|
290 - Translating For The Reader |
Translating For The Reader
By Robert G. Bratcher
THE almost simultaneous publication of two major revisions of the Bible in English is an impressive manifestation of the urge to make the biblical message available to people in language that is contemporary, natural, and understandable. Both the Revised English Bible (REB) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) make ease of understanding one of the principal aims of their translations. REB states that "the guiding principle adopted has been to seek a fluent and idiomatic way of expressing biblical writing in contemporary English. Much emphasis has been laid on correctness and intelligibility." The NRSV states that the biblical 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."
Notwithstanding the similar expressions of purpose by these two new Bibles, it should be kept firmly in mind that they represent two distinct philosophies of translation. The REB is what is called a dynamic equivalence translation, whose guiding principle has been memorably enunciated by that British man of letters, Hilaire Belloc: "The question is not, 'How shall I make this foreigner talk English?' but, 'What would an Englishman have said to express this?' [Translation is] the resurrection of an alien thing in a native body; not the dressing of it up in native clothes but the giving to it of native flesh and blood." More vividly, Martin Luther put it this way: "I endeavored to make Moses so German that no one would suspect he was a Jew."
I
The NRSV is the latest, and perhaps the last, in the long tradition that began with Tyndale and the King James Version, and it "remains essentially a literal translation," as Bruce M. Metzger states in "To the Reader." As far as possible, a literal translation tries to duplicate in the target language the semantic units, word order, grammar, and syntax of the original text. The King James Version, the (English) Revised Version of 1880, and the American Standard Version of 1901 represent in English the high watermark of the tide of literalism. The most notorious example is probably to be found in the KJV rendition of II Kg.
Robert G. Bratcher has been associated for many years with the American Bible Society and the United Bible Societies as Translation Consultant. He was the Chair of the Old Testament committee for Today's English Version (Good News Bible) and the translator of the New Testament. He has prepared several volumes in the series "Helps for Translators."
|
|
291 - Translating For The Reader |
19:35 (cf. Isa. 37:36): "and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses."
But more is involved in a literal translation than words and grammar, and that is the strangeness of the cultural setting of the original, so that a series of words strung together that faithfully represent the meaning of the individual words of the original may be quite meaningless to readers who belong to a completely different culture. Zeph. 1:12 is a case in point. RSV had "I will punish the men who are thickening upon their lees." What in the world does that mean? NRSV has "I will punish the people who rest complacently on their dregs." This is a bit more intelligible but is liable to be understood quite literally of derelicts on Skid Row. Was the prophet denouncing drunkenness? That is what NEB would have made us believe: "I will punish all who sit in stupor over the dregs of their wine." REB, however, by introducing a simile to clarify the Hebrew metaphor, says: "I shall punish all who are ruined by complacency like wine left on its lees." This is certainly an improvement and gives the reader a hint as to what the prophet was talking about.
The NRSV committee, conscious of the crippling effects of a strict adherence to a literal approach, followed the maxim, "As literal as possible, as free as necessary." Too often, however, they stuck to the first part of the maxim, not the second. Will the average reader understand Acts 27:9? RSV had "the voyage was already dangerous because the fast had already gone by." (The fast what?) NRSV is hardly an improvement: "sailing was now dangerous, because even the Fast had already gone by." What is the effect of "even" and the upper case initial letter of "Fast"? It should be noted that here NEB and REB are no better. NEB had "the fast was already over" and REB has "and with the Fast already over, it was dangerous to go on with the voyage." The reader is left helplessly adrift as to why it was dangerous to sail in the "Adriatic Sea" (or "sea of Adria") because the fast/Fast was over. A translation should be made for readers, not readers for the translation.
II
RSV was much more conservative in its dealing with textual matters than NEB. Especially in the Old Testament, NEB made choices that failed to meet widespread scholarly approval. REB has drawn back significantly from many of the idiosyncratic textual decisions of NEB, and should not cause the furor with which NEB was received. NRSV continues the conservative textual policy of RSV, with some significant changes.
The following list is not meant to be exhaustive, but concentrates on some of the better-known textual cruces.
