When translating a text, is it better to translate word-for-word or thought-for-thought?
The question is not so easily answered.
When John Calvin translated his own book, Institutes of Christian Religion, from Latin to French, he did not translate it word-for-word. If anyone could have, it was he. But he found a literal approach did not convey the meaning of the original text.
A Calvin biographer writes:
“Calvin’s sensitivity to the problems of translation emerged in the French Institutes of 1541, widely regarded as a landmark in the development of the language. He worked closely with the 1539 text to replicate the ideas but expressed them quite differently. He abandoned the rhythm of the Latin, which would require demonically long French sentences, in favour of clear, concise prose. Where he could, he retained the rhetorical elegance and force of the Latin, but, as Francis Higman has noted, this was achieved by mirroring the forms of the original language rather than by direct transfer. The uniqueness of his approach is illustrated by two different translations of the 1539 Institutes into French: the first by Pierre de la Place, the second by Calvin. Whereas de la Place’s attempt to translate the text literally came to a lamentable end in long-winded sentences, Calvin was much freer, choosing to adapt the Latin to a suitably comprehensible French style. Calvin sought a French version of the Latin, not identical but faithful to the ideas.” (Bruce, 2011, p. 187)
I found this disclosure fascinating.
That Calvin could not translate himself literally helps us understand why scriptural cross-quotes may read so differently from writer to writer. The quotes are sometimes starting in Hebrew (Old Testament) then percolating through Greek (Septuagint) through Aramaic (first century) and back to Greek again (New Testament). With each pass, translators are wrestling with how to get the original across. This is not a scientific process. Results vary.
That Calvin could not translate himself literally also helps us better appreciate what less literal Bible versions are trying to do. They are trying to get the energy and flow of thought from the original into the English language, which a strictly literal translation will not always do.
So perhaps we should read multiple Bible translations, ranging from more literal to more dynamic equivalence.
Gordon, F. B. (2011). Calvin. Yale University Press.
Leave a Reply