Translating is complicated because it involves so many factors. One factor is dignity. And that’s not the strength of some translations or paraphrases.
Three examples:
1. 1 Samuel 20:30a
- וַיִּחַר־אַף שָׁאוּל בִּיהוֹנָתָן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ בֶּן־נַעֲוַת הַמַּרְדּוּת
- NASB (cf. KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, NIV): Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!”
- NET: Saul became angry with Jonathan and said to him, “You stupid traitor!”
- Translator’s note: Heb “son of a perverse woman of rebelliousness.” But such an overly literal and domesticated translation of the Hebrew expression fails to capture the force of Saul’s unrestrained reaction. Saul, now incensed and enraged over Jonathan’s liaison with David, is actually hurling very coarse and emotionally charged words at his son. The translation of this phrase suggested by Koehler and Baumgartner is “bastard of a wayward woman” (HALOT 796 s.v. עוה), but this is not an expression commonly used in English. A better English approximation of the sentiments expressed here by the Hebrew phrase would be “You stupid son of a bitch!” However, sensitivity to the various public formats in which the Bible is read aloud has led to a less startling English rendering which focuses on the semantic value of Saul’s utterance (i.e., the behavior of his own son Jonathan, which he viewed as both a personal and a political betrayal [= “traitor”]). But this concession should not obscure the fact that Saul is full of bitterness and frustration. That he would address his son Jonathan with such language, not to mention his apparent readiness even to kill his own son over this friendship with David (v. 33), indicates something of the extreme depth of Saul’s jealousy and hatred of David.
- NLT: Saul boiled with rage at Jonathan. “You stupid son of a whore!” he swore at him.
- The Message: Saul exploded in anger at Jonathan: “You son of a slut!”
- Original Living Bible: Saul boiled with rage. “You son of a bitch!” he yelled at him.
2. Acts 8:20
- Πέτρος δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· τὸ ἀργύριόν σου σὺν σοὶ εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὅτι τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνόμισας διὰ χρημάτων κτᾶσθαι·
- NASB (cf. RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET): But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
- KJV (cf. NKJV): But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
- HCSB: But Peter told him, “May your silver be destroyed with you, because you thought the gift of God could be obtained with money!
- NIV: Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!
- NLT (cf. GW): But Peter replied, “May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought!
- GNT: But Peter answered him, “May you and your money go to hell, for thinking that you can buy God’s gift with money!
- Cotton Patch: Rock said to him, “You and your money can go to hell! Do you think you can buy with money what God freely gives?
- The Message: Peter said, “To hell with your money! And you along with it. Why, that’s unthinkable—trying to buy God’s gift!
3. Romans 3:3–4a
- τί γάρ; εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες, μὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήσει; μὴ γένοιτο·
- NASB: What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be!
- KJV: For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid:
- ESV (cf. RSV, NRSV): What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!
- NET (cf. HCSB): What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? Absolutely not!
- NIV: What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all!
- GW: What if some of them were unfaithful? Can their unfaithfulness cancel God’s faithfulness? That would be unthinkable!
- NCV: If some Jews were not faithful to him, will that stop God from doing what he promised? No!
- NLT: True, some of them were unfaithful; but just because they were unfaithful, does that mean God will be unfaithful? Of course not!
- GNT: But what if some of them were not faithful? Does this mean that God will not be faithful? Certainly not!
- The Message: So, what if, in the course of doing that, some of those Jews abandoned their post? God didn’t abandon them. Do you think their faithlessness cancels out his faithfulness? Not on your life!
- Cotton Patch: All right, so some of them are hypocrites; does their hypocrisy nullify God’s sincerity? Hell no.
- Translator’s note: “Just about the proper strength for the Greek phrase.”
[Part of this blog post reproduces this one.]
Related:
- “The Best All-Around Book on Bible Translation”
- “How to Disagree about Bible Translation Philosophy”
- “Reproduce the Meaning”
- “Translation and the Doctrine of Inspiration”
- “Thank God for Good Bible Translators and Translations”
Update on 3/31/2017: In my latest attempt to explain how to interpret and apply the Bible, I include a chapter on Bible translation (pp. 50–81).
tWD+r>M;h; tw:ß[]n:-!B,( Alê rm,aYOæw: !t’ên”AhåyBi ‘lWav’ @a;Û-rx;YI)w:
That μὴ γένοιτο is particularly hard to capture, though, isn’t it? You’re either so prosaic that you’re miles from the real impact of the phrase, or you’re so idiomatic that the bare fact that you said what you said distracts from the point of the passage. By which I mean, I actually have thought the same as Cotton Patch (though not knowing that they used it); that phrase really is about the rhetorical equivalent of the emphatic force of the phrase. Or, “No way!” But that could sound Valley Girl-ish, or surfer-dude-ish. I think “Absolutely not!” is about where I’ve come down, and not because I’m a NET fan. I’m not.
It strikes me oddly that modern translators should be more concerned about “dignity” than the original authors. Why shouldn’t we strive to most closely represent the ideas behind the original text rather than worry about sanitizing them so that they are acceptable to a post-Victorian cultural idiom?
Good post. Tone appropriate to genre and medium is important.
Notice, BTW, that the KJV translators were quite dynamic with “God forbid.” It actually captures well the emotion of Paul’s response, even if neither “God” nor “forbid” occurs in the Greek sentence. Functional translations are not uncommon in the KJV.
Matzko responded just about as I was planning to. Isn’t the most dignified translation the one that most dignifies the original text by faithfully communicating not just the original meaning, but the tone, the effect, etc.? This has always been part of my issue with the KJV. Why would we want something to sound dignified according to 17th century (or 21st century, for that matter) standards when most of it wouldn’t have sounded that way by 1st century standards?