The Masoretic Text (MT) of I Sam. 13:1 reads as follows: "Son of a year [was] Saul when he became king and two years he reigned over Israel." RSV had "Saul was j years old when he began to reign; and he reigned k and two years over Israel." For the first ellipsis, the
|
|
292 - Translating For The Reader |
footnote says: "The number is lacking in Heb"; for the second one: "Two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out." NRSV is the same as RSV.
NED had "Saul was fifty years' old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for twenty-two" years." Footnote t says: "fifty years: prob. rdg.; Heb a year"; and footnote u: "Prob. rdg.; Heb two." RED is different: "Saul was thirty years old twenty-two years ." The first footnote has: "thirty years so some Gk MSS; Heb a year"; the second footnote says: "twenty-two: prob. rdg.; Heb two."
The New Jewish Version (NJV) has handled this textual problem more straightforwardly. The verse reads: "Saul was years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel two years." Footnote a states: "The number is lacking in the Heb. text; also the precise context of the 'two years' is uncertain. The verse is lacking in the Septuagint."
Acts 20:28 has a textual problem whose solution affects the meaning of what follows. As Bruce M. Metzger states (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975), the external evidence "is singularly balanced" between "the church of God" and "the church of the Lord." As he points out, "the church of God" is the more difficult reading, because of the following "which he bought dia tou haimatos tou idiou." (The UBS Greek New Testament prefers "God," and gives the reading a Crating.) To read that the Lord (Jesus) bought the church with his own blood is unexceptionable; but to affirm that God bought the church with his own blood is startling. There is a strong possibility that tou idiou here is a title for Jesus, "God's Own," so that a translation that opts for "the church of God" (a textual decision) may translate "by means of the blood of his Own [Son]" (an exegetical decision).
RSV, with footnotes, had: "to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." NRSV is the same. NED read "the church of the Lord, which he won for himself by his own blood," with two footnotes indicating the possibility of translating "by the blood of his Own." Strangely enough, the notes label this a textual matter. RED text is the same, but the two footnotes have been collapsed into one, as follows: "Some witnesses read of God, which he won for himself by the blood of his Own."
Other major textual matters in the New Testament are handled differently by NRSV and RED. In John 7:52, RED has "the Prophet," a translation of ho prophetes; NED, RSV, and NRSV all read the anarthrous prophetes ("prophet"). John 7:53-8.11 in RSV was in the traditional place, with an explanatory footnote; NRSV has it in the same place, but within double brackets and with a footnote. NED and RED place the passage at the end of the Gospel. Mark 16:9-20 in RSV, with no brackets, was followed by the shorter ending, in footnote; NRSV has "The Shorter Ending" in double brackets following verse 8 and then "The Longer Ending" in double brackets. NED had the longer ending followed by the shorter ending, without any brackets; RED has the shorter ending without brackets, immediately after verse 8; then comes
|
|
293 - Translating For The Reader |
the Longer Ending, without brackets and with verse numbers. In I Cor. 13.3 only NRSV has the more difficult reading "that I may boast" in the text; the others have "that I may be burned." In Rom. 5:1, RSV and NRSV opt for the indicative mode, "we have peace and we boast". NEB had the subjunctive, but REB prefers the indicative. In Mark 1:41, RSV and NRSV follow the easier reading "Moved with pity," whereas NEB ("in warm indignation") and REB ("moved with anger") prefer the harder reading. And in Jude 5, RSV adopted Hort's conjectural reading "he who (saved a people out of the land of Egypt)"; NRSV has now become like NEB and REB, making "the Lord" the subject of the verb. The better attested text is Iesous, which may be understood to mean "Jesus" or "Joshua," neither of which makes much sense in the context. In John 19:29, NEB adopted the conjectural reading husso "javelin" (found in one eleventh century cursive), in place of hussopo, "hyssop," of the text. REB now follows RSV and NRSV in reading "hyssop."
III
While there is widespread agreement, if not unanimity, on the meaning of most of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) Old Testament and of the Greek New Testament, there are many places where scholars are sharply divided, and translations reflect those differences. This lack of consensus poses no great difficulty for students of the original texts, but many faithful Bible readers who have little if any technical knowledge of such matters may find it difficult to believe that a word or a phrase can be understood in so many different ways.
