On "Literal" Translation

These days it seems just about impossible to talk about the New Testament, as written in Greek, without somehow ending up in a discussion about what the most "literal" translation of the text would be. Actually, this can be found in discussion of translation outside of the Greek NT: in my last Greek class (classical Greek), we would often cite the "literal" translation of a word or phrase. This terminology is problematic. The problem is that "literal" is becoming synonymous with "accurate" - a translation of the text that is not literal strays too far from what is actually written in the original. Maybe that part isn't such a problem by itself. The problem is when "literal" also comes to mean "word-for-word" (as close as possible). Unfortunately, translation is not an exact science: you cannot plug one word in for another as if decoding a child's cipher (a=1; b=2, etc.).Languages do not develop with the thought "How will this translate?" As a student of Greek, I have come to discover that it is impossible to completely convey the sense of a Greek text in another language. No translation can be perfect: the goal of translation therefore is to give the best approximation of a text in a language that will allow it to be read by a wider audience. It is possible for one translation to be better than another, but it is also possible for two translations to be very different but equally accurate.

Moving back to "literal" translation, meaning a translation that tries to convey the meaning of each word individually. As noted before, this method generally does not produce an accurate sense of the original text when the entire translation is put together as a whole document. However, when an argument is being made, reference is often made to the "literal" translation in order to make a more convincing argument. I have come to prefer a less loaded term for this kind of translation: usually either "hyperliteral" or "over-literal." These emphasize the fact that word-for-word translation produces a very convoluted version of the original text. Using these terms helps to prevent the danger of allowing "literal translation" to imply the more accurate translation.

So, where does this all leave us? Translation is ultimately subjective. There is no such thing as one objective, most-accurate, "literal" translation. This notion must be abandoned. Every translation is subject to the emphasis and concerns of the translator(s). This is crucial to be conscious of, whether one is reading a translation or doing the translating.