I’d be interested in your response, Andy.
I agree, for example, that Koine Greek should translate into Koine English and that more literary Greek (like the letter to the Hebrews) should translate into more literary English.
Re how to handle shocking phrases, it depends on the goals of the translation. I’m thinking of translations with the admirable goal of being an all-purpose Bible in a particular language:
1. for children and adults
2. for those who speak that language as their first language and those who speak it as their second
3. for private and public reading
Etc.
This raises a host of issues that makes the translation process more complex. What sounds to us like a more “earthy” and accurate translation may be shockingly offensive to many in our culture in a way that it wasn’t offensive originally. That’s why most English translations use euphemisms for bathroom and bedroom phrases. (On a practical level, I’m grateful for such all-purpose translations since our three-year-old daughter has recently been listening to an audio Bible for about 60–90 minutes each day!)
The difficulty you raise is how to translate a phrase that was shocking in the original. There are ways to do that, I think, that can convey the shock or earthiness without unnecessary offensiveness in our culture (e.g., translating σκύβαλα in Phil 3:8 as “garbage” or “rubbish” instead of a four-letter word that rhymes with spit). It’s a wisdom issue. There’s not necessarily one right way to do it for all times and places.
1 Kings 21:21 has to make this list. The KJV renders the idiom there word-for-word, while nearly every other translation essentially skips it for the sake of decency.
Good illustration, Jesse. Unfortunately, some people think that a more formal equivalent translation is necessary there!
Now that he mentions it, Crowley has a point. That works, too.
As someone beginning to learn Greek, your series of posts on translations of the Bible is really exciting. It really is a thought-provoking demonstration on the importance of properly interpreting Scripture and the necessity of all those called to preach the Word to have some background in the original languages of the Bible. I look forward to these daily. Thanks, Andy!
Bryan, I agree. You might find this tidbit interesting. At the KJV 400th Anniversary Conference at Baylor this April, Robert Alter noted that the translators intentionally did not use the language of their day. They wrote in the (already archaic) patois of the early sixteenth century and purposefully chose to adopt a dignified tone appropriate for a translation meant to calm the waters between warring Puritans (Geneva Bible) and High Church Anglicans (Bishop’s Bible). In other words, the KJV was not written in the contemporary language of early seventeenth-century England, nor was it always interested in conveying the tenor of the original manuscripts.
Andy, you suggest that some of these “earthy” passages were not as shocking to the original readers. Okay, fine. I’ll agree that you’ve raised an important note of caution. But how do you prove it? Like any scholar you’ve run into the classic question of how we know whether or not our cultural blinders have led us to misinterpret the data that we have. I would suggest—in full awareness of my lack of knowledge about Greek or Hebrew—that your concerns about propriety, especially the “what about the children” appeal, are uniquely modern concerns. The idea that children are innocents in needing of protection from the dirtiness of life is a modern cultural product. For example, prior to the nineteenth century, most English families slept in the same room or even the same bed. Do you think that their parents used euphemisms to protect their innocent ears from hearing about S-E-X?
Then again, I am not a biblical scholar. Perhaps my concerns are misplaced. I do wonder, however, how a law-abiding, synagogue-attending Jew could not have been aghast at the prophet’s comparison of their righteous acts to used menstrual cloths (Isaiah 64:6). It’s hard to imagine a metaphor better-calculated to outrage a Jewish audience. Does toning down Isaiah 64:6 (no matter how well-intentioned the reason) also have the effect of toning down the intensity of this expression of God’s hatred for our good works when done apart from Christ?
The problem with any Hebrew translation is that it is full of idiomatic expressions that are nearly impossible to translate word-for-word. Noses burn and nostrils smoke (anger), faces fall (sadness), people stand to the face of (before), kidneys (emotions), covering the feet, urinate in the wall (male), and more that can be named here.
Some of metaphors make sense in a contemporary English context. Others do not. The goal of biblical translation is to make the Bible understandable to the people—which requires both formal and functional translation within the Old Testament. I personally think that the prophets (and those quoting prophets—within the Kings and such) used purposefully shocking language (although I’m not sure if profane language existed as a societal no-no within the ANE) in order to prove a point (Isaiah and Jeremiah at points even mock their opponents).
Now with respect to dignity, I believe that the public reading of Scriptures should be extremely dignified (I work regularly with young people—ages 5-18), and when I’m reading the KJV (sometime’s I’ll use the ESV or NIV, depending what I have on me), I’ll actually change the language when one of the “bad” words comes up—in order to not cause a distraction. I think, perhaps, that the expressions can be explained (to both children and adults) in a manner that is discrete and appropriate—without the cultural-language shock.
Paul,
I think that the shock of the menstrual cloths is worse than you actually portray. The metaphor flies directly in the face to the Levitical laws of uncleanness—such uncleanness would necessarily separate the person from the community (for a woman, it would last 7 days—Lev 15:19-24)—and to be separated from the community was to be outside of the people of God—literally outside of the kingdom. To be outside of the people of God—was to be separated from God himself. Thus, Isaiah is stating that the sins of the people have removed them from the people of God and have separated themselves from God—their very righteousness (or what they think is their righteousness) is what has separated them from God. The shock is not in using the term “menstrual cloths” (lit. garments of a “period”—from the Aramaic root of “time”) but in the declaration of uncleanness. It truly is a statement of irony—that those who keep the law and seek after God (righteousness) would be turned away because their rejoicing and law-keeping is in itself uncleanness (thus the prayer for forgiveness in v. 9). The language itself is not a shock; the comparison is.