Problems in the Translation of the Bible

Extracted text from Problems_in_the_Translation_of_the_Bible.pdf:

Problems in the Translation of the Bible Introduction: There are many types of problems which one encounters in translation, and most of the difficult ones could be classified under more than one category. Thus the following outline is for organizational purposes only, and does not aim to be comprehensive nor to get each problem definitively classified (if there were such a thing) and cross-referenced. The background for all these cases is work in biblical translation into native languages, particularly in the Americas, but the principles apply to all translations of the Bible, and in a broader sense, to the task of translation itself, whatever its purpose or context. Text-Critical Problems: Text-critical problems are dealt with in other sections (OT and NT text criticism) of this manual, and should be studied there. Nevertheless, a brief characterization of the major versions in English is in order here. Many modern English translations (e.g. RSV, REB), in an attempt to both translate afresh form original sources as well as to make the text understandable, have departed significantly from the Hebrew text at various points (the Living Bible is not dealt with here as it is a paraphrase and thus difficult to characterize text-critically). Older versions such as the KJV are variations of formal equivalence translations which follow the Hebrew on the whole resorting in various degrees to the ancient versions or conjectures. In the NT, this works in favor of the modern versions, which have usually abandoned the traditional texts of the Middle Ages and depended on texts which doubtlessly represent earlier forms of the NT . On the other hand, in the OT many of the modern versions have resorted often to the Septuagint and conjecture (making an educated guess as to what the original text might have been), placing a textual note (or no note at all) in many cases where the problem is not textual but interpretational or even translational (see the section on OT text criticism in this manual). Much of the time the issue could be resolved with a change in the note (or addition of a note) to indicate a translational problem. Exegetical Problems: Exegetical problems arise mainly from the fact that as translators work from a major language translation, they may believe they already understand the meaning of a text, while in fact it is either difficult in Hebrew or Greek or simply different than the translator expects. In Deuteronomy 6.5, we have the statement that one should ...love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. The concept of loving God with all one's heart (and sometimes soul as well) is common enough, though this wording is restricted to Deuteronomy. A note about King Josiah in 2 Kings 23.25 almost quotes this text verbatim, but with an important change: love becomes turn to. Yet what is an apparent shift in meaning is entirely in accord with Deuteronomy itself, since in 10.12, 11.13, , et al. the commandment to love God and obey him occurs with that of serving him with heart and soul, and in 30.10 obedience is coupled with turning to God. Thus love and obedience seem to be nearly identical terms in these contexts, while "turn to" is of course repentance, itself a form of initial obedience. Thus it would appear that Deuteronomy, while unique in using the wording

of loving God, uses "love" to mean "demonstrate love/commitment," that is, loyalty or obedience. This usage for aheb ("love") is backed up by ancient Near Eastern texts. Even in the rest of the OT, aheb is not uniquely an emotional word, but is used of preference ("Jacob have I loved...") and especially in cases of treaties. Thus the meaning in 1 Kings 5.1 (5.15 in Hebrew), when the text says that Hiram loved David, is likely loyalty, and not (at least primarily) love as an emotion. This is substantiated by the language of treaties from the ancient Near East, where the vassal is to proclaim his love for his lord in no uncertain terms, even when there can be no doubt that there is no love lost between the parties in question. Dennis J. McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant) notes that on one occasion the Mesopotamian king, in dealing with Egypt, "demands love and he calls pharaoh his brother." It is not "love" alone which creates the problem for modern interpreters, but its combination with "heart." For a modern speaker of many languages, to love with all one's heart is nothing else but pure (romantic) emotion. It is hard in many languages to imagine saying to anyone "I love you with all my heart," and meaning anything other than romantic love or depth of feeling. In fact, this usually indicates a situation between a man and a woman, or lovers. While "God" as a object necessarily changes the focus of the meaning away from romantic love, "loving God with all your heart" in many languages still falls well within the domain of sentiment and feeling more than that of loyalty or commitment. Thus a new set of terms emphasizing commitment (with or without emotional overtones) to describe this area must often be explored and utilized in translation. Something similar can be said of faith, which is often faithfulness, especially in the OT, and righteousness (justice, salvation, etc. in context), a word in Hebrew having to do with fulfilling ones moral obligations in a social context (cf. Gen 38) rather than obedience to a law or some other norm. Accommodation: Perhaps the most common problem in translation, next to the tendency to translate literally from whatever text you are using as a base, is the tendency to filter out certain things in translation. Some of these are cultural factors, and will be covered below. Others are theological or simply a matter of distance from the text. Traditional Readings: One of the best examples of traditional readings is in Psalm 23.6, where RSVs "forever" is actually "for length of days," in Hebrew, which in turn is parallel to "all the days of my life" in the previous line. This text, however, seems to be too famous in its present form for many versions to correct to a more accurate translation (cf. the TEVs "as long as I live" vs. the RSVs "forever"). It would seem that many have taken what referred originally to the Temple in Jerusalem to refer to Heaven itself, and would not accept the text if it said anything else. This kind of dependence 2

