Stanley Porter on "Literal" Bible Translations

From How We Got the New Testament:

Several observations are to be made regarding a literal or formal equivalence translation. First, no such translation can be as formal or literal as some would ideally like; there is always the caveat that it must still make sense in English. Otherwise, such a rendering would resemble an interlinear version, where there is word-for-word alignment and substitution. If one were to take John 1:1 as an example, a literal word-for-word rendering would read as follows (assuming that these are even the correct translational equivalents to use for the individual words):¹⁰⁷ In –beginning – was – the – word – and – the – word – was – toward – the – god – and – god – was – the – word. This makes some sense (though, realistically, only if one knows what it “should” say), but clearly it is not serviceable English even for the strictest literalist. Some English speakers say “in hospital,” but few say “in beginning.” The preposition “toward” does not sound like idiomatic English, and the word order, if it were not the familiar John 1:1, would be unusual if not unusable, apart from the last clause, which misrepresents the Greek syntax (the syntax should have “the word” as the subject of the clause). There is also the question, for literal and other translations, of whether “word” is the right rendering for λόγος, logos. I could raise questions about other words as well. So, even a simple passage like this makes strict formalism difficult if not impossible; there is always the need for accommodation to the fact that the source and target languages, because they are different and distinct language systems, are not equivalent, and so adjustments in lexis and syntax are required. A second observation, often overlooked in discussion of translation theory in general and particular translations specifically, is that such literalism (and what we now see as awkwardness) was never intended by those who were responsible for the Authorized Version in the first place. The Authorized Version was originally commissioned to be as “consonant” with the biblical languages as it could be.¹⁰⁸ Further, the guidelines to be followed by the translators indicated that biblical names were to be those commonly used, not literalistic renderings of Hebrew or Greek.