This is part 8 of a nine-part series on divine authority in Bible translation. The full series can be accessed here.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9
In Part 7, we argued against the common claim that highly dynamic translation styles are justified by the ways the biblical authors used earlier Scriptures. We now return to the sounder ground that we covered in Part 6, namely, the idea that true “meaning-based” translation requires as high a level of “interpretive resemblance” as possible. We noted that for translation to be truly “meaning-based” does not mean that translators have explained everything that the original texts did not, and clarified everything that the original texts left ambiguous, but rather that a reader of the translation could come to the same understanding as a reader of the original language texts.
Interpretive resemblance is a very important aspect of meaning, but there is more to translation than matching interpretive resemblance. In particular, it is important that translators look not just at what a text says, but also in how it says it.
In many cases, multiple options exist in a language that could satisfy the goal of maximizing interpretive resemblance for a phrase or passage. But there is value in looking at the way the original human author wrote God’s breathed-out words, and considering why God chose to inspire that particular way of saying things. Was there more than one way that the idea could have been expressed in the original language? If so, what can we determine about the different nuances of those ways, and how can we ensure that the translation is faithful to those nuances as much as possible—faithful to the particular way that God chose for those ideas to be expressed?
It is surprisingly common for translators to disregard the particular way that God chose to express his truth through the original authors as mere “form,” as if the particulars of the original inspired text are irrelevant. No good translator would prioritize form over meaning (at least not intentionally)—if they truly believed form had priority over meaning, they wouldn’t bother translating, but would just keep the Greek or Hebrew text! But it is a false dichotomy to say that form is irrelevant to meaning—all meaning is embedded in forms, whether words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs, and those forms contrast with other forms that have different meanings. As we discussed in Part 2, the Word of God is flawless, and its perfection extends to the smallest linguistic level, including words or even parts of words. Translators, therefore, need to look carefully at the particular choices the inspired authors made, and how those choices contrast with similar forms they did not choose. They must then translate in a way that honors those choices and their significance.
Giving weight to expressive resemblance also respects God’s choice of specific individual human authors, with their own styles. Translators should seek to maintain “even the quirks of a given biblical author” in translation,1Ryken, 226. within the limits of the language of translation and the need to maintain interpretive resemblance. Tony Naden puts it colorfully: “[I]t is part of the meaning of a prophet to sound like one, rather than like a schoolmarm…[By pursuing clarity above respect for the original style,] the prophet is ‘translated’ from a powerful sloganeer to a heavy, long-winded preachifier.”2Naden, 334.
As Part 4 makes clear, this does not mean that translators should always be bound to use the exact forms or syntax of the original languages. When the languages differ in a way that would make a more literal translation give wrong meaning, translators should look for ways to preserve the meaning and interpretive potential of the original language text. But translators who wish to create a translation able to meet the sola scriptura function should not edit the text in translation to say things that the original authors could have said, but did not.
The Bible As Art
A common target of translators seeking to increase the clarity of a translation is metaphor and figurative language. As we saw in Part 5, God uses figurative, sometimes elusive language for very specific purposes, even when it sometimes confuses listeners or readers. As Raymond Van Leeuwen says:
Biblical metaphors drop into our hearts like a seed in soil and make us think, precisely because they are not obvious at first. The translator who removes biblical metaphors to make the text “easier” for readers may defeat the purpose of the Holy Spirit, who chose a metaphor in the first place.3Van Leeuwen, “We Really Do Need Another Bible Translation.”
This does not apply to fixed idiomatic expressions that have the wrong meaning in translation, such as “long-nostriled” for “slow to anger.” But a great deal of biblical language relies on metaphor and figurative language to communicate deeper truths than what can be communicated by straightforward, “factual” statements. “Meaning” itself cannot be reduced simply to what can be logically inferred. As C.S. Lewis wrote, “Reason is the natural organ of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.”4C.S. Lewis, “Bluspels and Flalansferes.” 10.
This can also extend to other literary forms such as the deliberate repetition of certain words, the use of longer or shorter sentences, common or rare words, and even the sounds and rhythm of the language itself. Clearly, not all of these literary features will be successfully transferred in translation, especially if one prioritizes interpretive resemblance over artistic form. But to the extent possible without distorting the conclusions one can draw from the text, Bible translators should strive to carry over the literary and artistic aspects of the text, and not dismiss them as merely “form.” As Robert Alter notes, “the Hebrew Bible by and large exhibits consummate artistry in the language of its narratives and of its poetry, and there must be an answering art in the translation in order to convey what is remarkable about the original.”5Robert Alter, The Art of Bible Translation (Princeton University Press, 2019), 16.
