Archive for Bible
Which languages #2 – idioms and metaphors
Posted by: | CommentsThank you to each of you who listed languages you speak besides English.
Idioms and metaphors present special complications for translation, including Bible translation. Idioms and metaphors are not not likely to be understood by a speaker of another language if translated literally to that language. For instance, if I said in Cheyenne Enehpoese ma’eno, the literal translation to English would be ‘The turtle is hanging closed’. I assume that no one who hears that English translation would understand what the Cheyenne idiom actually refers to. And if I called someone an o’kome, literally, ‘coyote,’ I assume that few, if any, of you who read this post would know what I am actually saying about the person I am talking about. But an interpreter at the United Nations who knows both Cheyenne and English would be able to translate both of these examples of Cheyenne figurative language to English so that their meaning to Cheyenne speakers would be understood by English speakers. The interpreter would know to translate the first Cheyenne expression to English ‘It’s foggy.” And they would translate the metaphor as ‘foxy.’
I invite any of you who understand languages other than English to list examples of idioms or metaphors in those languages. Please include both a literal translation as well as a translation of the (figurative) meaning the example has to speakers of the language.
PROBLEMS CONFRONTING THE TRANSLATING OF GOD’S WORD
Posted by: | CommentsIf, according to the Proverbs of Solomon, “The way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 13:15 KJV), the way of the translator is scarcely less so. Not only does the work of translating demand the utmost in concentrated effort, but the result will seldom please everyone — least of all the conscientious translator.
Since not all the nuances in a text can be conveyed into another language, the translator must choose which ones are to be rendered and which are not. For this reason the cynic speaks of translation as “the art of making the right sacrifice,” and the Italians have put the matter succinctly in a proverb, “The translator is a traitor” (traduttore traditore). In short, except on a purely practical level, translation is never entirely successful. There is always what Ortega y Gasset called the misery and the splendor of the translation process.
Now the work of translating the Bible presents special difficulties. Since the Scriptures are a source both of information and inspiration, Bible translations are required to be accurate as well as felicitous. They must be suitable for rapid scanning as well as for detailed study, and suitable for ceremonial reading aloud to large and small audiences. Ideally, they should be intelligible and even inviting to readers of all ages, of all degrees of education, and of almost all degrees of intelligence.
Such an ideal is, of course, virtually impossible of realization. One can understand, therefore, why there have been so many attempts to put the Bible into English. Between 1952, when the Revised Standard Version was published, and 1989 twenty-six different translations of the entire Bible had been published in English, as well as twenty-five other English translations of the New Testament. . . .
As background orientation, it will be appropriate to consider some of the kinds of problems that confront one who undertakes to produce a new translation of the Bible. In addition to solving various kinds of textual, lexical, and literary problems, the translator must often face what can be called a psychological problem. This is the understandable reluctance on the part of some readers to accept a different rendering of the Scriptures from the one that they have been accustomed to read. To a degree not equaled with respect to other pieces of literature, Bible translators have sometimes had to face considerable hostility. An early example of such negative reactions to the faithful work of a translator was the experience of St. Jerome.
In the year 383 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to produce a uniform and dependable text of the Latin Bible; he was not to make a totally new version, but to revise the texts that were in circulation, using for this purpose the Hebrew and Greek originals. Jerome’s first inclination was to say “No thank you” to the pope’s invitation. He writes in his Epistula ad Damasum, which now stands in Latin manuscripts as a preface to Jerome’s rendering of the Gospels:
- You urge me to revise the Old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures that are now scattered throughout the world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The labor is one of love, but at the same time it is both perilous and presumptuous — for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all. Is there anyone learned or unlearned, who, having taken the volume in hand and perceiving that what one reads does not suit the reader’s settled tastes, will not break out immediately into violent language and call me a forger and a profane person for having had the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections therein?
There were two reasons, however, that prompted Jerome to incur such a degree of opprobrium [disgrace]. The first reason, as he goes on to say in his Epistula, was the command laid upon him by Damasus, the supreme pontiff. The second was the shocking diversity among the Old Latin manuscripts, there being, as he says, “almost as many forms of text as there are manuscripts” (tot sunt [examplaria] paene quot codices).
