When translating religious texts, the question of how to render the text can be a tricky one: do you translate the text in the same archaic way as the original was written, or do you modernise the text for its new audience? There are pros and cons associated with both approaches, and for today’s blog I’d like to take a brief look at these.

Using old-fashioned language in texts of this kind can seem awkward, and can make the translations difficult to understand for the new target audience. However, this level of difficulty may have been present in the original text, and this could be used as an argument for preserving the same tone. Also, it could be said that religious texts rely on this formal, grand style of language to inspire their audience, and that something would be lost if this language was simplified.

On the other hand, there are many simplified versions of religious texts available nowadays, and these can be much more accessible than the less contemporary versions. For those with difficulties reading the grand, complicated language of the old style texts, this can definitely be seen as a good thing, especially by the religion, who will be able to reach more people as a result of a simplified message.
Of course, contemporary language is never contemporary for long, and so this means that even the simplified versions of these texts may one day read as awkwardly as the deliberately archaic ones. So, considering this, is it best to write in a language which is already out-of-date? Or should religious texts move with the times, like every other aspect of modern life?

Like many other aspects of translation, this is a divisive issue, and one which it’s important to discuss. Obviously I’ve only taken a quick glance at the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and there are many relevant aspects of religious translation that I won’t have mentioned. Do any of our readers have any experience of religious translation? If so, please do share your thoughts!