If I relay a message inaccurately, does it matter how plainly I speak?
Several ideas ordinarily cluster around the charge [that essentially literal translations are obscure or opaque]. One is the assumption that whenever an English translation is difficult or unclear, the fault can be assumed to lie with the translation and its philosophy rather than being a property of the original text. Related to this is the assumption that when a colloquial or modernized translation is judged by reading tests to be more easily grasped by the population at large, this means that translations that require a higher reading level are obscure.
It is my belief that all modern translations are accessible to a lower reading level than traditional translations are. Not only has readability been elevated to a status all out of proportion to its legitimate place, but it has also been misrepresented. I have moved among people for whom readability is apparently the primary aim of English Bible translation, an error reinforced by advertising for what I will call “easy reading Bibles.” I will state my critique of the readability fallacy very succinctly: what good is readability if what the reader reads is not what the original text of the Bible says? If it is not what the original text says, the so-called readable translation has actually removed the Bible from a reader, not, as it is claimed, brought the Bible close to the reader. [bold type added]
—Leland Ryken, Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation(Crossway, 2005), 73–74.
Several ideas ordinarily cluster around the charge 








1 Comments:
#1 || 08·08·20··11:12 || Daniel
That is what I have always thought - telling you what I think the texts means is not the same as telling you what the text says.
Comments on this post are closed. If you have a question or comment concerning this post, feel free to email us.