Do you think the use of transliteration in this way is mistake, laziness, or obfuscation of the message, or something else?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Do you think the use of transliteration in this way is mistake, laziness, or obfuscation of the message, or something else?
Wow, my friend, what an excellent question! Probably deserving of another entire article.
In some cases, I'm fairly quick to assign blame and bad motives; in others, I hesitate. As curmudgeonly as I get in this series of articles, I really do have some level of compassion for the translators. They have to make judgement calls at every turn. They tend to run in packs, working as committees. They often have oversight boards that steer them one way or another. Unfortunately, translation by committee is kind of like herding cattle...
I think that perhaps the best translations are the ones done by individuals - for example, Young's Literal Translation. Robert Young's deliberate intention was to be as literal as possible. However, going that route does make it hard for the English reader to understand.
Other individual translators definitely bring their own theological prejudices to the table, for example the J.B. Phillips New Testament. Phillips is an example of the theological prejudice I complained bitterly about in the "II Thessalonians 1" entry in this series.
In other words, dag-nabbit, there's just no satisfying this curmudgeon! I just have to do my own translation! Better yet, we need to download expert knowledge of Greek and Hebrew into the brain of anyone seriously interested in the topic! :D
In other cases, I damn well will condemn the translators and their committees... for example, watch for an upcoming entry about Romans 13:1 and following.... When I manage to get that entry written, I will roundly condemn the modernists for utterly, intentionally obfuscating and misdirecting the reader! :O
Thanks a lot, friend @lifeworship, for your insightful question! :)