W. Hall Harris III's Blog Netbible's Blog What does Yoda have to do with Bible translation?
Tweet
Now my point here is not at all to discuss the particular merits or disadvantages of either type of Bible translation, both of which have their strengths and weaknesses. Nor am I going to comment on the individuals involved, all of whom were gracious but passionate about their own views on the subject. I did feel at times like I was getting hit from both directions! (I was even seated in the middle.) But at one point the discussion came round to the issue of whether or not the desired ideal goal of a modern English Bible translation should be "natural English" (by which is usually meant English as it would be spoken or written by a native speaker in the late 20th/early 21st century). This was seen to be in contrast to some more literal Bible translation, which tends to preserve certain phrases and constructions as they are found in the Hebrew and Greek Bible, producing a form of English we might, for lack of a better term, label "biblical English." As an illustration we might take Phil. 2:25, which very literally in the Greek reads like this: "But I considered necessary Epaphroditus the brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier of me, but of you the messenger and minister of my need, to send to you." Now obviously this sentence makes for pretty awkward English and would not make a good translation by almost anyone's account (except perhaps a first-year Greek student struggling to translate the passage for the very first time). In the American Standard Version of 1901, acknowledged by many as the most "word-for-word" English translation of the Bible ever made, the verse reads: "But I counted it necessary to send to you Ephaphroditus, my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need." On the other hand, in more "natural" English, we might say it like this: "But I thought it was necessary to send Ephaphroditus to you, who is my brother, coworker, and fellow soldier, but is also your messenger and minister to me in my need." This is clearly a lot closer to what a contemporary speaker of English would say. And many modern English translations would do something similar, updating not just the words to current usage (very important in a Bible translation) but also the word order and phrase relationships.
It was at this point that I made my famous comment, "Understand Yoda perfectly well you can, even if natural English speak he does not." Now admittedly this is dealing with only one aspect of "natural" English, namely word order, and does not really deal with archaic usage or other aspects. But the point is this: native speakers can generally understand a written or spoken sequence pretty well somewhat independently of word order and phrase order, even though they realize it was not said the way they would say it themselves. And this leads to another point: In making Paul (or James, or John, or Matthew, or any of the biblical authors) sound like a speaker of contemporary English, are we leading people to make other unwritten (and perhaps unwarranted) assumptions about the way the biblical authors thought as well as wrote? Said another way, in creating a translation which does almost all the work for the reader of bridging the gap between the written ordinary Greek of the first century and the spoken or written English of the twenty-first century, have we made it too easy to think the ancients, because they seem to talk the same way we do, also thought and reacted the same way, or had the same world view? It seems to me the lesson of Yoda is that sometimes a little dose of "otherness" or "foreignness" can be a good thing, because it reminds us that we have to bridge that gap not just in terms of language, but in terms of culture, thought patterns, world views, etc. I am emphatically not suggesting this degree of "otherness" should be so great as to create a barrier to effective communication. But the understandability of Yodaspeak (and I have yet to encounter anyone, either young or old, who has had serious difficulty making sense of what Yoda said in the Star Wars films) reminds us that a fair amount of this "otherness" or "foreignness" is tolerable to the great majority of native English speakers without causing a breakdown in communication. And just a little bit of it is even desirable, because it reminds us that there is a distance in time, space, and culture to be bridged between "them and us" (Ps 50:21).
Now my point here is not at all to discuss the particular merits or disadvantages of either type of Bible translation, both of which have their strengths and weaknesses. Nor am I going to comment on the individuals involved, all of whom were gracious but passionate about their own views on the subject. I did feel at times like I was getting hit from both directions! (I was even seated in the middle.) But at one point the discussion came round to the issue of whether or not the desired ideal goal of a modern English Bible translation should be "natural English" (by which is usually meant English as it would be spoken or written by a native speaker in the late 20th/early 21st century). This was seen to be in contrast to some more literal Bible translation, which tends to preserve certain phrases and constructions as they are found in the Hebrew and Greek Bible, producing a form of English we might, for lack of a better term, label "biblical English." As an illustration we might take Phil. 2:25, which very literally in the Greek reads like this: "But I considered necessary Epaphroditus the brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier of me, but of you the messenger and minister of my need, to send to you." Now obviously this sentence makes for pretty awkward English and would not make a good translation by almost anyone's account (except perhaps a first-year Greek student struggling to translate the passage for the very first time). In the American Standard Version of 1901, acknowledged by many as the most "word-for-word" English translation of the Bible ever made, the verse reads: "But I counted it necessary to send to you Ephaphroditus, my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need." On the other hand, in more "natural" English, we might say it like this: "But I thought it was necessary to send Ephaphroditus to you, who is my brother, coworker, and fellow soldier, but is also your messenger and minister to me in my need." This is clearly a lot closer to what a contemporary speaker of English would say. And many modern English translations would do something similar, updating not just the words to current usage (very important in a Bible translation) but also the word order and phrase relationships.
