Translation is based on the needs of the target audience. I myself prefer an eclectic translation where both the literal and idiomatic method is used; others prefer a more literal approach to translation. While caution is needed when dealing with kernel clauses, I nonetheless see a place for analyzing such clauses when one is translating. One thing that might help us to determine what the text "really" says might be to compare translations so that we may discern what each translator is trying to accomplish. When undertaking this task, what one quickly discovers is that not all translators aim for literal renderings.
"What will be the SIGN of THY presence, and of the CONSUMMATION of the AGE?" (Matt. 24:3 Emphatic Diaglott)
"What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (NIV)
"What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (NRSV)
"Tell us when these things shall be,--And what the sign of thy presence and the conclusion of the age?" (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible)
"Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?" (NWT 2013)
"Tell us when this will be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the final time." (Byington)
Nota Bene: Rotherham's Bible is described as "a literal word-by-word translation with added emphasis to further explain the hidden riches of the original languages."
4 comments:
One thing I normally think of in the English words presence and coming. Coming seems to indicate to me he is on his way, whereas presence show that he is already here. Then we have to come to understand what it means to say he is already here. It seems to the average English reader, that presence would give evidence that he is here, coming means he is on his way. So the next aspect is to figure out what is meant by the more literal translation to the target language with the word presence.
I have no major qualms with your observations. Just another component of translating parousia (Matthew 24:3) is also determining whether "arrival, coming" are part of the word's semantic range and discerning the significance of Greek papyri in relation to parousia.
So it would seem that translators would know the significance of the Greek expression, but use what they feel fits in with the targeted language. Really when I read the expression "coming" in some translations,it seems like they put tradition ahead of accuracy. They seem to want to go with the traditional rather than going with the most accurate. I know that a goal with some translators is supposed accuracy first, tradition second etc.. So if it doesn't interfere with there personal beliefs they will go with traditional thought by ignoring accuracy knowing that the majority it the targeted language will except it without qualms.
What words mean in certain contexts is an ongoing discussion, but tradition has certainly influenced translation and lexicography. For instance, parousia clearly seems to mean "presence" in Philippians 2:12. But some scholars might argue that parousia means "arrival" in 1 Corinthians 16:17.
On the other hand, I agree that many translations put tradition above accuracy.
Post a Comment