spur of the moment, it is understandable if you make minor errors and usually the conversation is not recorded so people don't go back and argue with your word choices