The final phrase of Psalm 23, which in the KJV reads "for ever," furnishes a good example. The "literal" meaning of the Hebrew text is "for length of days." The question is: in the context of Psalm 23 what does this expression mean? RSV, following KJV, translated "for ever," but NRSV has "my whole life long," which is what NEB had; but REB now reads "throughout the years to come" (which means practically the same as "my whole life long"). The meaning of harpagmon in Phil. 2:6 is a matter of debate: "Christ Jesus did not regard being equal with God harpagmon." Does this mean something to be snatched at or something to be held on to? RSV had "a thing to be grasped" (which was a vast improvement over KJV's "robbery"), but NRSV now reads "something to be exploited." NEB had "he did not think to snatch at equality with God," while REB now reads "he laid no claim to equality with God." It should be noticed that REB places the whole passage, 2:5-11, within quotation marks, indicating thereby that this is an early confession, not Paul's own words.
One of the mysteries of the NEB New Testament was its translation of ekklesia in Acts and the Epistles. In the Epistles, "church" referred only to the church as an institution; all local ekklesiai were "congregation(s)" or "community" or "the meeting" (I Cor. 14:24, 34). And in Acts, with the exception of two passages where ekklesia refers to
|
|
294 - Translating For The Reader |
the institution (20:28) or to territorial extension ("the church throughout Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria" in 9:31), all local ekklesiai outside Jerusalem were "congregations"; only in the case of the ekklesia in Jerusalem was the word "church" used. At least NEB was consistent, whereas REB is an inexplicable mixture, without any detectable rationale. The Jerusalem ekklesia is always "church" (5:11; 8:1, 3; 11:22; 12:1, 5; 15:4, 22); to be included also is the problematic passage 18:22 where the word most probably refers to the Jerusalem church: "On landing at Caesarea he (Paul] went up and greeted the church." The other ekklesiai, however, are sometimes "church" and sometimes "congregation." The one in Antioch of Syria is both: "church" in 11:26, 13:1, 15:23, and "congregation" in 14:27. There are "churches" in Lystra and Iconium (16:5), but "[each] congregation" in Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch (I 4:23); and in Syria and Cilicia (15:41) and in Ephesus (20:17) there are now "churches."
Other Greek words besides ekklesia are sometimes used for a local body of believers. Those that designate such bodies outside Jerusalem appeared as "congregations" in NEB; in REB there is no consistent pattern. Joppa may be a "church" (9:41) or a "congregation" (10:23). All the others are "congregations": Antioch of Syria (I 5:30); Thessalonica (17:6, 10); Beroea (I 7:14); Achaia (I 8:27), and Ephesus (I 9:9). But it is "the church" in Judaea (11:1) and in Jerusalem (12:17).
A reviewer ponders this lack of consistency and wonders whether the painful, laborious, and time-consuming checking that all responsible translations require was slighted.
After reaching a decision about the form and meaning of the original text, the translator must then decide how the meaning of the original is to be transferred faithfully and clearly into the target language so as to be, if at all possible, as clear to the readers of the translation as the original text was to the original readers. The translator's reach must always exceed his or her grasp, for the translator's ideal is that the readers of the translation understand the text as much and as well as did the readers of the original text.
Here translation becomes less a science and more of an art. But, as with all good art, there are certain principles to be applied that will spell a crucial difference between a good and a poor translation. We have already called attention to two passages, Zeph. 1:12 and Acts 27:9, where it is surely evident that today's reader of these translations will have a very difficult time understanding what the text is talking about. The tendency on the part of translators to use archaic or obsolete words and phrases goes against the purpose of translation, so eloquently expressed by the KJV "Translators to the Reader":
Translation it is that openeth the window to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water ."
|
|
295 - Translating For The Reader |
But how often, and how persistently, does the window remain closed, the shell unbroken, the curtain not drawn, the cover still in place!