It was at this point that I made my famous comment, "Understand Yoda perfectly well you can, even if natural English speak he does not." Now admittedly this is dealing with only one aspect of "natural" English, namely word order, and does not really deal with archaic usage or other aspects. But the point is this: native speakers can generally understand a written or spoken sequence pretty well somewhat independently of word order and phrase order, even though they realize it was not said the way they would say it themselves. And this leads to another point: In making Paul (or James, or John, or Matthew, or any of the biblical authors) sound like a speaker of contemporary English, are we leading people to make other unwritten (and perhaps unwarranted) assumptions about the way the biblical authors thought as well as wrote? Said another way, in creating a translation which does almost all the work for the reader of bridging the gap between the written ordinary Greek of the first century and the spoken or written English of the twenty-first century, have we made it too easy to think the ancients, because they seem to talk the same way we do, also thought and reacted the same way, or had the same world view? It seems to me the lesson of Yoda is that sometimes a little dose of "otherness" or "foreignness" can be a good thing, because it reminds us that we have to bridge that gap not just in terms of language, but in terms of culture, thought patterns, world views, etc. I am emphatically not suggesting this degree of "otherness" should be so great as to create a barrier to effective communication. But the understandability of Yodaspeak (and I have yet to encounter anyone, either young or old, who has had serious difficulty making sense of what Yoda said in the Star Wars films) reminds us that a fair amount of this "otherness" or "foreignness" is tolerable to the great majority of native English speakers without causing a breakdown in communication. And just a little bit of it is even desirable, because it reminds us that there is a distance in time, space, and culture to be bridged between "them and us" (Ps 50:21).
On Formality of Language
Interesting tagline, Hall. Glad to see you're blogging (again)!
I think you have a good point. Ease of reading
lead to one thinking ease of understanding, and the two are not remotely the same in many places in the scriptures.
Another thought in terms of language "formality". How much we tend to respect a text will naturally be affected by the tone of that text. I was once perusing through the shelves of a mall bookstore and found a translation that had God calling Abraham his homeboy, and if I remember right, the same kind of language was used in Abraham's responses. The question in my mind is, how does that affect the readers opinion of that text? Do you take a being seriously if he is spoken about in that kind of language? Or how about the t-shirts that say the same about Jesus being someone's homeboy? Or taking this focus off of a particular group's form of expression, how about some currents in evangelicalism that like to focus on Jesus as someone who is their best friend. In a sense that should be true. The scriptures call Abraham the friend of God, so the idea isn't completely wrong. But if that language is used pervasively, can it tend to take Jesus' role as king, as judge, as Lord, etc. and subvert them under a more palatable Jesus as friend motif? I would think how one addresses the divine can have major impact ultimately on how one actually relates to Him.
That relates pretty easily to bible translation. Can formality in bible translation help convey the exalted nature of God, and the importance of his revelation? If the answer is "yes", how does that fit in one's translation philosophy?
On formality of language
Eric, you've raised a good point but it goes a bit beyond what I was saying which was mostly limited to things like "word order" in "natural English" compared to word order in an ancient language text. Ultimately Bible translators walk a tightrope between the alternatives of easy communication using contemporary idiom on one side, and an elevated style worthy of the subject matter on the other. It seems to me, though, when the translation produces amusement in the reader rather than reflection or reverence, perhaps the line has been crossed. Naturally this will differ from reader to reader as well.
