Translation?

  וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, קֻם לָךְ; לָמָּה זֶּה, אַתָּה נֹפֵל עַל-פָּנֶיךָ

So the Lord said to Joshua, “Stand up! Why is it that you have fallen on your face?  Joshua 7:10 NASB

וַיֹּאמֶר  – “What is the best translation?”  Perhaps this is the most frequent question I am asked.  In the past I have often replied, “Every translation has its difficulties.  Just be aware of them and choose the one that brings you nearest to God.”  But that might be a mistake, because “translation” itself might be a mistake.

“Translation.”  The claim of any Bible except the one in the original language.  And, unfortunately, the word itself contains the mistaken idea that translation conveys the same meaning as the original.

When the violin repeats what the piano has just played, it cannot make the same sounds and it can only approximate the same chords.  It can, however, make recognizably the same “music,” the same air.  But it can do so only when it is as faithful to the self-logic of the violin as it is to the self-logic of the piano.

Language too is an instrument, and each language has its own logic.  I believe that the process of rendering from language to language is better conceived as a “transposition” than as a “translation,” for “translation” implies a series of word-for-word equivalences that do not exist across language boundaries any more than piano sounds exist in the violin.

The notion of word-for-word equivalents also strikes me as false to the nature of poetry.  Poetry is not made of words but of word-complexes, elaborate structures involving, among other things, denotations, connotations, rhythms, puns, juxtapositions, and echoes of the tradition in which the poet is writing.  It is difficult in prose and impossible in poetry to juggle such a complex intact across the barrier of language.

Translator’s note[1]

If Ciardi is correct (and I am fairly sure he is), then reliance on a translation would be the equivalent of listening to Beethoven’s Ninth on a synthesizer.  You might as well take the Pidgin English Bible as the correct rendition of John’s Gospel.  Try this for John 1:1-5:

How God Word Com Mit Us

1From wen taim bigin na im di word dey, and di word dey wit God, and God kpa kpa Imsef na im bi di word. 2Di word dey wit God from wen taim bigin. 3Na im make everitin and if no bi sey na in make dem, dem for nor dey for dis world. 4Na im bi life and dat life na im bi di lite wey pipol get. 5 Di lite dey shine for darkness but darkness no gri wit Am.

The purpose of such translations is not to represent what the Bible says in a native tongue.  It is to communicate a theological message.  If you want to know what God said to the Israelites, then learn their language, but if you’re only interested in communicating what you think is the proper theological outcome, then translate.  Just don’t pretend that your translation is an exact copy of the original.  A violin is not a piano and “soul” is not nephesh.

You use a translation because it’s easier, but in the process you deny yourself the opportunity to hear the full symphony, to appreciate the intertwined poetry, to reveal in the depths of the words.  You settle for what you believe is true, the reinforcement of your preconceived ideas about God and His instructions.  Perhaps a passing grade is enough, but it’s a far cry from excellence.  You’ve got the rest of your life.  Why not learn what He really said?

Topical Index: translation, Pidgin English, וַיֹּאמֶר, said, Joshua 7:10

[1] Dante Alighieri , The Inferno, translated by John Ciardi (Signet Classics, 2001), p. ix.