on a translation tradition continues to be a issue for biblical translation in general, and one which is hard to control unless one has continuous access to the original languages in which the bible was written. Verbal Constructions: In Joshua 11.10 the Hebrew text says that Joshua (= the army) "turned back" to go capture Hazor. This makes it look like the army conquered Hazor on their way back to their camp at Gilgal. On the map, however, it looks like they went away from Gilgal to get to Hazor, in which case "turned back" means "went in another direction, turned around," or might have a temporal meaning of "then," coinciding with the subsequent "at that time." It is even possible that the verb functions as a discourse marker to indicate a change of action or scene, depending on other verbs to specify the new action or situation. The suspicion of a possible use of some verbs of motion in a temporal sense or at a discourse level comes partly from noting the different uses of "enter" and "return" in the Old Testament, but mainly from the observation of the verb "rise in various Old Testament contexts. Two or three examples will give the picture. In Exodus 32.6 the text states that the people "sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Now "play" is well understood as a euphemism for orgiastic cultic rites, and the verb "rise" hardly fits the action required at that point. A similar problem occurs in Genesis 23.2,7 where Abraham rises from before his dead in verse 2, then rises again (had he sat down in the meantime?) in verse 7 only in order to again bow down! As translators try to figure out the spatial relationships in this passage, one is nearly forced to the conclusion that "rise" is functioning in a different way than the literal interpretation of the word would lead us to believe. Either temporal or discourse level functions with the general force of "then," or "after that" would work quite well for all the examples above, and many more like them. Interestingly, while verbs of motion seem often to function in nonspatial ways, other verbal sequences (a series of words of phrases describing one basic event, situation, or theme) in Hebrew are often spatial, or more precisely centering or unfolding, rather than adhering to temporal, causal, or some other type of logical patterning. It appears that this may be even more true in poetry than in prose. Many have noted that parallel structures almost always intensify and heighten in some way, but more specific patterns of general to specific, superficial to profound, outer to inner, distant to close, common to rare (vocabulary), and other such poetic (thematic, spatial, personal, relational, etc.) concerns often appear to be at work. This area needs more investigation, but a few examples can illustrate the point. The first example comes from I Samuel 1.8 where Elkanah asks Hannah why she is weeping, refusing to eat and sad-hearted. The movement is from the outside inward: that which is most noticeable is mentioned first, the root cause is mentioned last. This might well need to be reversed in some languages which require the reason for an action before describing that action. In fact in English we might more naturally say "Why are you so sad? Why don't you stop 3