Jerome’s apprehension that he would be castigated for tampering with Holy Writ was not unfounded. His revision provoked both criticism and anger, sometimes with extraordinary vehemence. For his part, Jerome defended his work with forthright vigor. . . . In the course of time, however, opposition to the revision subsided, and the superior accuracy and scholarship of Jerome’s version came to be widely recognized. It was a clear case of the survival of the fittest.
In more modern times, the King James or so-called Authorized Version of the English Bible also met with a mixed reception at its publication in 1611. Dr. Hugh Broughton, a distinguished British scholar of both Hebrew and Greek, declared, “I had rather be rent in pieces by wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches.” In 1620 when the Pilgrims came to the New World, it appears that not one of them brought a copy of the 1611 Bible; it was too modern! They preferred the English Bible used by their grandparents, the Geneva version of 1560, the so-called Breeches Bible (from its rendering of Gen 3:7, “They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches”).
In our own century, when the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was issued in 1952, the new translation was vehemently castigated by those who were looking for an opportunity to calumniate the Federal Council of Churches, under whose auspices the new version had been produced. Unfounded and malicious accusations were brought against several members of the Bible Committee, to the effect that they were either communists or communist sympathizers — allegations that, at the insistence of Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, were eventually printed, of all places, in the official United States Air Force Training Manual! Finally, after a thorough investigation conducted by nonpartisan authorities, this entirely unsupported charge was rebutted as “venomous nonsense” on the floor of the House of Representatives in Washington and the Manual in question was withdrawn. . . .
Besides the perennial psychological problem that confronts translators and revisers of the Scriptures, the several kinds of recurring problems involving the translation process — textual, lexical, and literary — include the following.
(1) Obviously the first problem that faces the translator arises from the presence of differences in wording among the manuscripts of the Scriptures. These differences — some smaller, some larger — have arisen because, even with the best will in the world, a scribe copying a manuscript of some considerable length would almost inevitably make alterations in the wording. Furthermore, occasionally a scribe would deliberately introduce into the copy a slight change that seemed to be needed in order to clarify the meaning. . . .
(2) After the translator has decided which form of the Hebrew or Greek text should be taken as the basis of the English rendering, the second problem has to do with ascertaining the meaning of the words. . . .
(3) Once the translator has decided which form of text to translate and what the Hebrew or Greek words mean, the problem of punctuation arises. In antiquity it was customary to write Hebrew and Greek manuscripts with few, if any, marks of punctuation. . . .
(4) Another problem that confronts the translator is what to do with proper names that can also be used as common nouns. Should one transliterate the name [merely bring the letters from Hebrew and Greek (or any other language) into English] or translate its meaning? . . .
(5) During the past several years yet another problem has begun to confront the translator of the Bible. The question of the suitability of using male-oriented language in passages that obviously apply to both sexes has become a sensitive issue. . . .
No translation of the Scriptures is perfect, as anyone who has ever tried to make one will be ready to acknowledge. Luther, it is said, issued nineteen revisions of his German Bible. At the close of seventeen years of work on the NRSV [New Revised Standard Version], probably all members of the committee felt a mixture of relief and regret — relief that the work was finished, but also regret that still further “fine tuning” would have made a better rendering. In any case, there comes a time when one must say enough is enough. In the concluding words of the Preface to the NRSV, the committee speaks to the reader as follows:
- We have resisted the temptation to introduce terms and phrases that merely reflect current moods, and have tried to put the message of the Scriptures in simple, enduring words and expressions that are worthy to stand in the great tradition of the King James Bible and its predecessors.
In traditional Judaism and Christianity, the Bible has been more than a historical document to be preserved or a classic of literature to be cherished and admired; it is recognized as the unique record of God’s dealings with people over the ages. The Old Testament sets forth the call of a special people to enter into covenant relation with the God of justice and steadfast love and to bring God’s law to the nations. The New Testament records the life and work of Jesus Christ, the one in whom “the Word became flesh,” as well as describes the rise and spread of the early Christian Church.
The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a noble literary heritage of the past or who wish to use it to enhance political purposes and advance otherwise desirable goals, but to all persons and communities who read it so that they may discern and understand what God is saying to them. That message must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning; it must be presented in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today.
It is the hope and prayer of the translators that this version of the Bible may continue to hold a large place in congregational life and to speak to all readers, young and old alike, helping them to understand and believe and respond to its message.
Bruce M. Metzger, “Problems Confronting Translators of the Bible,” Bruce M. Metzger, Robert C. Dentan, and Walter Harrelson, The Making of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 47-72.
