Non-equivalence of Translation July 19, 2008
Posted by Damian in Translation & Linguistics.Tags: Aner, Back to the Sources, Barry Holtz, biblical languages, Bryan Lilly, caritas, charity, greek, Hebrew, Katagraphais, linguistics, translation, tzedek, tzedekah
trackback
I was recently reading Bryan’s blog, Katagraphais, where he said this “Aner does not mean man or husband; aner means aner.” (It’s not his line, and it’s out of context, but nevertheless it fits with what I’m going to say)
This is entirely true – word for word equivalence still does not have the same meaning as the original language. This was with respect (I believe) to the translation of Greek, but it applies to Hebrew, I feel, to a greater extent. A good example is found in ‘Back to the Sources’ by Barry Holtz:
“Indeed, to translate, for example, the Hebrew word Tzedekah as ‘charity’(the usual translation) one misses the point that the Hebrew word comes from the root meaning justice and righteousness: giving the the needy is a requirement, a matter of doing what is right. ‘Charity’ come from the Latin Caritas – love or caring; the idea there is that the giving depends ont he good will and deep feeling of the giver, not on the *obligation* to act with tzedek – justice.”
This is a strong example – and there are more, I’m sure – of how the translation – probably the best translation – communicates an entirely different concept than the original. This tells me that if I really want to get my hands on God’s word, I should look to the Hebrew and Greek, as even a range of translations can’t capture what ‘tzedekah’ really means.
I cannot tell which Bible passage you believe has been mistranslated. Are there particular verses?
The root of the Hebrew word tzedekah is thought to mean righteousness, meaning doing the right thing by humanity and God, which includes justice and charity, and one might add loving kindness and mercy. Although it is true that words in English do not have a one to one correspondence with ancient Hebrew or Greek, the translators of the major versions have always been sensitive to this problem. The translations do a fine job of expressing the Hebrew and Greek meanings.
Often when authors express a problem with the way a particular verse has been translated they are trying to make an argument about what we should believe or do. They are generally standing on very weak ground when they assert that they know better than the translators what a word means because most of the time they know much less about translation than the translators do. There are many ways to argue that God expects justice without fighting with translators.
I don’t think anyone could read the major translations and come away surprised to hear that God expects us to act justly.
In Deuteronomy 16:20, for example, tzedekah is translated justice in the RSV. just in the KJV, and “fair and just” in the TEV. It is translated as justice in Jewish translations as well.
Ultimately, justice is relatively easy, compared with mercy. The hard one is mercy – it requires love.
I do not mean to discourage you from learning Hebrew and Greek. I am glad that I have studied them, especially Hebrew.
When you refer in this posting to the Bible as “God’s word,” what do you mean? How do you know? I had the impression from a previous posting that you were not sure about that. Are the words in the Bible literally the word of God, or are they what people have said is the word of God? Is the word of God limited to the Protestant canon, the Catholic canon, or some other canon, or does it include other writings that are not in those canons? Is everything in the Bible the word of God, or only parts of it? Who decides? How?
I’m not making an argument about what I believe we should do here, Ken. I’m not arguing against any single bible verse – I’m simply putting forward an example of non-equivalence, something that I’m a strong believer in (having a background in linguistics).
I agree that translators do, for the most part, a fine part of expressing meanings – of course they understand the problems. But this doesn’t change the fact that there is non-equivalence between Hebrew, Greek and English words and concepts.
I think this comes across well in the forword of the NASB – “The NASB has been produced with the conviction that words of scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek were inspired by God.” No matter how good a translator is, it still doesn’t communicate the exact message that was inspired in the original language.
The issue of the Word of God is messy, as you observed. By it I meant the bible as inspired, in which case I point you back to the quote from the forward of the NASB. If you look back over some of my posts, you’ll find I struggle with canon a little – I plan to put a lot more effort into understanding what parts of the bible are inspired, if there are books that aren’t in the bible that are inspired (OT and NT).
I have a post addressing some of these issues here:
http://castleofnutshells.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/the-place-of-apocrypha-in-the-canon/
Your mention of the NASB reminds me of the biases each translation committee brings to its work: NASB-conservative, RSV-liberal protestant, NRSV – liberal and feminist protestant, NIV-evangelical, but less conservative than NASB, JPS-Jewish, (I think reform Judaism, but not sure,) New Jerusalem and New American-Roman Catholic, TEV-close to ecumenical, but uses a modern approach to translation rather than trying to track the Hebrew wording and grammar closely.
At the PCUSA seminary that I attended, the faculty and students disparaged using any translation other than the NRSV. Liberal protestants claim to be ecumenical, but what they really believe is that they hold the key to universal truth, which is basically what evangelicals and Catholics believe too – even though the truth is not the same in these three dominant American branches of Christianity.
My own studies in Hebrew and Greek, especially in Hebrew, convinced me that the translations come very close to the original languages although sometimes they miss plays on words and multiple meanings and humor. I think it does help to compare multiple translations and to read commentaries. I particularly like the Anchor Bible Commentaries. The editor, David Noel Freedman, who recently died, was my teacher and his integrity in such matters was exceptional. In the Anchor Bible series, the authors who are language scholars, rather than religion scholars, do their own translations and explain the basis for their translations. Their translations are no better than the standard ones, but the logic behind their translations (revealed in the commentaries) is illuminating. In addition, Dr. Freedman scrutinized every word, every translation and every comment to make sure it had integrity, and he was one of the masters of Bible scholarship in the twentieth century – one with no political or theological agenda in his work, but also a man who loved God.
I am afraid that the meanings are debatable even in the original languages. There is no way to settle the score in theological debates. I am afraid the best each of us can do is choose the translation we like the most. We can tell ourselves that this is a matter of conscience, but that may be a delusion. Liberal protestantism believes its conscience reveals the truth. I know from the inside of that tradition that on close inspection that conscience is rooted in a belief that freedom is the most important value in heaven and earth. I don’t think that is the case in the Hebrew or Greek texts of the Bible. I think in the Bible and the culture from which it came, freedom was not so important. Instead, what was important was living a life on earth that was in harmony with heaven.
There are, I am sure, equally difficult problems within evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. I just don’t know them so well from the inside.