Comments on: 12 Questions with Tod Harris, Church Translation Department — Part III

By: Steven

Steven — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 05:20:10 +0000

“Perhaps the closest analogue for LDS scripture translation is the translation of the Qur’an. Islamic theology holds that Arabic is the only true and pure vehicle for the meaning of the Qur’an since that is the language of its original revelation. ”

“A key memo from this time argues persuasively against paraphrasing the scriptures or correcting or improving their language and instead petitions for a policy of near literal translation as the closest possible preservation of the pure and plain word of the Lord.”

“In summary, the policy indicates that translations which follow, very closely, the words, phrases, and sentence structure, as well as the idiomatic expressions and literary style of the original authors, are the only translations that can convey accurately the true meaning of what the Lord revealed in the original language, and in so doing, help those who study these translations “come to understanding” (DC 1:24).”

— There are some fascinating assumptions behind these statements.
— Joseph Smith didn’t hesitate to correct, improve, edit, rewrite, combine, etc. the revelations he received. This seems like a different approach to scripture than the one he had.
— I find this installment of the interview a bit depressing because I don’t enjoy the KJV and I do like some of the modern translations. Now I know not to get my hopes up for a change in the church’s approach.
— Could we please, at least, get modern formatting? Grant Hardy’s reader’s edition of The Book of Mormon is a wonderful contribution to the church, and in my opinion, the best way to read The Book of Mormon.

Thanks to Rosalynde and Tod for sharing this.

By: laserguy

laserguy — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:14:22 +0000

Funny that comments are being censorer for absolutely no reason at all.

By: sjames

sjames — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:17:30 +0000

In the end, it seems to me, that it is the take up rate of the translated text which becomes an important benchmark of its merit in the household of faith. My own limited experience with this has been with the uneven acceptance of a translated version of the BoM based on a fledgling orthography of an oral language consisting of various dialects.
So I wonder about the process of choosing among dialect varieties; the extent of bi-linguistic and bi-literacy knowledge required of lds native-speaker reviewers; and whether or not there is a revision process at the local level after a period of time, to better conform a translation to the linguistic sensibilities of the local lds population.
The amount of work appears to be enormous and getting it right the first time, though a much hoped for goal, may not always be realised, particularly in linguistically diverse and orally based contexts such as the one I am referring to.

By: Kevin Black

Kevin Black — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 03:25:37 +0000

I’m jealous! Thank you for sharing this interview. I’ve always been interested in translation. Here are some questions I’d have loved to ask him, in case they came up. Warning, I haven’t read parts 1 and 2 yet.
1) Often, when translating, there are two reasonable ways to render an English phrase in the target language. Example: the preposition in “the love of Christ” is ambiguous in that the phrase could mean Christ’s love (as in “brother of Jared”), or love directed at Christ (as in “the love of money”). I’m sure that, at times, church translators have approached General Authorities for guidance about which meaning is intended in a given verse. On the one hand, a compilation of those decisions could really be helpful not only to translators into another language but also to the general membership. On the other hand, it could become like a Mishnah, and I’m sure there is a reluctance to canonize the hundreds or thousands of such decisions, as opposed to leaving the door open for us to be convinced that a particular translation into, say, Portuguese, may just be wrong. What can he sat about that?
2) About 30 years ago an LDS member translated part of the modern scriptures into Esperanto. It’s a first language for very few people, but it’s a second language for many more people than all speakers of some languages the BoM or Selections have already been translated into (so an Esperanto edition may reach more people faster). Furthermore, Esperanto is very flexible in terms of word order, allowing much more of a word-for-word translation than do many target languages. So why not? I imagine part of the answer may be “every man … in his own tongue,” but some languages the BoM already appears in already are second languages for many people who will read it, right? Like Ki-Swahili or Russian or Arabic in many places.
3) Is there a general rule that he applies when the King James translation is obviously wrong, but it’s a phrasing that is mirrored in modern Scripture?

Also, I don’t think most of the problem is the CES per se. My experience is that your mileage varies substantially with the teacher. Our ward’s current seminary teacher, and I’m guessing your mom, probably would teach rather differently than your daughter’s teacher. Then again, if one has to choose how to spend limited class time, talking about how the scriptures can inform our real life decisions is more important than reading Josephus.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 01:38:26 +0000

A translation, instead of imitating the sense of the original, must lovingly and in detail incorporate the original’s way of meaning, thus making both the original and the translation recognizable as fragments of a greater language, just as fragments are part of a vessel. For this very reason translation must in large measure refrain from wanting to communicate something, from rendering the sense, and in this the original is important to it only insofar as it has already relieved the translator and his translation of the effort of assembling and expressing what is to be conveyed. In the realm of translation, too, the words En archei en ho logos [“In the beginning was the word”] apply. On the other hand, as regards the meaning, the language of a translation can-in fact, must-let itself go, so that it gives voice to the intentio of the original not as reproduction but as harmony, as a supplement to the language in which it expresses itself, as its own kind of intentio. Therefore, it is not the highest praise of a translation, particularly in the age of its origin, to say that it reads as if it had originally been written in that language. Rather, the significance of fidelity as ensured by literalness is that the work reflects the great longing for linguistic complementation. A real translation is transparent; it does not cover the original, does not block its light, but allows the pure language, as though reinforced by its own medium, to shine upon the original all the more fully. This may be achieved, above all, by a literal rendering of the syntax which proves words rather than sentences to be the primary element of the translator. For if the sentence is the wall before the language of the original, literalness is the arcade. . . . The interlinear version of the Scriptures is the prototype or ideal of all translation. (Walter Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator”; written in 1921)

By: Amira

Amira — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 01:19:00 +0000

Yes, thank you. This has been very interesting.

