Style and tradition in translation

Brian Fulthorp made the following comment in my post on translation errancy:

I often wonder too if the biggest difference is mostly just stylistic differences - a couple translations can use different words which are actually synonyms of each other (based on the same Greek word) that are chosen more for stylistic reasons more than anything.

In my normal fashion, it took me through a little bit of a mental rock tumbler, but I think I’ve emerged with another thought, or at least a refinement of some previous discourses.

If we accept that, regardless of translational philosophy (formal vs. functional, literal vs. dynamic, etc.), all translation is interpretation that is separated in some sense from the original texts, then we can look at other ways of comparing different translations, perhaps in a way that creates unity rather than division.

Rather than trying to pin down a fleeting concept like translational accuracy, perhaps we are better off speaking in terms of translational style. This gets back to John Hobbins’ three-legged stool that I blogged on earlier; in his argument, there are three legs of interpretation: tradition, original context and contemporary application. I provided some basic translational categorization in that previous post, but I’ll repeat it here, with some revision:

• Original context and/or authorial intent: N/RSV, NET, CEV, TEV/GNT. My original thought was to identify those translations that typically do not read messianic interpretation into the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. I would also include translations that explicitly retain original literary forms and linguistic constructions, e.g. Robert Alter and Everett Fox.

• Tradition of interpretation: KJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV, ESV. I had previously defined this as translations using formal theological language, but for the purposes of this post, I am limiting discussion to those current translations explicitly in the Tyndale tradition.

• Contemporary application: CEV, NLT, TEV/GNT, NJB, NAB, REB, NCV, T/NIV, HCSB. I’m revising this list to focus on translations that seek to render language in idiomatic English that sounds natural and uses modern grammar.

It is far too easy to focus on these legs as separate entities, sometimes in conflict with each other in their different styles. But we have to remember that each of these legs is joined together by and is inseparable from the seat of the Bible, the meaning and authority of the message of God’s moral revelation to mankind. How that meaning and authority is communicated (the legs) is not the primary function of the stool. The primary function of a stool is to be sat upon and to provide support. The function of the Bible is to reveal God’s moral purpose for our lives as His creation.

If we view Bible translation as different styles rather than on a “getting closer to the Truth” meter, then we can accept the ESV as in a “traditional style” that emphasizes the way things have “always been done”. We can accept the CEV as in a “contemporary style” that speaks in the language of a new audience. We can accept the NIV as a style that tries to bridge tradition and contemporary. The message of Bible can be communicated in endless styles of translation because it is not the words that are inerrant, but the meaning of the message.

My language here is conscious because there is another place where this conflict is seen: corporate musical worship. Traditionalists uphold their hymn books, liturgical chant, pipe organs, and choirs because that’s the way things have always been done. Contemporary worship styles feature praise & worship bands, electronics, overhead projectors and videos to speak in the language of a media-focused audience. And like the NIV, some have tried to blend the two styles to varying effect, e.g. the Lutheran Chicago Folk Service.

The question is whether there’s a place for both, or should we be reaching for corporate unity? In his book, Unceasing Worship, Harold Best makes an argument that the separation of worship styles creates division and distraction in the corporate body inasmuch as the style of worship has become the focus of our worship instead of praising our Lord Jesus Christ. By focusing on style instead of subject, we make worship into an idol rather than using it to draw closer to Christ.

Best focuses on two passages from scripture in an attempt to find unity in worship:

Psalm 96:1 — “Sing a new song to the Lord.” (REB)

Colossians 3:16 — “With psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, sing from the heart in gratitude to God.” (REB)

His point of emphasis with the verse from Psalms is that we must seek to avoid mindless repetition; sing new songs or sing old songs newly, but don’t get trapped in singing the same song the same way Sunday after Sunday. From Colossians, we need to acknowledge that there is a diversity of styles in which to worship, but that the purpose of all song is thanks directed to God.

By focusing on translational style instead of the unifying gospel of God, we make the Bible into an idol of creation rather than using it to draw closer to our Creator. Instead, traditional translations must seek to avoid mindless repetition, translation because that’s the way it’s always been done. Contemporary advocates need to acknowledge the diversity of styles and respect tradition, and vise versa.

Is this a call for the middle-ground translations as a unifying corporate translational style? The TNIVs, the HCSBs, the NLTs… Perhaps. Is there respect for tradition? Can original literary forms be adequately represented? Can contemporary language be used without an excess of modern cultural interpretation that throws tradition out the window?

Can we accept the message of God as more than just the words in our Bible?