Which languages?
Posted by: | CommentsFor some future posts it would help me to know a little more about your experience with other languages. Please tell me which languages, other than English, you are fluent enough in so that you could understat a fair amount of the language heard and can carry on a basic conversation in that language. If, for instance, I asked you how to say each of the following in the non-English language, you would be able to tell me without looking in a dictionary:
What’s your name?
Where’s the store?
I’m hungry.
Is it raining?
I’m sick.
How much does it cost?
Which languages?
Posted by: | CommentsFor some future posts it would help me to know a little more about your experience with other languages. Please tell me which languages, other than English, you are fluent enough in so that you could understat a fair amount of the language heard and can carry on a basic conversation in that language. If, for instance, I asked you how to say each of the following in the non-English language, you would be able to tell me without looking in a dictionary:
What’s your name?
Where’s the store?
I’m hungry.
Is it raining?
I’m sick.
How much does it cost?
Bible translation foundations – #2 nouns and
Posted by: | CommentsThanks to everyone who commented on my test paragraph in the preceding post. Everyone had good suggestions for improvements. Most, I think, recognized that it was strange English to have the name of my wife repeated so often and felt it would be better English to have pronouns refer to her more often. I agree.
Most, if not all, languages have some language forms which function like English pronouns do. That is, they have some way of indicating that we are still talking about the same person or thing, instead of repeating the name (noun) of that person or thing.
In Cheyenne, the language I have studied for thirty plus years, there are no pronouns. Instead, there are prefixes and suffixes on verbs which allow us to know that we are still talking about the same person or thing.
Koine Greek also uses affixes to give pronominal (pronoun-like) information so that a noun is not repeated too often. But Greek also has available some pronouns to use. If a pronoun is used in addition to a pronominal affix, there is often some kind of emphasis placed on the pronoun, according to those who have studied the functions of tracking of participants throughout Greek discourse.
Pronouns can have very different functions (pragmatic meanings) in different languages. In some languages a proper noun (name) is used throughout a story to indicate who is the hero of that story. Lesser characters are spoken about with pronouns, after they have been introduced into the story. I personally checked a Native American translation where the linguist on the team assumed that this was the case right up until he attended a workshop on discourse structures not long before the translated New Testament for that tribe was published. At the workshop he discovered from analysis of texts in that language that it was the hero of the story who was spoken of with a pronoun. Lesser characters were referred to by proper nouns. He was amazed and realized that he and the rest of the translation team would need to do major revision of the New Testament so that proper names and pronouns were used accurately, to indicate who was the main person or hero in a story.
Well, this brings us to another question which I have wanted to ask you in this series on Bible translation foundations? Here it is:
Should English Bible translators consistently match proper names and other nouns in the biblical language texts with corresponding proper names and nouns in the translation language, and match pronouns (or pronominal prefixes or suffixes) in the biblical languages with English pronouns?
It would be helpful for our discussions if you could provide support from specific verses in the Bible for your answer to the preceding question.
Bible translation foundations – nouns and
Posted by: | CommentsThis is a test. This is only a test. This is only a test about English. If this were an emergency, or a test about any other language, you would be notified. Please read the following paragraph:
My wife’s name is Elena. In 2000 Elena was bitten by a deer tick. Elena developed a rash on her arm unique to Lyme Disease. Blood tests would later show that Elena got four diseases from that single tick bite. Elena has been suffering from these diseases for years. Elena is no longer able to drive. Elena’s cognitive functions are impaired. Elena has a lot of pain. Elena feels tired all the time. Elena takes a lot of different medicines. So far, nothing has made Elena better but we still hope that Elena’s condition will improve someday. As Elena’s husband, it is difficult for me to watch Elena unable to live with so much pain and other physical and mental issues.
As far as I know, each of the sentences I just wrote is grammatical in English. But most compositions can be improved. What suggestions would you offer so that my paragraph would sound better to you?
Bible translation foundations – word order
Posted by: | CommentsHow closely should English Bible translations follow the word order in the biblical language texts?
Bible translation foundations – collocations
Posted by: | CommentsI am fascinated by the varying lexical collocations different languages have in their linguistic toolkits. In English we use the metaphor of distance or travel to refer to time. For instance, in English we can say that some romantic episode is “past” or that my birthday will “come” soon. But English does not collocate time words with elevation (“up” or “down”) or thickness (“thin” or “thick”). Hebraisms in the biblical language texts contain a number of references to time in terms of capacity. So, the equivalent of English the time has “come” would, in Hebrew thought, be that the time is “full.”
