Is Biblish a sacred language?
Posted on February 13, 2008
Filed Under bible translation
In the continuing comments to John Hobbins’ post on whether the CEV and NLT are written in beautiful English, Kevin P. Edgecomb has weighed in with an argument regarding Bible translation against the scope of cultural miscellany that it was written in:
Context isn’t merely intratextual, but intertextual, and in this case also intracultural. The Bible, taken as a whole, is not meant to stand on its own, but as a text existing within a tradition, which will involve numerous other texts belonging to that tradition. For those who advocate a simplifying of the text to make it effective independent of that traditional context, I’d simply have to ask, “What’s the point?”
The very reason that folks wish to make such transparently legible translations is patently not for the litterateurs, but for the benefit of the (presumably new) faithful. It’s the responsibility of the community of the tradition of the text (that is, the tradents quite literally, those who present the text to those who’ve not had it before) to remain engaged in meaningful exegesis and indeed a certain amount of education, to explain such things as “way of all the earth”, “gathered to his fathers”, and “pearls before swine.”
To attempt to simplify the text in order to make it able to stand on its own without a community is something of a dereliction of duty, it seems to me. Likewise, too simple a translation will cause problems for those who later approach a more literal text.
If I’m reading Kevin’s comment correctly, he’s arguing that it is the responsibility of teachers and pastors to educate the less-informed on not only the textual issues of the original languages, but the cultural context as well. To which I would ask, if the Bible is meant for all nations, all peoples, all languages, what is so divine about the Hebrew culture that our interpretative lenses must be focused through it, that our translations must preserve the context of foreign tradition at the expense of modern understanding? Isn’t this elevating the Hebrew context to the realm of the sacred?
If you view the Bible as the revealed, inspired moral will of God, then where are you drawing the line on what is sacred and what is not? Isn’t it this mindset that then leads to the view that the Bible should be translated in “sacred language”, set apart from the normal linguistic rules of a receiver’s language? Yet isn’t this separation of the sacred and the profane what the reformers argued against?
Our traditional English translations have been preserved in Biblish, the “sacred English” that keeps the Bible separate from the profane context of our culture. The KJV translators deliberately chose language that spoke of and in antiquity, not the language of their culture. Is Biblish the ultimate result or manifestation of the demand that Christians be “in our culture, but not of our culture”?
Yet translating the text within the intracultural context of the receiver language doesn’t seem “a dereliction of duty” to me; indeed, it seems an even more sacred presentation of God’s Word that allows the Holy Spirit even more intimacy within those who hear and understand the call and claims of the Cross.
Update: be sure to also read John’s follow up post on field testing the passage in question from 1 Kings using the REB, a literary translation outside of the KJV/Tyndale translation tradition.
Comments
16 Responses to “Is Biblish a sacred language?”
Leave a Reply
I agree with Kevin completely. We can be guilty of dealing in caricatures in these kinds of debates. I would hate to read a dumbed-down version. But I don’t think that is the case with CEV and NLT. Both of them render “pearls before swine” directly, just in the clearest possible English. That expression works while “go the way of all the earth” doesn’t because a modern speaker can’t guess what that means (despite John’s claim to the contrary). It would be appropriate as Kevin says to match the register of this phrase with a similarly formal phrase in modern English.
You asked “what is so divine about the Hebrew culture?” I would say the culture isn’t divine per se but any translation will be imbued with this ancient culture and a certain amount of knowledge of it has to be brought to the text.
Part of my preference for CEV over NLT is that it is more conservative about incorporating idioms that aren’t native to the original. This results in a “flattening” or loss of “sparkle” but my fear for the NLT is that it will become dated very quickly much like the Living Bible did.
Your last paragraph is excellent.
Thanks for bringing attention to Kevin’s comment. I would have missed it otherwise.
I’ve been field testing 1 Kings 2:1-2 among junior and senior high schoolers and everyone seems to get the phrase “the way of all the earth” just fine (despite Lingamish’s apparent claim to the contrary). Try it yourself.
