facing another translation issue
A few minutes ago I walked over to my wife and placed my face right up against hers. (We both enjoyed that!) I then asked her what I had done. She told me I had put my cheek next to hers and she was right. I added, "I could also say, 'I set my face against you.'" My wife is very biblically literate and immediately recognized that what I had said was funny. Let's see why.
In Lev. 26:17 the Hebrew text is literally translated as:
Several English versions have chosen to translate the Hebrew idiom literally to English, including KJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, REB, NET, NIV, and TNIV.
Other English versions translate the meaning of the original idiom as a whole, rather than the individual words of the idiom, including:
In your opinion, which of the two sets of translations listed above more accurately and clearly communicates the meaning of the Hebrew idiom to the widest number of English speakers?
In Lev. 26:17 the Hebrew text is literally translated as:
I will set my face against youRashi, the famous Jewish commentator, noted that the Hebrew for setting one's face against someone is an idiom. The specific kind of idiom used in the Hebrew text is a synecdoche, where a part of something represents its whole. In this case, the face, part of a person, represents the entire person.
Several English versions have chosen to translate the Hebrew idiom literally to English, including KJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, REB, NET, NIV, and TNIV.
Other English versions translate the meaning of the original idiom as a whole, rather than the individual words of the idiom, including:
I will turn against you (TEV, NLT, HCSB)Interestingly, in this case, the HCSB, often a fairly literal translation, renders the meaning of the Hebrew idiom, as a whole, rather than the meaning of its individual words.
I will turn from you (CEV)
I will be against you (NCV)
I will condemn you (GW)
In your opinion, which of the two sets of translations listed above more accurately and clearly communicates the meaning of the Hebrew idiom to the widest number of English speakers?
- those which translate the idiom literally
- those which translate the overall meaning of the idiom
posted by Wayne Leman at 2:02 PM
11 Comments:
I don't know Hebrew - but from what I've read - it seems like "I will be against you (NCV)" sounds the best to me and comes across as English with the meaning of the Hebrew.
yes, sungkhum, translating the meaning as a whole yet staying as close to the original words seems the best idea to me too. And the NCV did the best of that.
So, Wayne, how many Hebrew idioms do you know of that have been mished mashed into English losing their original intent? I would love to have a book in hand that listed every one of them.
So, Wayne, how many Hebrew idioms do you know of that have been mished mashed into English losing their original intent? I would love to have a book in hand that listed every one of them.
Oh, I don't know the number, but I love biblical idioms and have been collecting them.
You can click here to my collections.
Hang on a minute! You've set up the question to get the answer you wanted.
Which is the most accurate translation of the Hebrew? The one which preserves the foreigness of the idiom.
Which translation allows the reader to connect this expression with e.g. Num 6.25; Ps 13.1; 27.8 etc.?
Which translation connects with NT expressions about God's face = Jesus (Mark 1.2; Luke 1.76; 2 Cor 4.6)?
Interesting to note that 1 Peter 3.12 simply takes over the Hebrew idiom into Greek.
Also I'm wondering whether this idiom really is synecdoche; rather than the face representing the whole person it could be that the face represents/communicates the attitude of the person. (Can't put a linguistic label on this right now).
Peter remonstrated:
Hang on a minute! You've set up the question to get the answer you wanted.
No, if someone believes that a literal translation of an idiom more accurately commmunicates the meaning of the idiom, they are free to answer that way.
Which is the most accurate translation of the Hebrew? The one which preserves the foreigness of the idiom.
I disagree. The purpose of translation is to allow a speaker of one language to understand what was said in another language. Translating idioms literally blocks that from happening (without extrabiblical assistance, from a Bible teacher or footnotes).
IMO, a better place to preserve the foreignness of idioms is in footnotes which give literal translations of them. But the purpose of a translation itself is to allow those who do not read the source language to understand it in their own language. If this is not so, then, ultimately, we need to question why we translate at all. Would it not be better and more accurate to teach people the biblical languages rather than translating into foreignized English? A translation which translates figurative meanings will still reflect the foreign nature of the ancient biblical texts through all the propositions of those texts which refer to the foreign cultural elements of those ancient times.
Which translation allows the reader to connect this expression with e.g. Num 6.25; Ps 13.1; 27.8 etc.?
Intertexuality can be maintained with idiomatic translation of biblical idioms, as long as there is consistency. And we always have those technical footnotes to allow us to see the intertextual connections.
Which translation connects with NT expressions about God's face = Jesus (Mark 1.2; Luke 1.76; 2 Cor 4.6)?
I suggest that there is no connection between the Hebrew idiom for setting one's face against someone and the physical viewing of the face of someone, including the holy glow upon their face.
In all of this we must be careful that we do not read too much theological significance into figures of speech in the Bible, without paying attention to the meanings of those words (and idiomatic units, as a whole) in their original contexts.
I appreciate your words of caution and the opportunity to interact with them. Please keep commenting since you raise typical objections to translating the meaning of figurative language in the Bible rather than literal meanings of the figures. Extensive field testing demonstrates that literal translation of figurative language does not communicate figurative meanings from one language to another. Anyone who has seriously studied a foreign language to be able to speak it idiomatically soon discovers this fact.
As you know, there is a spirited debate taking place among people who care deeply about the Bible as to whether literal translation of biblical figures is better than translation of their figurative meanings. I guess we should always ask, "Better for whom?" and "For whom are we translating?"
