Drawing the Boundaries of Translation

A frequent criticism of The Message or The Living Bible is that they are not really translations, but rather paraphrases, and thus should not be regarded as Bibles. Often “translation” is contrasted to “paraphrase” almost as though the two are antonyms. Others draw the boundaries in a much narrower way, calling translations like the Good News Bible “paraphrases” so as to discredit them as real translations.

I’ve been thinking of this recently, and I’m beginning to change my mind somewhat. I’ve been sympathetic to the use of “paraphrase” as part of the vocabulary in discussing Bible translations, even in the colloquial sense of “loose translation.” The term gives one a title to use regarding translations that seem very loose to us.

The boundary between interpretation and translation has already been eliminated to a large extent. Translators certainly recognize that a translator does interpret, and the general public is becoming more aware of this factor of translation. Understanding is interpreting, and a translator can hardly express and understanding of the text without engaging in interpretation. At the other end of the spectrum, there is no real boundary between those versions called paraphrases and those called translations. The difference is really a matter of degree. How much freedom does the translator allow himself from the form and structure of the text in the source language while he endeavors to convey the message? There is no boundary at which the translator steps from no freedom over to no attachment to the text at all. It is a continuum.

I’ve said all of this before, and have been criticized for calling “paraphrases” translations. But recently I’ve been thinking more radically. I’m beginning to believe that even more of our boundaries between “teaching” and “translation” are arbitrary. One of the tools I use in teaching is a video tape produced by the American Bible Society that is a multimedia presentation of the story of Jesus and the Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5). Is this a translation? Well, the words of the Bible passage are narrated over the sights and sounds of the video, but much of the message is conveyed in ways other than words. Nonetheless, I would call it a translation.

I experimented with the idea of transferring a story or passage into another form over on my poetry and fiction blog, or better my “write whatever I think is fun and don’t worry about the consequences blog.” 🙂 I produced a form of the story of Susanna (Daniel 13 in the apocrypha). Is the form of the story itself significant? To a certain extent, yes. But at the same time the form of the story is different from what would be expected of a modern short story. I’ve experimented with telling it with the main character, Daniel, present throughout the story. This may be easier to take for those who don’t regard the apocrypha as inspired, but I like the thought of presenting Bible stories in modern terms.

The doctrine of inspiration, in whatever form, can actually get in the way of conveying the message. Perhaps it would be useful to be concerned first with what message a particular form conveys, and only secondarily with whether or not it is “a Bible.” I appreciate the large numbers of creative ways of conveying the message of scripture that various people are producing.