crying and eat something?" Tzeltal of southern Mexico, for example, uses a reciprocal verb for weeping which implies that Hannah is weeping over her own condition. In Psalm 64.9 people will worship ("fear") God in two ways: they will tell what he has done, and they will meditate over it. Again the movement is from the surface to the profound, from effect to cause, from outside to inside in a gradually unfolding which is just backwards to western causal and temporal ways of thinking. Of course many receptor languages and cultures may well understand this kind of logic intuitively, but translation consultants must be aware of what is happening in any case to help decide the issue. Lists: The system of thought associated with lists in the Bible is usually different from what western, modern, European interpreters would expect from such a structure. Lists in the Bible are rarely analytical / systematic / divisional / exhaustive, but more often are synthetic / additive / generalizing / heuristic. The key to understanding any particular list is of course to first find the basis for or the logic of the list. For example, in the list of unclean birds in Leviticus 11.13-19 the logic of the list is that all the members are either birds of prey or carrion birds (and not for example small and large birds). The reason they are unclean is either that they eat blood or have contact with the dead, both of which render one unclean. In Genesis 1.14 ("And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years"), the system of thought is astrological / religious / kairos-timing of important events (1. "signs"=portents, as in the Star of Bethlehem, 2. "religious festivals"), and only secondarily chronological marking of the passage of time (3. "years," 4. "days"). In some lists the general basis is clear enough but the differentiation of the members poses difficulty. Lists of laws, statutes, ordinances, decrees, etc., seem to pile up synonyms using terms which many receptor languages lack. Many times, however, looking at the members of the list in other contexts gives a clue as to the specificity of the different ideas involved. Though there is a great deal of overlap in the usage of terms, several contexts can be recognized from a cursory glance at a concordance: 1) regulations pertaining to a certain people or clan or family in perpetuity, 2) principles by which the created world is governed, 3) God's specific commands to his people (either moral or cultic), 4) the moral universe applicable to all people, and so on. Linguistic Problems: In many Mayan languages, it is obligatory to specify whether a brother or sister is older of younger than the speaker. That is to say, there is no word for either one which does not carry the age reference information. On the other hand, it is not necessary to specify the sex of the brother or sister (sibling), and in fact another word (male or female + older or younger sibling) would have to be added to make this clear. While no particularly difficult problems have arisen due to this linguistic phenomenon, it is something which must be constantly kept in mind while translating. There are even times when one must make a best guess as to who was the older or 4

younger of two brothers or sisters (e.g. Abram and Haran), when the Bible text does not indicate this explicitly. Inclusion/Exclusion: In most Mayan languages, the principle of inclusion/exclusion plays a very prominent role. The system of personal pronouns, for example, makes it impossible for Moses to say (as he does in the Hebrew text of Exodus) the LORD your God commanded you... This would mean that the LORD was not Moses God at all. Thus it must be changed to the LORD our God commanded you... Metaphors: Metaphors play such an important role in the Bible that they must be paid careful attention to in translation. Metaphors are part of every known language, and surprisingly often the same or similar metaphors occur in different languages. But the meanings are often different. Thus to be hard-headed may mean to be stubborn, stupid, brave, angry, aggressive, or something else depending on the language and context. Often the same or similar images have fairly distinct meanings within a language depending of the context, and in He loved her with all his heart (emotion) versus His heart was not in his work (commitment). A biblical example of a difficult metaphor in some languages is the idea in Isaiah 1.1 5 of Gods rejection of the sacrifices due to the blood covering their hands of the priests. It was not clear to the translators of the Quiche Bible in Guatemala what kind of blood this was. Animal blood from the sacrifices? Had the priests been messy, getting blood all over their hands, and thus God had rejected their sacrifices? When human blood was suggested, the reason for it being on the priests hands was still not clear to the translators. Had they been bandaging wounded people? Again, was there something unclean about this which made God upset with their sacrifices? What made this image more difficult was that it was a play on images even in Hebrew. Hands covered with blood is a common enough metaphor for murder in the Bible, but of course the priests would have literally bloody hands from sacrificing. It would be nice to preserve the play on images, but if that is not possible, the best solution is to specify hands covered with blood...from killing people. There are sometimes metaphors in a receptor language where there is none in the source language(s). For example, where the Bible speaks literally of being happy at different points, the Pokomchi (Guatemala) translator back-translated His heart became delicious. At other points, one metaphor replaces another. In Proverbs 1.12, Let us swallow them whole like Sheol became in Mam of Ostuncalco They will fall into our (eating-) bowl. When later these same translators came across the curse may his name die out in the second generation, and its meaning was explained to them (may all of his male children and grandchildren die and leave no heirs), they immediately came up with the related image may his bowl be overturned. Further investigation turned up we/I put him in my/our bowl for murder, and still further investigation would doubtless turn up more.