I'm up for the debate. :-)
The big question for me is always: Which kind of translation most accurately *communicates* the original meaning to our translation audience.
Also I'm wondering whether this idiom really is synecdoche; rather than the face representing the whole person it could be that the face represents/communicates the attitude of the person. (Can't put a linguistic label on this right now).
Metonymy?? - "the substitution of one term for another having an associative relationship with it."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just a couple of points:
1. Peter said: "Hang on a minute! You've set up the question to get the answer you wanted."
Wayne answered: "No, if someone believes that a literal translation of an idiom more accurately commmunicates the meaning of the idiom, they are free to answer that way."
Exactly my point. The question needs to be set up in a more open manner. I might think that the main purpose of translation is to translate the idiom, not the meaning of the idiom.
2. You are inconsistent re footnotes. You see the supposed need for footnotes to a literal translation as somehow a problem, but then freely appeal to them for explanations of intertextual matters.
3. Wayne claimed: "Intertexuality can be maintained with idiomatic translation of biblical idioms, as long as there is consistency." I don't see how, since all references to God's face will disappear.
4. Wayne said: "Extensive field testing demonstrates that literal translation of figurative language does not communicate figurative meanings from one language to another." Can you point me to these studies?
5. Can "I am the sweet potato of life" ever be an adequate translation of John 6?
It is certainly the case here that the phrase is an idiom. But is the idiom that difficult to understand? Are not Biblical translators from opposing schools in a "face-off"? Will the defeated party "lose face." Will the winning party "face down" his opponent?
I don't know if the Hebrew idiom is difficult for non-biblicized people to understand or not. It's an empirical question and I would be happy to have it field tested to determine the answer.
As for "face off," "lose face", "face down," etc., these are English idioms, not Hebrew idioms. English idioms are perfectly valid in English translation, at least if they do not create an undesired sense of colloquialism which is not in the biblical text.
Translation professionals have noted for decades that idioms do not translate from one language to another. That is my point in this post. There is nothing wrong with having idioms in a translation. I happen to love idioms. But idioms in a translation need to be already extant in the receptor language, so that the speakers of that language understand their meaning.
Peter responded:
Just a couple of points:
1. .... Exactly my point. The question needs to be set up in a more open manner. I might think that the main purpose of translation is to translate the idiom, not the meaning of the idiom.
Then I would need to ask you if you believe that the purpose of translation is to enable someone to understand the meaning of a text in a language they do not understand.
I would need to point out that the experience of translators around the world and field testing of translations have shown that literal translation of idioms almost never accurately communicates the meaning of the original idiom.
Here's a quick test for you. Try to tell me the meaning of these idioms, literally translated from Cheyenne, the language I have been researching the past 30 years:
1. "I put on my mocassins with the morning star."
2. "The turtle is shrouded."
3. "I'm going to swallow a rock."
2. You are inconsistent re footnotes. You see the supposed need for footnotes to a literal translation as somehow a problem, but then freely appeal to them for explanations of intertextual matters.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow that. I never suggested that footnotes to a literal translation were a problem. In fact, I suggested them as a solution for those who want to have the cake (meaning) and eat it too (see the literal forms of the original texts).
3. Wayne claimed: "Intertexuality can be maintained with idiomatic translation of biblical idioms, as long as there is consistency." I don't see how, since all references to God's face will disappear.
No, they won't. Please re-read my comment. I explicitly stated that non-figurative references to God's face should be retained in a translation.
4. Wayne said: "Extensive field testing demonstrates that literal translation of figurative language does not communicate figurative meanings from one language to another." Can you point me to these studies?
Sure, I myself have conducted a fair amount of such studies. You can access some of them at:
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/survey.htm
Other linguists have conducted similar studies. I don't have references at hand, but you can google for them. Many who are professional translators regularly point out how literal translation of idioms doesn't communicate the meaning of the idioms. Some of the funniest humor on the Internet comes from literal translation of idioms. See, for instance:
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/8728/idioms.html
http://www.geocities.com/translation_information/rotten.htm
http://www.tagide.com/pt-idioms.html
5. Can "I am the sweet potato of life" ever be an adequate translation of John 6?
If a language has no word for bread, something has to be done, but there are a variety of solutions which have been used around the world. One solution has been to borrow a loan word from a national language. For instance, in Mexico if there is no word for "bread" in one of the indigenous languages, the Spanish word for "bread," pan can be borrowed.
Idioms are wonderful features of languages. They are unique to the languages they are used in. Their meaning almost never can be transferred from one language to another by word-for-word translation. I would encourage you to name any idioms you know in another language which have been literally translated to English with their original meaning understood.
Because idioms are phrase or clause units, the meaning of that entire language unit needs to be translated. That is accurate translation, bringing the meaning of the source form (the idiom form) to another language through translation. Translating form is important, but we must be sure we are translating the appropriate formal unit. Sometimes the appropriate level of form for translation is the phrase or clause, or a unit of rhetoric.
Wayne, thanks for the response(s). I obviously wasn't too clear. If the term "face" is not reproduced in an idiomatic translation of the various idioms in which God's face is used (to express displeasure, blessing, presence etc.) then of course any connection between them (intertextually signalled by the term "face") will be lost unless additional information, biblical teaching or footnotes are used to supplement the idiomatic translation.
It seems like you might prefer an idiomatic translation with notes signalling literal translation. I might prefer the opposite. Why is one better than the other?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home