The Cheyenne language, which has been the focus of my study since 1975, collocates price with degree of “ease”. So, something which is inexpensive is literally “easy-priced.” English, on the other hand, allows price references to collocate with vertical words such as “up” or “down”. The stock market goes “up” and “down.”
In English the color green collocates with the emotion of jealousy, while red can collocate with anger. A major mistake can be a “black” mark on someone’s reputation. In some languages there are no color collocations with emotions.
English speakers can, according to English lexical rules, refer to someone in terms of their intelligence as “bright”, or “sharp,” or “dull.” None of these terms is an appropriate collocation with references to intelligence in Cheyenne.
What English translation equivalents would you consider most appropriate for expressing the meaning of the following literal translations of biblical language collocations:
- ripeness: “He lived to a ripe old age.”
- easy: “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
- say in the heart: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
- taste: “Some standing here will not taste death until the kingdom of God has come.”
- rich: “God is rich in mercy.”
Bible translation foundations – naturalness
Posted by: | CommentsMost English translations of the Bible contain quite a bit of unnatural English. By unnatural we mean here forms of grammar and lexical word combinations which never naturally occur in the speech or writing of any native speakers of English at any level, register, or degree of formality of the language. Some advocates of these less natural translations justify the use of unnatural English on various grounds, such as that a Bible should sound “sacred,” which, to them, means it sound or read as something “other” than what we normally encounter in good quality speech or writing, or on the basis that we must literally translate forms of the biblical language texts to maintain an “otherness” of language and culture so that a translation doesn’t sound like it was written for contemporary speakers.
What do you think?
- Do you believe that the majority of sentences in the biblical language texts were at any level / register / degree of formality of language natural or unnatural?
- If your answer to #1 is “yes,” do you believe that an English Bible translation should be written in natural, good quality contemporary literary English (that would pass muster with English professors and literary editors and would sound natural and good, but not slangy or colloquial, to essentially all native English speakers)?
Please try NOT to comment on minority percentages of language examples either in the biblical language texts or good quality contemporary natural English. Rather, let’s try to address the majority, big picture, of language examples both in the biblical language texts and current English usage. If the majority of sentences in the biblical language texts would have been regarded by native speakers of those languages as unnatural, then answer that the biblical language texts were, on the whole, unnatural. If, however, the majority of sentences would have been regarded by native speakers to be natural, good quality language, then do not answer “unnatural”. We all speak and write occasionally in unnatural ways, but a high percentage of native speakers of English, including each one who comments on this blog, writes using natural English most of the time.
Bible translation foundations – accuracy
Posted by: | CommentsMost, perhaps all, people who read the Bible in translation want the translation to be accurate. But Bible translation accuracy is defined and illustrated in different ways by different people. Let’s see what the range of opinions about accuracy is among BBB readers.
- How would you define accuracy for a Bible translation?
- What factors do you think should be considered in determining whether or not a translation is accurate?
- What relationship, if any, do you think there should be between attempting to retain grammatical forms in the biblical language texts and translation accuracy?
- If you can think of any, point out some specific Bible passage examples of inaccurate Bible translation.
Bible translation foundations – grammar
Posted by: | CommentsAnother topic in which I have sensed that there is disagreement among the BBB readership has to do with what is “grammatical” in English, the language which we focus on, into which translations of the Bible are made. So let’s see if we can clarify some areas where we agree and disagree about English grammar as it relates to Bible translation.
- What, if any, grammatical rules should be generally followed in a translation of the Bible to English? Give at least one example so we can deal with some specifics of English grammar.
- How can/should we determine what the grammatical rules of English are?
- For which stage/period of the history of the English language should grammatical rules be followed in an English Bible translation?
I’m sure all the creative minds who meet here can think of some other questions having to do with English grammar and Bible translation in case I missed some.
In which I keep it short
Posted by: | CommentsOn the purpose of translations…
I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in an unknown register.
Who’s with me?
Bible translation foundations – audience
Posted by: | CommentsWho should be the audience(s) of Bible translations?
What level of education should they have?
free prepublication copy of CEB
Posted by: | Commentshttp://www.commonenglishbible.com/Bibles/FreeNewTestament/tabid/204/Default.aspx