The NRSV is to be commended on the extent to which it has removed archaic and obsolete terms and expressions. "Lo" and "behold" (as interjections) are now gone, banished to the outer darkness; "verily" and " verily, verily" have been replaced by "Very truly" (see John 3:3, 5, 11). The Santa Clausian "Ho! ho!" and "Ho!" of Zech. 2:6-7 is also gone, and will not be missed. It is strange, therefore, that "Hark" is still to be found in some passages (Jer. 8:19; 25:36; 48:3); in the majority of cases, however, it has been replaced by "Listen!", once by "Hear!" (Jer. 8.22), and once by "Look" (Acts 5:9); in Ps. 118:15, it is not formally represented by an English word.
The metaphorical use of "daughter of " to designate a people or a community, as in "daughter of Zion," still survives, slightly changed to "Daughter Zion." Is this an improvement? Does "O oppressed virgin daughter Sidon" (Isa. 23:12) convey the pathos of the oracle? The change of the phrase "the daughter of my people" is to be commended. It now reads "(the destruction of) my beloved people" (Isa. 22:4), and " my poor people" (Jer. 6:26; 8:19, 21, 22).
With the exception of newspaper headlines pressed for space, is the verb "to gird" used in modern English? One hardly runs across it anywhere else. Yet the Almighty still tells Job, "Gird up your loins like a man" (Job 40:7). And Elisha commands Gehazi to gird up his loins (II Kg. 4:29), and issues the same order to a ministerial trainee (II Kg. 9:1). As they depart Egypt, all the Hebrews are to have their loins girded up (Ex. 12:11); but Jesus no longer tells his disciples, as they leave, "let your loins be girded"; instead, he says, "be dressed for action." The " capable wife" (not the "good wife" of RSV), so highly praised in Prov. 28, no longer "girds up her loins with strength" (v. 17); instead, she " girds herself with strength," The change made in Rev. 15:6 raises the interesting question as to the sexual identity of angels. In RSV, they seemed clearly to be female, inasmuch as the seven angels had "their breasts girded with gold girdles." But in NRSV, they have "golden sashes across their chests," which makes them seem male.
"Horn" as a metaphor for strength and power continues in NRSV to be lifted up, exalted, raised up, and caused to sprout (Ps. 132:17) in all passages where the word occurs in the Old Testament (II Sam. 22:3, and nine passages in the Psalms). In its sole occurrence in the New Testament (Luke 1:69), however, "a horn of salvation" has been replaced by "a mighty savior," with a footnote: "Gk a horn Of salvation." Yet, in II Sam. 22:3 and Ps. 19:2, "my shield and the horn of my salvation" remains undisturbed.
IV
In many instances, translators feel less than completely confident that they have made the right choice. Arguments for and against a given expression can easily go either way, and the decision may change from
|
|
296 - Translating For The Reader |
one day to the next. Take the decision to change RSV "peace offering" (cf. Lev. 3; 7:11-34; 22:21-25) to "a sacrifice/an offering of wellbeing." Given the uncertainty over the etymology and precise meaning of the Hebrew word, translations differ in their rendering of the term. In Num. 6:17, for example, NRSV reads "and shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of well-being to the LORD," which agrees with NJV. NEB and REB have "a shared offering," while the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) has "communion sacrifice," and Today's English Version (TEV) and the New International Version (NIV) have "fellowship offering."
The question as to what the reader will understand should never fail to be addressed. Readers whose only knowledge of the nature and purpose of the sacrifice derives from the English term will arrive at different conclusions. It would seem that the traditional "peace offering" leads the average reader to conclude that the purpose of the sacrifice was to bring about peace between the offerer and God. And it appears likely that " an offering of well-being" will lead most readers to conclude that the purpose of the sacrifice was to make the offerer feel good. As for NEB and REB, "a shared offering," most readers will probably think that the offering was shared by several people, either in its presentation or its consumption. That would also be the natural reaction to "fellowship offering" of TEV and NIV. What is the translator to do? Can the results of the choice of a term be predicted? Not with complete certainty, but implications certainly should be a matter of deliberation. What will the reader understand? That is the question.