Hall Harris
W. Hall Harris III
Yes, I did go beyond what
Yes, I did go beyond what you said. I guess you inspired me :)
On a completely unrelated note, I'm having issues with your site's captcha. Either I have completely forgotten how to read these things, or something isn't working right!
Yes and No
You're right of course. But there is another side to the coin. I think that there is just as much a possibility that using foreign sounding English (or whatever language) in translation will cause readers to think that the language of the Bible is not foreign in the sense of 2000 years old, but rather in the sense that Paul and Matthew spoke and wrote in some sort of unnatural language, perhaps even spiritual language. This is surely what happened with KJV English - so much so that many senior citizens still pray with their "thee's" and "thou's." With that said, I sure you already know there are two ways on this street - risks on both sides. But I thought it should be stated.
PS - I do love the NET. I bought a copy for my wife (then fianc
The other side of the coin
Good point, Mike. We could certainly discuss what creates a useful sense of "otherness" versus what creates a feeling of being archaic (KJV) or merely "strange." Again, as I commented to Eric, my original musings were along the lines primarily of word order more than anything else (since moving words around from "normal" English is what Yoda seems to do most of the time. Obviously this is only one part -- some would argue a very small part -- of the bigger discussion of formal vs. dynamic equivalence in a translation.
Hall Harris
W. Hall Harris III
Re: The other side of the coin
I think that the NET's notes can go a long way in helping to avoid both extremes of familiarity and foreignness - even on the issue of word order, which is why I've appreciated using it and recommending it to others.
The problem of otherness
I find the whole discussion of choosing to translate "otherness" into the Scripture quite distressing. I believe we should treat the text of Scripture with so much respect that we quake in our boots to make it sound any way other than the way it sounded to the original audience. That's the absolute bottom line on all my posts about translation over on Better Bibles Blog. If people are really concerned about inerrancy, imposing our choices on Scripture seems the height of hubris. We must let the text speak for itself. (And before you jump to the conclusion that I'm naive in thinking this is possible, you might want to check my credentials. http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty.php)
With ancient texts, the "otherness" is built in
I am not sure if Richard is talking about the same kind of "otherness" I originally began with, or is responding to some of the comments made by others. Perhaps I was not clear enough to begin with: I was not, in the original post, referring to translating "otherness" INTO the biblical texts, but rather the opposite. I was referring to leaving some degree of "otherness" in an English translation (in other words, closer to formal equivalence, at least in terms of word order, which was the main point of the original post) as opposed to REMOVING the "otherness" by a much more dynamic equivalent translation which has Paul or Jesus speaking in some kind of 21st century idiom. It seems to me that this makes my position a lot closer to Richard's than he seemed to think (unless he was referring only to later comments) because to "let the text speak for itself" was pretty much what I was advocating, even when the text comes out sounding a little less "natural" in English, because most competent readers of English would still be able to understand it and get the point. For myself, I was not talking about making a biblical text sound more foreign than it already is. The past, after all, is a foreign country.
Hall Harris
W. Hall Harris III
Otherness is important
We can't get rid of otherness as if it were removing leaven for the Passover preparation. Have otherness in the translation is important; it's like different flavor or texture of a dish well prepared.
On the other hand, there is another kind of otherness which is not intrinsic in the original text. It is the style or tone of religiosity which is brought in during translation process. Yes, the Bible IS the Scripture for the established religion/denominations. However, for the sake of the people out in the world, the less otherness of this kind we have from religiosity (ecclesiastic jargons and idioms and style), the better off all of us will be.
re: yoda
Prof Hall,
Socioeconimic, technological and cultural conventions have lately made the English language quite volatile and have to therefore travel through a huge contuum before settling for the "acceptable" proper english in a world that is so diverse.
As a matterof fact, English is a second language to me and "yoda" as you put is my word. I seem process the scriputures much better from a yoda-type of translations than those custom tailored for english world. This hybrid is seemingly muddied and wordy and in most cases the meat is lost within the quest of making it acceptable as proper English.
I concur absolutely with you, that "Understand Yoda perfectly well you can, even if natural English speak he does not." It takes time ot peck the bone but at least you will get to the marrow.