5

An important feature of figurative language is the tone and mood that it sets for a text. Since so often in both the effort to translate meaning clearly and to reach a popular level of understanding metaphorical and non-literal language has been minimized, it may be a good idea to put back figures where possible in texts with a high degree of figurativeness in the source language(s), so that the overall effect of the discourse can be preserved. Socio-linguistic Problems: Most of the ancestors of modern Mayan peoples worshipped the sun and moon, along with other deities. In fact, their terms for these heavenly bodies were chul totic (our holy father ) and chul metic (our holy mother) respectively. When the catholic priests came after the conquest, they had the local people drop the holy (chul), but the practice of calling the sun father and the moon mother persisted. Later, when the protestant missionaries arrived, th ey found this practice objectionable, and had those joining them use cacal (day) for sun and u (month) for moon. This has led to two distinct practices between the two communities. Each group has maintained enough contact with the other to understand the others alternate usage. The only work the distinctions do now is to signal immediately to which group the speaker belongs. Problems of this type are more inter-personal or political than translational, and often administrators of local bible Societies are in a better position to resolve these problems than is a translation consultant Borrowed terms are common to all languages (e.g. avocado and tomato are Aztec), as is the phenomenon of a single word serving two or more distinct purposes (e.g. key for a door, a piano, a map, and a problem). Tiox (from Dios) in Quiche combines both of these aspects in that it refers not only to the images in the catholic church but also is the common word (among both protestants and Catholics) for holy. When protestant missionaries objected to what they considered syncretism, the translators gave in and used taxtalic (separated from/for). the problem is that it is difficult to make it clear in each case that it is separation for Gods special use that is meant, not separation from God. This has to be made explicit in various ways in translation, including saying that the person/object is separated from sin or impurity. What makes this problem especially difficult is that holy itself has more than one me aning, sometimes signifying moral purity (be holy as I am holy), other times a special office (priests), or a special usage or contact with God (objects in temple/tabernacle/ground near burning bush). Euphemisms: The problem of translating euphemisms is well-known, yet underestimated in most translation projects. Euphemisms, those polite substitutions for what are considered vulgar or over-frank or familiar ways of speaking of matters of death, sex, bodily functions, etc. (at times closely related to systems of honorific speaking as well--e.g. the name of God in the Bible) are doubtless more prevalent both in source language texts and receptor language cultures than has been recognized heretofore. Euphemism is really term-avoidance, since the euphemism does not seek to hide the subject, but to talk of it in what society thinks of as polite or respectful terms. Systems of language6

avoidance can even get more complex (though always honor/shame -related) as both sanitation engineer for janitor and any number of ever-changing politically-correct references to various groups readily show. The problem begins at the cultural level. There are usually three or four cultures at work in any translation of Scripture. First there is the culture of the text, different in different parts of the Bible, but more or less definable for any specific passage. Second there is the culture of the missionary and/or translation consultant, usually European or North American. Even as the Bible Societies recruit more translation consultants from different countries throughout the world, their attitudes toward the text of Scripture have usually been filtered through western academic experience and training. Third, there is often a common cultural medium which we use to communicate with native translators. In Latin America, for example, it is the Hispanic culture of the country being worked in at the time. Fourth, there is the culture of the translator(s). This very fact would no doubt discourage many from even attempting translation, but one point is important here. It is the principle of the veto. That is, if any of the four cultures is offended by something, the likelihood is that the offending matter will be blunted in translation. The actual receptor language should by all means have this right, but the other two or three should be made to give way in this kind of matter. With regard to euphemisms, this should even be the case for the original culture(s), unless a valid theological justification for maintaining the euphemism in translation can be found. Some examples of this tendency are Genesis 18.12, where "pleasure" is sexual, not in having another child, Genesis 24.2,9; 47.29, where what appears to be already a euphemism is often further altered due to discomfort over possible homosexual overtones, and many others, in the Old Testament usually having to do with covering the feet. A particularly interesting example, easy to miss, comes at the point where Joseph is banqueting with his brothers (Gen 43.34) and the text says So they drank and were merry with him. The combination drinking (wine) and making merry without fail elsewhere mean getting drunk, but while at other points this is made clear, here most translations are much more circumspect than the source text. Cultural Factors: There exists a fine line between translating in a formal way which is still meaningful and translating in some way so close to the source language that the reader really needs to know that source language to adequately understand the text. An equally fine line also exists between functional equivalence translating which is nonetheless accurate and translating in some way so close to the receptor language that the intention of the text is compromised in some way. While unintelligible texts are the result of formal translations too close to the original languages, anachronism and cultural translation are the result of translations paying too much attention to receptor language at the expense of the original texts. People in biblical times lived in a manner very different from that of most modern biblical scholars. Yet often, this way of 7