As long as sufficient context is provided (1 Kings 2::1), 1 Kings 2:2 ’s figures of speech, translated literally, work fine in English. In fact, they have all entered the English language and are now widely used, with ‘the way of all flesh” a spin-off idiom that has gained even wider currency than the original “the way of all the earth.”
To my mind, that CEV and NLT now want to turn back the clock and eliminate these by now accommodated Hebraisms in translation is short-sighted. It is precisely the intracultural context of the receiver language which is thus ignored in the name of a wooden translation theory.
There does seem to be two sides of the coin on this debate about “beautiful English”. The semantic issues, e.g. “the way of all the earth”, and the syntactic issues, e.g. inverted negatives, poetic structure, sentence construction.
My feeling is that if the latter constructions can be smoothed out in the receiver language, then the former issues can be even better understood in context (which is not to say that they can’t be understood if the syntax is ugly - certainly your field tests seem to bear that out, though you didn’t mention which translation you were testing — update: oh, now I see that you’re testing with the REB - well done!).
One of my attractions to the HCSB is that semantic metaphors are typically left in their original wording, but the syntactic apparatus has generally been translated using modern English grammar. That is in contrast to the ESV, which purposefully retains the ugly patina of the Tyndale syntax.
On a related note, I looked at this issue in a related post on Psalm 110:3, where the HCSB translators had preserved two idiomatic phrases (”the womb of dawn” and “the dew of your youth”), but syntactically arranged them to create an alliterative connection in the English poetry. The NJB and NEB also stood out among translations in this passage (see the comments of that post).
I think that the English in our translations of the Bible should sound just as sacred as the original biblical texts did to those who first heard them in their own languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There should be just as much unnatural syntax, obsolete words, and stilted phrases in our translations as there were in the original texts.
Thanks for keeping this discussion going, ElShaddai. It’s an important topic, one where each side raises important points. I have continued the discussion by linking to your post.
Yes, thanks for keeping this going, ElShaddai.
I’ll try to be brief. There’s no way to turn an ancient document into a modern document without losing something important, not only the nuance of the original language, but its entire cultural context, whether from agricultural to urban, isolation to international/global, or bronze age to computer age. Our contexts are as foreign to the original as theirs is to us. Whether we like it or not, these texts belonged to ancient cultures which are long gone, and the formative environment in which and by which they were inspired is no longer transparent TO ANYBODY. So we all need, to one degree or another, instruction in order to bring out that meaning. That, in fact, is one of the jobs of a Church (or synagogue, etc): handing on the tradition intelligibly down through the ages. Some old imagery applies, from the patristic period. The inspiration of God is like the music of a kithara: God is the player, while the person inspired is the instrument. Neither makes the music alone. Rather than try to get around the instrument and switch it for another one that fits your contemporary context better (what’s a kithara, anyway? I’ll use an electric guitar!), we need to understand the ancient instrument better, its strings, its tuning, its shape, the woods used, and then we’ll be able to hear the original tune. Otherwise we’ve just invented something that’s inauthentic, and only marginally representative of the original.
Now, for myself, and my admittedly pretty snobby reading tastes when it comes to literature, I’ll say that I have yet to see a Bible in truly beautiful English. Yes, a few of them have some good turns of phrase, and some do really well more often than others (the REB is well known for this). But, there is NO translation that combines all the desiderata: text-critical, lexical, and stylistic excellence. Part of this is the poverty of vocabulary in the assumed audience: agricultural terms, pottery terminology (so that we can use more than “pot”, but get to the detail of juglet, dipper, cooking pot, etc; some of these are known, but not used in translations), military terminology, all these are presented (in the Hebrew particularly, but even in the Greek) in specialist terms, but are translated by more general terms in English. More accurate translation will lead to a better understanding of the original, and that’s the point of translation, not to get something passable out there, but to truly represent the ancient, inspired document. One would think that this would be much more of a concern particularly because of that “inspired” element, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Relatedly, then there’s the problem of disambiguation, which Wayne touches on above. If some phrase is ambiguous while the words are clear, then it should be translated just as clearly, without any added disambiguation.