I am yet to get a NET translations. I hope it has Yoda!
View from way down the totem pole........
And I do mean way down.
As someone raised on KJV and recently seeing the light of newer translations, I must say that to much obscurity in language can be very damaging to the rank and file. If I had a nickel for every goofball idea I've heard preached because someone understood their KJV incorrectly simply based on unfaimiliarity with archaic English I could probably retire.
It seems to me(someone who is not a scholar) that the best translation would communicate the information in the same way it was communicated to the original audience, which was in their everyday, normal language.
On the other hand I wonder if that is an impossibility because of the distance and difference in thought and culture between the original audiences and ourselves. For instance, how many modern westerners truly understand the relationship between master and slave as it was in ancient times ?
My personal method is not to depend entirely on one translation, but to compare several different types such as Formal Equivalent, Dymanic Equivalent, and Paprphrase, in order to get as close as possible to the original thought being expressed.
I don't know. Just my two cents.
This is why you fellas get paid the Big Money. :)
You're right, it's a balancing act
Bradley, you make some good points. You've essentially hit on the problem facing Bible translators when you say that on the one hand the best translation would communicate the information in the same way it was communicated to the original audience, in their everyday, normal language, but on the other hand because of the distance and difference in thought and culture many modern readers would not understand certain important issues in the biblical text. This is why all good translations of the Bible (NET Bible included, but certainly not limited to the NET) try to balance these two opposite objectives without going off one side or the other of the tightrope. Some issues, of course, involve so much historical and cultural background that they have to be dealt with not in the translation itself but in notes or commentary -- although here the NET Bible has perhaps the best of both worlds with its extensive note system.
Hall Harris
W. Hall Harris III
Re: Yodaspeak
To read your example of Yodaspeak "Understand Yoda perfectly well you can, even if natural English speak he does not", it would be nice to place a pause/break mark, such as
"Understand Yoda perfectly well | you can,
even if natural English | speak he does not."
Now the way it rolls on my tongue and rings in my ear, it sounds like a poem coming to be; With more lines, perfect rhyming there would be.
Thanks for block posting. I love Yoda character. My translation will be hard to match up with Yogaspeak.
Easy Communication in Bible Translation
Prof Harris,
I certainly agree that letting a little "otherness" into the mix is appropriate in Bible translation. So, as you might imagine, I prefer translations tending toward formal equivalence. Why would anyone expect that Jesus would talk like my next-door neighbor? And if they do expect that, why would a Bible translator cater to such a notion?
2 Peter 3:15-16 says that some things in Paul's letters are "hard to understand" (NET). Peter says the ignorant and unstable have special difficulty with that, but he does not say that someone ought to fix those Pauline letters to eliminate the problem.
The remarks above provide preface for a question: why are modern translations so driven to create "easy communication"? Even the NET is quick to replace a Greek pronoun with its supposed antecedent "for clarity." [For example, NET replaces an article behaving as a pronoun with "Jesus Christ" in 1 Pet. 4:5, though many commentators would replace with "God," if anything, to stick closer to the theology of Peter's letter.] I find it curious that the early Christians did not require such modifications in the text. Why do we have to do that today?
In my opinion, some translations (not NET) are busy dumbing-down the Bible in a manner that raises issues in relation to plenary verbal inspiration. If God didn't inspire the words, then we could just publish an easy-to-read synopsis and dispense with all the effort. I am exaggerating, of course, but it does trouble me that ease of communication has taken priority over accuracy.
I appreciate your commitment to scholarship through the years and your extensive work on the NET Bible!
-Barry
Dumbing Down of the Bible...and so much more.
You hit the nail square on the head with your comment about today's translations "...dumbing-down the Bible..."
I see the problem as more wide spread. Society today has made it almost necessary to reduce the expectations of people to allow those that do not want to think or work to keep up with the dedicated students, workers, etc. Because people think it is wrong to have competition, or make the requirements high enough that only a few people achieve certain accomplishments, it is expected that everything, even spiritual activities, should be less difficult.
If I remember right Jesus talked in parables so that only a few people would understand. Since He did not want to make it too simple, should we? There is a satisfaction associated with studying the Word of God and having the Spirit give the understanding.
Post new comment