Formal or Functional Translation

Part of a thread I was part of discussed translation from one language to another. In this case, it was Spanish to English.

In Spanish, "como se llama" means "what's your name". Or does it?

Literally translated, it says, "How do you call yourself". (With the word order changed!) Como = how; se = yourself; llama = call. Of course nobody says that (or it could be interpreted differently if you use a cell phone! 8^) This is an example of formal, or word-for-word translation.

Functional translation emphasizes the meaning of the words, so it's much more accurate and meaningful to interpret "como se llama" as "what's your name". That is the standard question asked when you meet somebody for the first time; the strange-sounding "how do you call yourself" isn't.

Applying these principles to Bible translations, it is obvious that "literal" or formal translations such as the King James version can be very confusing and easily misinterpreted. As shown above, the literal translation to "How do you call yourself" sounds very odd to the hearer. That same principle applies to the KJV and other formal translations: the language is strange and and is easily misinterpreted by the reader/hearer. For example, a Bible verse I often use as an example is Luke 14:10...

"But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when
he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:.
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee."

That sounds very strange to modern English speakers/readers, as indeed it should, since nobody speaks or writes like that in the 21st Century. Indeed, Luke is known for his excellent Greek and that was undoubtedly was not how he phrased it.

Here is how the very popular NIV translates this same verse...

"But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests."

It is immediately obvious that this rendition is much clearer and more easily understood, the goal of functional translations. There are no mental gymnastics involved to determine what the verse means. And there was no need for mental gymnastics in the minds of those who heard/read the original.

It's time to change the emphasis of Bible translation to give the clearest understanding of what the Biblical authors meant in their writings. Rendering God's word in some antiquated, confusing, obsolete language is a disservice to those who want to clearly understand what God's word says and means. The KJV was fine 400+ years ago when it was translated for the people of that time. The same principle of clarity and understanding should be applied to the modern, functional translations that we use today.

If the meaning isn't clear the translation has failed.

I believe there are mental gymnastics when we read scripture, because every word has different meanings and contexts, and we also have to look at the customs of the timing of the verse, to understand what the person who wrote it is trying to say. Although the old testament is easier to understand because its all Hebrew, but the new testament, has Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew word translations.

It is not an easy process by any means to translate from the ancient source languages to the modern receptor language. That is why I prefer functional translations, as the most accurate meaning is conveyed in the translation instead of leaving it to the reader to perform a second level of translation. It's too easy to read something into the words of a formal translation that isn't there.

Every time I see/hear "now what this means is" I cringe, as it's spontaneous re-translation that easily results in errors.

I have seen many cases of people asserting that a formal translation means something it doesn't, and as you say, the problem is often that the reader really doesn't understand the grammar (or doesn't apply sound principles of interpretation). If the audience is competent adults, there should be no need for "What this means is..." explanations. A teacher can unpack a passage without implying that the plain text means something other than what it says.

There is a place for both formal and functional translations, and no need to exclude either. We all do well to find a translation that we will read and understand readily, and few of understand the deeper issues without effort.

Thanks for this great, informative post!

Well put! I was going to say something similar. As a linguist, it sometimes is a struggle to choose between a more colloquial rendition, or a more literal.

I tend to go for a more colloquial; however, in some instances when a more colloquial translation allows for misinterpretation or reading into the text of things that are just not there, that literal translation can allow for the nuances of the original text.

If you seek the spiritual and practical application there is no need to understand the customs or “timing of the verse”.

Example:

When Paul was saying that ministers should be compensated for preaching the gospel he quoted:

1 Corinthians 9:9-10 KJV
[9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

I'm not sure this is necessarily an issue of literal vs functional as there are literal translations that aren't as stilted as the KJV and its offshoots, like the ESV and the NASB. A lot of the issue with the KJV is a matter of vocabulary shift where certain words have fallen out of use(like bidden) and others have become used in their stead.

Realistically, neither dynamic nor literal translation produces a perfect translation so it seems to me we should be using at least one translation of each type. Maybe even a paraphrase Bible, though their usefulness is obviously not nearly as general. If we are serious about our studies, though, we should understand at least some basics of the grammar and syntax of the original languages so we may understand why translations may have differences between them.

I believe NKJV corrected these issues?
I don't have problems with KJV but I can see why some people do. I agree that the Word of God is more fruitful when the person actually reads with understanding. It's the fine balance of readability and accuracy. Semantic load of words also changes over time but translation stays fixed. "Conversation" in KJV used to mean "conduct" or "behavior", today it only means discussion.