A short note on the KJV translators: their translation was considered too vulgar when it appeared. They used too common a dialect, and complaints of the time referred to its language, I recall, as similar to newspaper language. They were accused of modernizing the text, in fact. There’s even some slang in one of the Maccabees, as I recall. Even so, using the KJV as a base text isn’t what I’m advocating, but something new, precise, detailed, challenging, educating, illuminating, and as inspiring as the original inspired work. It’s possible, but it’ll take work, and great attention to detail.
[...] sacred? More importantly, do we hold Biblish as sacred? Over at He is Sufficient ElShaddai Edwards takes up this question in response to Kevin P. Edgecomb’s who argued the following in response to John Hobbins [...]
The Bible needs to be translated to reflect the latest meaning of the the greek text into our current vocabularies. This makes it easy to read and understand.
But if someone is serious about studying the text itself, that someone should study hebrew, greek and latin. That’s what the tough guys do. Tough guys don’t read in English!
Edgar.
p.s. guys being greek for men and women.
I like this quote from Kevin:
Thank you, Kevin, for the excellent thoughts. I am enjoying the discussion greatly and refining my own understanding of translation.
I struggle with those who say that a literal-formal-syntactic translation (NASB, ESV) is *more* accurate than a dynamic-functional-semantic translation (NIV, REB, NLT) because the former method better conveys the divinely inspired words of the original languages, yet they ignore the semantic/referential accuracy of what those actual words mean.
Often the result of a formal translation sounds “difficult”, yet it seems many Bible readers subscribe to a “no pain, no gain” mindset that if they have to wrestle with understanding the plain meaning of a text, it must be better and more accurate.
El shaddai,
Great question to begin with!
I understand where you coming from with the Biblish concept. However, I don’t know if I can quite agree with you.
Even within the canon there were technical terms and at times a word preceded by the Greek definite article will signal the same.
Hilasterion, “propitiation,” is one of those canonical technical terms.
I’m for a kind of theological continuity, without coming off as biblish. For example, this is what we see in our theologies.
But again, if we were to replace these technical term, a sort of confusion would be birthed.
Even the HCSB has “propitiation at Rom 3:25.
Kevin noted:
Thanks for the corrective on the KJV. I find perhaps sad irony that the language of the KJV was considered vulgar in its day, but is esteemed as “sacred” today. Perhaps therein lies the satisfaction of those of us who find the REB to be beautiful English.
I wish that there was a way for those of us who do not speak/read Hebrew and Greek to know with come level of certainty what the literary registers of the original texts are. When are we dealing with Tolstoy or Clancy? D.H. Lawrence or Grisham? J.K. Rowling or Joyce? Etc., etc., etc.
Is “Biblish” the new catch phrase for division among the body? Is it being used in lieu of bawdy language? Is it meant to be derisive?
That is an interesting note by Kevin regarding the KJV and the perceived vulgarity. The Geneva Bible which is 51 years younger than the KJV uses far more “common” English. It reads more modern than the KJV, at least to me it does. It doesn’t have the same exalted language but uses words like “britches” and “buggerer.”
As far as context goes, the Bible was written first to a specific people of a specific time and place. It had to make sense to them first before it is relevant to us today.
The Bible is not just an old book, it is the revealed word of God. Although there isn’t a translation guide, the Bible should be translated as a holy book, meant to be separate from all other literature just as we were made separate.
The most important thing is that the Bible should be read. If one likes the way the KJV, NASB or ESV sound(read), why should they be derided and accused of reading in Biblish? To say that a translation that is more understandable is therefore more accurate because it is understandable is circular reasoning.
In Romans 9:13 did God hate Esau or only liked him less, or rejected him? Have the newer translations, for the sake of readability, taken away from the meaning of scripture?
@Jesus Saenz: Yes to all of that.
ElShaddai wrote: “If I’m reading Kevin’s comment correctly…”
You might not be reading him correctly since his vocabulary is very impressive but hardly clear: litterateurs, tradents, intratextual, etc. I think a “tradent” is some sort of three-sided shape in geometry. This only confirms for me that Kevin, John and the rest are just specialists talking over our heads and any so-called literary translation they produce will be intelligible only to them.
