MetaCatholic

John Hobbins has posted a really useful contribution to the ongoing blogversation about literary translation, with some specific examples, of a rather different genre and register from my own earlier example. I don’t know what he thinks of the literary qualities of the ISV translation he was praising earlier. I presume they are seeking a form of literary quality when they try, for example, to render Philippians 2:6-11 in verse. It is not, in my view, at all successful, however adventurous the attempt is.

In God’s own form existed he,
and shared with God equality,
deemed nothing needed grasping.
Instead, poured out in emptiness,
a servant’s form did he possess,
a mortal man becoming.
In human form he chose to be,
and lived in all humility,
death on a cross obeying.
Now lifted up by God to heaven,
a name above all others given,
this matchless name possessing.
And so, when Jesus’ name is called,
the knees of everyone should fall
wherever they’re residing.
Then every tongue in one accord,
will say that Jesus the Messiah is Lord,
while God the Father praising.

I will leave aside the interpretative issues raised by some of the translation choices and focus solely on the question of style.

One of the features that seems to me most important in John’s discussion is that of orality. I look forward to seeing if he produces the oral performance of this text that he’s working toward. While, to be sure, a number of contemporary translations claim to have liturgical use in mind, it is only one use among many. Yet it seems obvious that the texts we have were “written” out loud to be read aloud, and in many cases are redactions or translations of prior purely oral texts. It is not that we should write translations able to be read aloud, but write translations that must be read aloud, if we are to translate the literary forms of the original. Some of that should help reframe some of the discussion of “reading” ages.

It is precisely on that point, however, that I find the above quotation from Philippians lacking. Rhyming “existed he” with “equality” or “chose to be” with “humility” illustrates this. In English these are both weak rhymes further vitiated further by inviting an unfortunate rhythmic pacing. The device is one entwined in historic usage with light or comic verse, and profoundly inappropriate for the subject matter. Looking at other means of conveying the markers of poetry, such as stress rhythms, assonance and alliteration might have been by far the better option.

This fault in the poetic form should have been obvious as soon as the text was read aloud. It is only possible, in my judgement, to avoid the humourous connotations of the form by reading in in a way which disrupts the rhythm. The judgement of oral performance would have immediately revealed the weakness of the versifying style.

I do not intend to be unfair to the ISV here for what is in many ways a commendable idea. I also freely admit that it is much easier to raise questions of orality for verse than for prose for those of us with a modern Western literary education. But I suggest that all our translations would be significantly improved if people wrote for speech. Even the artificial and elevated phrasing of verse forms and literary prose alike was written for oral performance. It is not for nothing that the early church saw reading as a serious vocation, and created an office of Reader.