By: Ben S.

Ben S. — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:05:30 +0000

Great series, and good to see Tod here. Also, great comments from Rosalynde. I think one of the main areas of difficulty, where this translation philosophy has to make hard decisions, is with imagery and idiom. If you translate literally, it will be confusing if the target language and culture does not share the meaning of that idiom or imagery. Worse, if they have their own usage of that imagery, it means they will import it into scripture when it doesn't belong there. Some Bibles get around that by offering footnotes saying what the idiom meant in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. Do the LDS scriptures do that in foreign languages? Or do we simply leave the reader with the idiom? Also, if anyone wants to follow this topic further I talk about Old Testament and translation difficulty in some depth here. I'm not a professional translator like Tod, who has much more depth with the literature than I, but there's still some good stuff there to chew on.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:56:18 +0000

Great series — thanks for both Rosalynde and Tod for such a thorough discussion.

Here is a question I did not see addressed: which English language text do translators use as a base text? The 1830 edition or a later edition? Has the critical work of Royal Skousen or anything from the Joseph Smith Papers Project amended the base English-language text that translators use to render text into a non-English language?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:47:05 +0000

Rosalynde, how do you think they should deal in translation with the dependency of the Book of Mormon and D&C on the KJV? For instance, how would you translate the JST?

I’ve come to like translations that are more interpretive to make the language flow better. Honestly, I think a compelling case can be made for the Book of Mormon being just such a translation given the idiom of the day. But translating that for a contemporary audience is pretty difficult at the best of times. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love a text that flows more like say the Jerusalem Bible but somehow kept the connections. I just don’t know how that could easily be done without the choice they’ve made.

By: Rosalynde Welch

Rosalynde Welch — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:43:03 +0000

Thanks for reading, Ardis.

By: Ardis

Ardis — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:24:46 +0000

I have followed the whole series, and while I have no brilliant comment to make, I thought I should at least thank you both for a fascinating interview.

By: Rosalynde Welch

Rosalynde Welch — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 19:58:31 +0000

There’s so much meaty material to chew on here. Things that caught my interest:

–The possibility of making the “Key Terms” translation memo public — yes! Transparency is good, and it would be fascinating to see these documents.

–I love this quote on the Qur’an translation: “My goal has been to make the translation literal to the point of transparency, as well as to maintain … something of the power and persuasive strangeness of the original.” Unfortunately, our teaching manuals seem to do their best to erase the “power and persuasive strangeness” of ancient scripture, in favor of making it as digestible as possible.

–The review of Eugene Nida’s influence on translation theory was enlightening — thank you! While I see the value (artistic and pastoral) of scriptural paraphrase, I’m persuaded by van Leeuwen’s argument that near-literal translations are of more value for serious study. Frustratingly, though, serious study of scripture does not seem to be the goal of CES — my daughter, a serious reader of classic literature, started early morning seminary this year, and has been disappointed in the UNseriousness of the seminary lessons. So what we end up with in the Church is a difficult, literal-ish translation (the KJV), but lessons that teach on shallow, presentist assumptions. It’s a very frustrating mismatch.

–“It is felt that such “modified-literal” translations are the only ones that provide an experience for target language readers that is very similar to the one readers of the original English text have.” Wow — so much to say here. Why should the English readership be the paradigmatic experience? Because of the KJV, most English-speaking members have only the shallowest understanding of the Old Testament or the Pauline epistles. I understand why in English we’re tied to the KJV (extensive intertextuality with the BoM), but let’s aim higher in other languages where we are freer!

–The aborted program in “functional equivalence” translation in the Church — such a fascinating institutional detour! In the end, I am persuaded that it would be a mistake to canonize functional equivalence translations. But if we’re going to stick with the literal-ish KJV, we must have better teaching materials.

–“The policy indicates that translations which follow, very closely, the words, phrases, and sentence structure, as well as the idiomatic expressions and literary style of the original authors, are the only translations that can convey accurately the true meaning of what the Lord revealed in the original language.” There is a whole volume to be written here on the embedded assumptions about scriptural authorship, the process of revelation in scripture writing, and the collaboration between the Lord and humans in producing scripture.

Thank you, Tod, for giving me so much to chew on. It’s great to know that there is an informed, thoughtful mind at work on LDS scripture translation. Good luck with your continuing projects!