Commentary on First Peter (5)

Let me use the Chinese Bible (United Bible Society, 1988) to illustrate a point. In 1 Peter 1:2, the Chinese translation for "foreknowledge" literally means "foresight." In the English, the word "know" can refer to a personal relationship without much of a stretch, so that if a person were to take into account the biblical usage, he should be able to derive the true meaning of the word without a scholar's assistance. Whether he is careful enough to do this is another question – the point is that the translation itself does not prevent the correct understanding. On the other hand, the Chinese translation in this verse can hardly mean anything other than prescience.

Nevertheless, at this moment, I cannot think of a simple way to offer a "literal" translation without restricting its meaning to prescience. There is more than one verb in the receptor language that I can use, but the result either means foresight, to see in advance, or foreknow, to passively know about something in advance. We can use the Chinese word for "know" that refers to personal acquaintance, but that would be the equivalent of translating it as "foreloved" in the English, and it might have to be stated as a phrase rather than in just two Chinese characters, as it is now. In this case, the more literal translation of the word might in fact completely obscure the actual meaning.

In another context, or if we were dealing with another document, I would recommend the so-called "dynamic equivalence" approach, and just translate the meaning. But since we are dealing with the Bible, where precision is needed to retain all the originally intended ideas, I would suggest offering the closest literal translation along with an explanatory footnote. This does not really eliminate the problem for the Chinese translation, since one would still have to decide which word to offer as the closest literal translation. To those who have access to the Chinese Bible, also consider the translation of Romans 8:29.

Then, in the Chinese Bible, the "know" in Matthew 7:23 is translated with a word that can refer to personal acquaintance. This is the obvious and the right choice, because this is what the word means here, in this context, but notice that a choice has been made. At the moment, I cannot think of a Chinese word for "know" that can equally mean either a personal or non-personal awareness in this context. Now take a look at Jeremiah 1:5 in the Chinese.

I am certainly not against a "literal" translation of Scripture, but some of the proponents of this method of translation have a rather naïve view of language, and to them a literal translation is almost a transliteration of the original. There are already enough problems (not insurmountable) with translating the Bible into English, but once you are dealing with a character-based receptor language rather than an alphabet-based language, and one that has different rules of grammar, it is not nearly so easy to be "literal."

What is considered a "good" translation depends on the purpose of the translation and nature of the original text. For general purposes like ordinary conversations and movie subtitles, the most "literal" translation is often also the worst possible option, and the one that makes it hardest for the audience to grasp the meaning – "dynamic equivalence" is best in these cases.

Let us take an idiom as an example. Suppose I am speaking Chinese to you through a translator, and I am trying to tell you that John Smith is, literally translated, "not three not four." In an ordinary conversation, our translator would be foolish to give you this literal translation, or to give it to you without explanation. And once you learn what "not three not four" means, you cannot assume that you understand me when I tell you to stop being "fifteen sixteen," since that means something very different. In many situations, the most effective route would be to forgo the literal translation altogether and say, "Vincent says that John Smith is a dubious, shady kind of person," or even that he is "neither fish nor foul." The best translation still depends on the context.

Then, there is the word that, literally translated, says "righteous breath" or "righteous spirit." This translation itself makes good sense, and might fit well into the sentence in which it appears, but the Chinese refers to a strong loyalty that has backbone, and that will go the distance, even to the point of sacrificing oneself. It is the opposite of being a snitch, a coward, or a traitor.

You can find an example of this noble trait in Jesus (John 18:8), and an example of its opposite in Judas. In this case, the most literal translation offers something very different from the intended meaning. However, to convey the full meaning would require many words, and would severely mar the flow of the translation if assigned to the main text. Therefore, although the explanation should be retained, it is best relegated to the footnotes.

Yet the translator must still decide whether to say "righteous spirit" or "strong loyalty" in the main text. The best option, it seems, is to put "strong loyalty," or "backbone," or the most appropriate translation depending on the context, and then include in the footnotes any relevant information, such as the most literal translation and a short explanation on the word or idiom.

That said, the context is a tremendous help to interpretation, so that the reader is not at the mercy of any one translated word or expression. When Jesus says, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" it is obvious that the statement reflects a negative attitude toward the devil, and that he is not just telling the devil to physically position himself behind him. So we should know this much even without any further investigation.

Sometimes the context is so strong that we could replace a word with a blank space, and the reader should still be able to accurately infer the meaning of what ought to be there. But people place so much dependence on the translation of individual words that they fail to think along with the flow of the entire context, which is often a much stronger indicator of the author's meaning. General reading comprehension is the most valuable skill in biblical exegesis – in fact, to understanding any written document – but interpreters often neglect it because they are distracted by the technical details, so that whether they get a particular detail right, they sometimes get the whole verse or passage wrong.

Perhaps something like a legal contract would require greater precision, but even here, "precision" can hardly ignore the meaning. Now, if the nature of the original is the Word of God, in which every letter is inspired, meaningful, and authoritative, then a translation should offer a still clearer picture of the original. However, insofar as it obscures the meaning, it is still a poor translation. This is why, again, I suggest a close translation of the original in the main text coupled with a generous use of translators' notes. Overall, this is perhaps the best approach to Bible translation, even if the product might appear a little cumbersome, and this seems to be the direction taken by the New English Translation (NET).

Unfortunately, there are many careless Christian readers, and who are even more careless than usual when they are especially sensitive to the issue under discussion. So to prevent misunderstanding and slander, let me repeat: I am for a so-called literal translation when it comes to the Bible, even though this approach might not be my first choice when it comes to other documents and informal settings, but I think it is necessary to increase the use of translators' notes. This is the essence of the point that I have been trying to get across.