life was not all that different from that of most of the people for whom new translations are now being produced. Even in this case, however, the awareness of another cultural dimension, as well a key differences between various traditional societies, ancient and modern, makes it impossible to ignore the effects of crossing the line between accuracy and naturalness. A key guideline in maintaining this balance is to examine the level of literalness in the source text. Is the text describing some literal action (quite apart from genre considerations), or is the text representing something other than its literal words by means of metaphor or some other non-literal use of language? This question is clear in many cases, but difficult to determine in others. Where it is clear, the rule is also clear: the less literal the language, the more freedom exists for adaptation on the part of the translator. When the Psalmist claims he is not a man but a worm, the translator can substitute dirt, or some other suitable metaphor. However, when the text claims that Abraham had his servant put his hand under his thigh, in order to make a vow, shaking hands (or some other such equivalent gesture) violates what the text says actually happened, and what doubtless was a practice in ancient (and in some cultures is in modern) times. Cases like these sometimes run up against cultural resistance, and must be translated generically (they made a solemn promise) with a footnote (lit. put his hand under his thigh - this was an old way of making a promise). When the Bible speaks of bread and wine in metaphorical or non-literal terms local terms can be substituted if they have the same function as in the biblical text. Thus in Gen 3.19 and elsewhere where bread (sometimes combined with wine) means food in general, some translators have substituted tortillas and beans, since these fulfill the role as bread and wine did in biblical cultures and times. Even in these cases, however, if the reference is too well known (e.g. the Lords prayer give us this day our daily bread) it may not be possible to make the substitution without resistance on the part of the readers who know that bread should be in that text. On the other hand, when the context is literal (Gen 19.3-where the literalness of the bread is made obvious by the use of the adjective unleavened), substitution would produce a kind of anachronism which would draw attention to itself and cause more difficulties than if the culturally distinct terms were explained in a help of some kind. The kind of problem encountered above can get even more complex on the level of the local culture. In many Mayan languages, bread can be translated waj or kaxlan waj. the first term literally means anything made from corn meal, while the second term literally means foreigners waj, and refers to the local wheat-based sweet breads which are so popular within the broader European-influenced culture of the region. On the one hand, waj would be a better dynamic equivalent in cases where bread meant food, but in cases where the focus is literal or the reference well-known, kaxlan waj would preserve a flour-based (though in biblical times barley was more in use than wheat) meaning and not insert corn into a time and place it does not belong. On the other hand it is not the staff of life, but a local delicacy which is referenced. It is even tempting to suggest borrowing pan (Spanish bread) in cases such as these, but it 8

provokes the response that it is not necessary, since both waj and kaxlan waj are native terms which cover the meaning (though in this case, perhaps not all that well). Conclusion: Many practical problems exist for the translation of the Bible, of which the above are only a few. Most problems have more than one dimension, and the solution to a specific problem is often a careful subjective weighing of competing principles. Key to this evaluation process are the native speakers of the receptor language in question, who can quickly rule out options thought to be valid in principle on grounds of wrong register, overtone, or anticipated resistance to the solution on the part of the community or communities to whom the translation is directed. More than once, what are thought good solutions at first turn out to have insurmountable problems, and at times, there are problems so difficult one wonders if they have solutions at all. On the other hand, one look at any number of modern translation into major world languages is enough to convince nearly anyone that the pursuit of high goals yields good results, if not perfect ones.

9