Even within the constraint of maximizing interpretive resemblance, there is much that translators can do to respect and seek to represent the artistry of the God-breathed Word. After all, “Bible translations are not simply set-apart human words that convey divine information, but vehicles of divine formation and means of grace.”6Vanhoozer, 383. The particular and beautiful way that the message is communicated is itself part of that grace that translators should seek to bless their readers with.
Following the Pattern Given Us
A helpful analogy of the translator’s task is found in Exodus, when the LORD gives Moses detailed instructions for how he wants the tabernacle, along with its furnishings, clothing for the priests, and other objects, to be made. God tells Moses to build everything “exactly as I show you” (Exodus 25:9), and says, “See that you make them according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain” (25:40; see also similar injunctions in Exodus 26:30 and 27:8).
God then says that he has chosen Bezalel, saying, “I have filled him with God’s Spirit, with wisdom, understanding, and ability in every craft” (Exodus 31:3), as well as Oholiab. God says he has “put wisdom in the heart of every skilled artisan in order to make all that I have commanded you” (31:6, CSB), and that “they must make them exactly as I have commanded you” (31:11).
God ordained and authorized Bezalel, Oholiab, and the other skilled craftsmen to “translate” the pattern and instructions into a three-dimensional physical reality. He himself “put wisdom” in them to accomplish this task, and gave them certain creative freedoms. He did not, for example, tell them exactly what temperature to melt the gold, or precisely where to get the dye for the blue cloth. But Bezalel and the others did not have the freedom to decide, for example, “I know it was supposed to be bronze, but I think gold will look better here,” or “This beautiful embroidered cloth I’ve made should be displayed more prominently. Why not put it over here instead?”
In an analogous way, God has made clear that he wants his Word to go out and be understood by all nations. Bible translation is a key component of “making disciples of all nations…and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded them” (Matthew 28:20). He has also given linguistic and literary skill to people and “placed wisdom” in them to understand the biblical languages, how their own languages work, and how to handle differences between languages. He expects translators to use that wisdom to refrain from overly literal translations that do not match the interpretive potential of the originals, and does not tell translators exactly how this should be done. But translators must be faithful to the pattern given them, and cannot simply decide to make the text “clearer,” less “offensive,” or otherwise make changes that treat the original text itself as somehow deficient. Just as God made specific choices for the pattern of the tabernacle, which the craftsmen were not authorized to change or ignore, the Holy Spirit made specific choices in the original languages through the human authors. Translators must honor those choices and stay faithful to them as they use their God-given wisdom to accomplish the task of translation.
“Form” is Often Meaningful
Most of the time, a failure to respect the choices made in the original languages will result in a loss of interpretive resemblance as well as expressive resemblance. For example, when translators replace metaphorical or figurative language with explicit, analytical language they consider clearer, meaning is lost as a result. As Anthony Nichols says:
[A]mbiguity, arresting imagery, and the evocation of multiple associations pervade the Bible. Jesus himself often used such language to shock or puzzle the hearer, to force him to introspect, or to look at things in a completely new way. The substitution of paraphrase for metaphor always involves loss of meaning.7Nichols, 300.
The meaningfulness of “form” is also found in particular word choices. For example, in 1 Peter 1:25, when Peter quotes Isaiah 40:8, he says that “the word of the Lord” (τὸ…ῥῆμα Κυρίου) abides forever, even though Isaiah has “the word of God” here in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint Greek. Peter is not accidentally misquoting; instead, his use of “Lord” here makes it easier for readers to connect YHWH, whose name is usually rendered “Lord” in the New Testament, with Jesus, who is also often called “Lord” in the New Testament. Using “the word of God” here (as the Septuagint has: τὸ…ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ) would make this connection more difficult, since Jesus is only rarely called “God” in the New Testament. Indeed, Peter follows up by saying that “This is the word that was proclaimed as good news [Greek evangelisthen, or ‘evangelized’] to you.” Peter’s use of evangelisthen here strengthens the connection with Jesus. So Peter’s particular choice of “Lord” instead of “God” here shifts how readers would interpret the phrase.8This is another example of how the New Testament authors actively engage with, rather than simply “translate,” Old Testament material, thus having only a limited application to our role as translators; see part 7. Disregarding this difference for the sake of “harmony” with Isaiah would not respect the Holy Spirit’s choice through Peter, lessening the expressive resemblance. But it would also lessen the interpretive resemblance by making readers less likely to consider Jesus as the one whose Word lasts forever.
