Communication breakdown: Are (modern) translations reliable?
I was watching a television programme in English with Spanish subtitles the other day. One of the lines in English was "she was taking the piss". The girl who said the line was explaining why she had killed another girl and was using this line as said explanation. However, the Spanish translation was "estaba orinando". Well, I laughed quite a lot. I don't think anyone in the history of the world has been killed for urinating.
This led me to wonder about tranlations in general. I am reminded of the famous lines from Shakespeare:
Romeo, Romeo wherefor art thou Romeo.
This I have been told is translated like this:
Romeo, Romeo dónde estás que no te veo.
Which anyone who knows anything about Shakespeare will tell you is incorrect.
Then I started thinking about the Bible. The bible was written over a period of several centuries maybe 1600-2000 years ago. The majority of the New Testament was written in commen Greek which we could class as street Greek if we wanted. Are modern translations of the Bible (into any language) reliable? Somehow I doubt it.
Anyway, I would appreciate any funny mis-translation stories and would also welcome any thoughts about exactly how reliable translations are.
3 Answers
Wow, great reply!
My question was in fact very serious. I have begun to question the very nature of translations for the simple reason that in this day and age, with all the sophisticated methods of language learning available and relatively cheap travel fares between countries, the standard of translations I have seen on the television (subtitles and dubbings) is not as good as it could be.
I understand that sometimes translators try to express things in a slightly different way and that this doesn't represent a bad translation but I have seen many examples where quite simply something was badly translated.
With regards to the "common" Greek, I am still sceptical about how accurate it could possibly be. The example I used about "taking the piss" was a case in point. Not every native English speaker would understand this expression and yet these days we have (in my opinion) a fantastic medium for experiencing vocabulary and expressions from other countries: the television. Therefore I question the validity of translations made before such mediums were available.
Some of the threads on this site contain references to "direct" tranlations but I personally think such a notion doesn't exist. I think when we translate we translate "ideas" and not words. If the "ideas" in question are not understood properly then the translation will be inaccurate.
Anyway, thank you for replying and understanding the true nature of my question and await your re-reply.
p.s. Dubbings''? Something tells me that this word is incorrect.
The bible was written over a period of several centuries maybe 1600-2000 years ago. The majority of the New Testament was written in commen Greek which we could class as street Greek if we wanted. Are modern translations of the Bible (into any language) reliable? Somehow I doubt it.
Anyway, I would ... also welcome any thoughts about exactly how reliable translations are.
Robert, I have studied Koine (common) Greek at the college level, and no, it would not be classified as "street Greek" any more than modern English (today's "universal/trade" language) should be classified as "street" English. Yes, there is a "street" English today, but it is not what is defined in reference works or used in publishing. If Koine Greek has been defined somewhere as "street" Greek, then it carries the meaning of being the language of the common people, not the idea of some kind of slang or sloppy dialect. It's kind of like the difference between today's vernacular (commonly spoken) English, and Shakespearean or Victorian (literary) English (although this is a rough comparison for principle purposes only). The New Testament was written in the language of the common people, because Its message was intended for everyone, not just for the "stiff collars" that could converse in the literary dialect.
Notice Wikipedia.com's definition of Koine Greek:
Koine Greek (Greek: ''''''''''? '''''[1] IPA: [k''n''^], Mod.Gk. IPA: [k'i'ni e'lini'k'i], "common Greek", or ? ''''? ''''''''', Mod.Gk. [i k'i'ni ði'ale'kto's], "the common dialect") is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC ? AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Patristic, Common, Biblical or New Testament Greek. Original names were koine, Hellenic, Alexandrian and Macedonian (Macedonic)[2][3]; all on the contrast to Attic dialect. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible and of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament).[4] Koine is the main ancestor of modern Greek.
In regards to your question about modern Bible translations, there is much debate about this, about which we need to be careful not to let cloud the issue. In my opinion, MOST modern English translations (within the last 200 - 250 years) are less reliable, but not worthless. In Spanish, I would accept a few more modern translations, but reject most, just because I have studied the "which manuscripts do we translate from" issue and have formed my opinions about that (which I will not impose upon you, unless you wish to discuss it). The debate about which Bible is best or which one is perfect should not discourage one from reading what he has access to.
If your concern about reliability of translation is based on Koine Greek being a "street" language, not to worry. It is also the most studied ancient language in all of history. From my study of it, I stand in awe of it for its preciseness and "directness." It uses with great precision the gamut of tenses, voices, and moods of verbs, and the cases and declensions of nouns, things that are all but lost in cloudy, more simplistic, modern grammatical structure. It is inherently much less ambiguous than any of the four other, modern languages I have studied.
Your concern should be focused more on the motive of the translation, e.g., for a certain sect or denomination, for a certain subculture, to water down a staunch message that is no longer popular in a degrading moral climate, for motives of monetary profit (I think many today would fall under this category--why do we need several new translations every year') ... things like that. For these reasons, I feel that the older translations are more reliable. If there were ever a message that the Evil one (the Devil, Satan) would want to cause controversy about and discourage people from reading, it is the message contained in the Bible. I believe that is the real reason behind the literally hundreds of translations available today in English alone, and the controversy about them ... confusion, distraction, discouragement in general about the Bible.
If you want to look at it from an internal evidence perspective (what the Bible says about Itself), your doubts should be allayed. If the Bible is God's Word, which It claims to be, then It is eternal, infallible, and never-changing. A few of the Bible's claims about Itself:
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever." -Psalm 12:6-7
"For the Lord is good; His mercy is everlasting; and His truth endureth to all generations." -Psalm 100:5
"Forever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled in Heaven." -Psalm 119:89
There are many, many more verses I could cite that give God's promise that He would preserve His Word to every generation.
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ said,
"... It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." -Matthew 4:4
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." -Matthew 24:35 (and others)
If you want to discuss this further, we can do that. I am not sure how serious your question was. The bottom line is, like with anything else, you need to decide for yourself. Don't go by what everyone else is telling you about the Bible. Read It for yourself and make up your own mind. Give It an honest look like you would anything else.
HI Robert, I edited the title slightly so as to make it clearer.
(sorry, I thought it was a software isssue 
)
James started a thread on this:
I also started one:
Your "to take the piss" should be in this thread! jeje