This is one of the reasons why CEV and NLT are beautiful. The translators did not let their deep knowledge of the original languages prevent them from communicating clearly with the intended audience: English speakers in this century. Newman called the CEV “lucid and lyrical” (itself a poetic phrase) and the fact that he has edited a dictionary of New Testament Greek did not stop him from communicating clearly in English.
Jesus asked:
My specific understanding (and use) of the term “Biblish” is the familiar Bible English that is rooted in the KJV/Tyndale translation tradition. John Hobbins expands that definition to include any use of language that is copied from the original form in Hebrew or Greek. So, for example, Hebrew metaphors that are transliterated into English rather than a dynamic equivalent being used.
I view it “derisively” only in the sense that I believe English translations should be written in proper English, whether that’s a literary register or a common vernacular.
Are the original Hebrew texts, inasmuch as we have them, written in a separate linguistic style than all other Hebrew literature? I agree that the meaning of the text is holy and meant to be separate, but is the language itself different?
That’s what I meant when I asked if “Biblish” has come to be viewed as “sacred”. The phrasings and combinations of words that appear only in that translation tradition are exalted to the point that the translation is worshiped as “the word of God”. To me, that’s making an idol.
Lingamish noted:
That underscores my question on the need to narrow down the target audience of the original texts. Were they written for the average Hebrew in an hut or for the priests and academics of the palace? If the latter, then the whole reformation principle of putting the texts in the hands of the general populace is un-Biblical so to say and the texts should be in elevated language that only our pastors can explain.
But then there’s that pesky New Covenant that shifts the relationship to the individual. So maybe the Hebrew Bible has to be explained to us, but the New Testament can be carried around by Christians on the street. That certainly would decrease translation costs…
Sorry I haven’t been keeping up. I’ve been swamped offline.
I’m also sorry that some of the terms I’ve used are overly technical. I honestly didn’t realize that they were out of place. Such terms are just shortcuts.
“Tradent” is the person within a “tradition” who passes it on to another person. “Teacher” doesn’t quite fill the same shoes, as “teacher” is not necessarily a link in a chain, which “tradent” connotes.
“Intratextual” means “within one text” while “intertextual” means “among several texts.” The difference lies, when using these about the Bible, in one’s borderline for “text.” If you see the Bible as one big inspired book, from Genesis to Revelation, then all the interaction between those books is intratextual. Connections with other texts outside of the Bible would then be intertextual. If you see the Biblical books as individual books only incidentally collected in one volume, then all the connections between them would be intertextual, as well as connections with all non-Biblical texts.
Rest assured, if you start talking geometry, I’ll be the one who’s bewildered….
I don’t think we’re at the point where a properly literary Bible such as we were describing is really all that possible. There’s still too much discussion about the different literary qualities of the various OT and NT (and Apocryphal!) writings, and no one has done the mapping of those levels to any corresponding English styles of writing. Overall, I think it’s safe to say that the style would bend closer to high-fallutin’ than not. But then there’s also the issue of not just style but content. In the legal texts, for instance, the style is recognizably pretty simple, but the technical terms are very precise. Vocabulary is a component of style, but not the only one. That’s another issue to look into. But that these were insider texts seems pretty clear. You’d have to already be a part of the tradition to understand it fully. So in that sense, I’d say, yes, the Reformation could be seen as wrong if the Reformation actually requires reading without instruction. But that’s surely not the case, is it? (I honestly don’t know.)
I just like to ask a lot of questions, I guess, and think out loud. I apologize for the technical vocabulary. I honestly just wasn’t thinking considerately.
Kevin, apologies are all mine for taking a jab at you!
Again, I find myself agreeing with you. Maybe rather than dissing the various translators we should be looking at them and saying, “What is this translation appropriate for?”
My goal as a teacher, preacher or parent is always to explain the Bible not the translation. That’s why I insist my students use a dynamic translation because otherwise I will spend all my time explaining 17th century Portuguese instead of 1st century Greek. And with my kids I find that they get deeper into the message of the Scriptures when I use CEV, because too often the strange vocab and syntax of NIV loses them.
By the way, I enjoyed your post on Yeats. The Second Coming is a hymn for our time.