The use of traditional language may, at times, be ludicrous and the effect ridiculous. Take Ps. 147:10, where in RSV we read that the LORD's "delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the legs of a man." RSV translators knew what the Hebrew expression in part b of the verse meant, so why did they fail to translate it? NRSV has "nor his pleasure in the speed of a runner," which is better. (But footnote b reads: "Heb legs of a person.") How did NEB handle this one? "The LORD sets no store by the strength of a horse and takes no pleasure in a runner's legs"; but REB moved closer by saying "does not delight in a runner's fleetness." So, little by painful little, the shell is cracked and the cover of the well is removed.
"Saints" has disappeared completely from the NRSV Old Testament, except in Ps. 31:23 (surely an oversight). In II Chron. 6:41, twelve passages in the Psalms, Prov. 2:28, and seven times in Daniel, "saints" has been replaced by "(your/his) faithful (ones)," and by "(the/his) holy ones" twice in Psalms and in all occurrences in Daniel. In the New Testament, however, the "saints" keep marching on to the tune of the RSV. "Sanctification" and "sanctify " remain, with the exception of Eph. 5:20, where "he might sanctify [the church]" has been replaced by "in order to make her holy."
Consistency is a quality highly to be desired in a translator or a committee of translators. Consequently, when the translators and revisers, with all their competence and dedication, fail to be consistent,
|
|
297 - Translating For The Reader |
the inquiring reader is somewhat put off. Not to belabor the point unduly, but how do the REB revisers explain the differences between Ex. 20:2-5 and Deut. 5:6-9, when the Hebrew text is identical in both passages? NEB translated Ex. 20:3 (cf. Deut. 5:7) "you shall have no other god to set against me." REB has Ex. 20:3: "You must have no other god besides me," and Deut. 5:7, "You must have no other gods beside me." Is this a typo? And REB for Deut. 5:6 has "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of that land where you lived as slaves," while Ex. 20:2 reads: "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" (which is what NEB had for both passages).
In its commendable effort to eliminate exclusive (male oriented) language (which other contributors in this symposium have addressed), NRSV occasionally comes a cropper. Ps. 19:12 reads: "But who can detect their errors?" in the place of RSV "Who can discern his errors?" Unless otherwise marked, " who" is normally read as a singular, not a plural; and in this context there is nothing to indicate that it functions as a plural. The grammatical antecedent of "their" can only be "the ordinances of the LORD," the subject of verses 9b-11.
V
To end this brief and somewhat inconclusive review, REB and NRSV are good translations. They are excellent translations, and they are to be received and used gratefully as improvements over NEB and RSV. But they could be better, and in time a second edition of both should be issued.
Almost by chance I have found only one clear mistake: REB Ecclesiasticus 3:20b reads "yet he reveals his secrets to the humble," but this is line b of v. 19, which is in the footnote. In the text, verse 20b should be "and he is honoured by the humble" (see NEB).
The opening lines of the Bible furnish a splendid example of the strengths and weaknesses of each revision and of the changes they embody. RSV's rendition of Gen. 1:1 -2 was hardly distinguishable from KJV: "In the beginning God created a the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit b of God was moving over the face of the waters." The note on "a" read: Or When God began to create, and for "b"-Or wind.
NRSV is as follows: "In the beginning when God created a the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God b swept over the face of the waters."
a Or when God began to create or In the beginning God created
b Or while the spirit of God or while a mighty wind
In sharp contrast, REB has pulled back from the freedom displayed by NEB in its translation of these two verses. NEB read: "In the
|
|
298 - Translating For The Reader |
beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth,' the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept b over the surface of the waters."
a Or In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
b Or and the spirit of God hovering.
REB has: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; the earth was a vast waste, darkness covered the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water."
1:1-2 In earth was: or When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was. 1:2 the spirit hovered; or a great wind swept; or a wind from God swept.
It is uncanny the way both revisions have reversed courses, so that NRSV is now where NEB was and REB is where RSV was!
But it must be said that in this passage neither NRSV nor REB matches NJV: "When God began to create a heaven and earth-the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from b God sweeping over the water-God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."
a Others "In the beginning God created."
b Others "the spirit of."
Surely here the curtain has been drawn and the reader has been allowed to look into the most Holy place.