The Value of Expressive Resemblance on its Own Terms
In some cases, though, no discernible difference in interpretation is obvious even after careful thought, but the particular choices made in the original languages can still be respected. For example, rhetorical questions are often used in Hebrew and Greek for emphasis, such as in Psalm 18:31, which reads, “For who is God, but YHWH?” The rhetorical question emphasizes the fact that there is certainly no God but YHWH. Both Hebrew and English use rhetorical questions in this same way. Some translators, out of fear that a rhetorical question might be misinterpreted as a genuine question, might change this in English to something like, “The LORD alone is God” (as the Good News Translation has). While this arguably has essentially the same basic meaning as a rhetorical question, it ignores the fact that the original psalmist could also have written a direct statement in Hebrew, but chose a rhetorical question instead. Some languages do not use rhetorical questions, and would need to use some type of emphatic statement to carry the same meaning. But English uses rhetorical questions just like Hebrew, so there is no justification for departing from the pattern given in Hebrew here in an English translation intended to fulfill the sola scriptura function.
Another example is the preservation of word play and puns. When Joseph interprets the cupbearer and the baker’s dreams for them, he tells the cupbearer, “Within three days, Pharaoh will lift up your head and bring you back to your position” (Genesis 40:13). The phrase “lift up your head” is a Hebrew idiom meaning “to be mindful of” or “to pay attention to,” often with the positive connotation of remembering and helping in one’s trouble. The baker, hearing this positive interpretation, eagerly asks Joseph for the interpretation of his dream. Joseph, in reply to the baker, starts out in the exact same way as he did with the cupbearer: “Within three days, Pharaoh will lift up your head”—but then adds the startling phrase “off of you”—indicating the baker’s decapitationǃ The word play here is important both to the meaning and to the emotional effect of the story. The ESV in English captures this by translating, “In three days Pharaoh will lift up your head—from you!” (Genesis 40:19). Compare this to the NET, which simply says, “In three more days Pharaoh will decapitate you,” completely losing the way that Joseph starts the interpretation in the same, seemingly positive way as he did with the cupbearer. In this way, the emotional effect and dramatic literary quality—features which do so much to help us learn and remember—are lost.
Word play is often quite difficult to translate. Not all languages will be able to preserve this or other examples of word play without distorting the meaning. But those that can, should, and those that cannot should either indicate the word play in notes, or use a more literal expression in the text while clarifying its meaning in notes.
Like interpretive resemblance, there are times when some loss of expressive resemblance is unavoidable. For example, there are three Hebrew words meaning “God”: el, eloah, and elohim. All three are likely related, and there is no clear difference in meaning. Hebrew texts with both el and elohim are quoted using theos in Greek (e.g. Matthew 1:23 for el, Mark 12:29 and others for elohim). Although one could try to maintain some distinction by arbitrarily using different words in English, or even different spelling of the word “God,” such solutions cause some loss of meaning. In this case, it is better to translate all three as “God” than to force a subtle distinction that does not exist in English, however it may have played into the artistry and nuance of the original text.
Summary
One the one hand, it is important for translators to take seriously the particular forms found in the original language texts, even when no obvious meaningful distinction exists. On the other hand, as we have seen, translators must also take care not to distort the clear meaning of the text by overly literal translation and thereby lose interpretive resemblance, or force distinctions that do not exist in the language of translation. Like skilled craftsmen, translators should use their God-given wisdom and linguistic skill to create beautiful and faithful representations of the pattern given them. They should not, however, try to decide for themselves what is “beautiful” at the expense of faithfulness to the pattern of the original language text they are called on to translate.
This is part 8 of a series on divine authority in Bible translation. The final part will emphasize the need for all language groups to have one or more translations that can serve the sola scriptura function, note how far we have to go in this goal, and call the church to a renewed effort to accomplish this essential task. The full series can be found here.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9
0 Comments