I tend to agree with Allan Bloom’s method: try to make it a literal translation. Use footnotes to offer interpretations or point out things that don’t translate well (like word play, idioms, nuance in meaning of words, etc). If needed, use the original word if a translation is insufficient (like the use of kalos by English translators to try to capture its meaning rather than good, beautiful, noble, etc is one such example)
I am learning classical Greek, and I became frustrated with certain English translations of Plato’s Apology of Socrates that tended to interpret the text at the same time as translating the text. For example:
At one point Socrates states that: Virtue does not come from good things (material stuff) but good things (material stuff) come from virtue as well as other things(not material) that are good for man. I have read a translation that changes the sentence to say that virtue does not come from good, but through virtue things become good for man. (this version requires changing the meaning of a verb, breaking a symmetry of a clause, changing the use of a preposition; it is like saying “I am running through the woods and the numbers” “running” and “through” can mean different things but the meaning cannot changed withing a sentence without being hard to understand )
Why does this translator do this? Because he believes that Socrates could not have meant the first translation—it is inconsistent with what we know about Socrates, and what we know about earlier and later statements. But that is NOT a good reason: Socrates says this sentence at this time in the dialogue withing a specific context. It is BETTER to translate it as the first, because the true literal translation removes interpretation, and it may better capture what Socrates is doing and saying at that point in time in this particular dialogue.
I suppose you know that Artscroll has an interlinear siddur? I understand that you would prefer an interlinear version of the siddur you use, but perhaps you could study one part of the Amidah at a time at home using the Artscroll, and this might help you understand the Hebrew better when you are actually davening in shul using your regular siddur.
Here's one for you Thomas. I was an early follower (in the Substack sense) of Rabbi Sacks. When I saw Hebrew translations of his books start to appear in Israel I thought "this can only be a downgrade." Eventually I picked one up and saw that the translator was one Tzur Erlich. Lo and behold, the translation was absolutely, undeniably better than the original. If you know Rabbi Sacks you know what good English prose looks like. Erlich's translations are better. I am sure Rabbi Sacks would concur, if he were still alive. My guess is that this was possible because the subject matter of the commentary is the Hebrew Bible, so that Hebrew is a natural host for his thought. This is not to take anything away from Erlich, who evidently is a genius.
Of course, if the author approves it’s hard to complain. But I still might say there’s no reason to translate, say, a cricket analogy for an American audience. Why not maintain some strangeness for the audience? Allow them to experience the otherness of the author’s culture instead of erasing it? But I agree it’s context dependent. I guess I’m reacting to the unquestioned assumption I’ve mostly come across that literal translation is both unworkable and undesirable, the product of small minds.
I think, really, much of this question depends on the gravitas of the original. My beloved D was, for a while, the translator into German for The Dresden Files series. He had to change several idioms and metaphors—particularly baseball ones—so that a German audience could parse them. Jim Butcher, the author, aporoved this move. I also think intent matters, and should be transparent. I love Headly's Beowulf, but I also understand when reading it what its project is and have read the original. Maybe we need not so much a rule, but a continuum of possibilities and a certain transparency?
I tend to agree with Allan Bloom’s method: try to make it a literal translation. Use footnotes to offer interpretations or point out things that don’t translate well (like word play, idioms, nuance in meaning of words, etc). If needed, use the original word if a translation is insufficient (like the use of kalos by English translators to try to capture its meaning rather than good, beautiful, noble, etc is one such example)
I am learning classical Greek, and I became frustrated with certain English translations of Plato’s Apology of Socrates that tended to interpret the text at the same time as translating the text. For example:
At one point Socrates states that: Virtue does not come from good things (material stuff) but good things (material stuff) come from virtue as well as other things(not material) that are good for man. I have read a translation that changes the sentence to say that virtue does not come from good, but through virtue things become good for man. (this version requires changing the meaning of a verb, breaking a symmetry of a clause, changing the use of a preposition; it is like saying “I am running through the woods and the numbers” “running” and “through” can mean different things but the meaning cannot changed withing a sentence without being hard to understand )
Why does this translator do this? Because he believes that Socrates could not have meant the first translation—it is inconsistent with what we know about Socrates, and what we know about earlier and later statements. But that is NOT a good reason: Socrates says this sentence at this time in the dialogue withing a specific context. It is BETTER to translate it as the first, because the true literal translation removes interpretation, and it may better capture what Socrates is doing and saying at that point in time in this particular dialogue.
I suppose you know that Artscroll has an interlinear siddur? I understand that you would prefer an interlinear version of the siddur you use, but perhaps you could study one part of the Amidah at a time at home using the Artscroll, and this might help you understand the Hebrew better when you are actually davening in shul using your regular siddur.
Here's one for you Thomas. I was an early follower (in the Substack sense) of Rabbi Sacks. When I saw Hebrew translations of his books start to appear in Israel I thought "this can only be a downgrade." Eventually I picked one up and saw that the translator was one Tzur Erlich. Lo and behold, the translation was absolutely, undeniably better than the original. If you know Rabbi Sacks you know what good English prose looks like. Erlich's translations are better. I am sure Rabbi Sacks would concur, if he were still alive. My guess is that this was possible because the subject matter of the commentary is the Hebrew Bible, so that Hebrew is a natural host for his thought. This is not to take anything away from Erlich, who evidently is a genius.
Of course, if the author approves it’s hard to complain. But I still might say there’s no reason to translate, say, a cricket analogy for an American audience. Why not maintain some strangeness for the audience? Allow them to experience the otherness of the author’s culture instead of erasing it? But I agree it’s context dependent. I guess I’m reacting to the unquestioned assumption I’ve mostly come across that literal translation is both unworkable and undesirable, the product of small minds.
I think, really, much of this question depends on the gravitas of the original. My beloved D was, for a while, the translator into German for The Dresden Files series. He had to change several idioms and metaphors—particularly baseball ones—so that a German audience could parse them. Jim Butcher, the author, aporoved this move. I also think intent matters, and should be transparent. I love Headly's Beowulf, but I also understand when reading it what its project is and have read the original. Maybe we need not so much a rule, but a continuum of possibilities and a certain transparency?