Nicholas King sj
On the first Sunday of Advent this year, we shall be hearing a new translation of the Bible for the readings at Mass; and inevitably there have already been some very strong views expressed. This is for two reasons, I think.
First, the Bible is very precious to us; and without noticing it we come to form a very strong attachment to a favourite and familiar version.
Second, there are enormous problems about doing biblical translation, which most readers simply do not notice. In this brief paper I should like to point to some of the difficulties (not to say impossibilities) involved in biblical translation. This in turn may offer us a pathway for coping with the new translation.
It is noticeable that those who have strong views on various possible translations of biblical texts frequently talk as though it is the easiest thing in the world to translate and especially to translate the Bible. Now, a very long time ago, I remember being rather condescending about the Good News Bible; I suppose that I thought then that it was obvious how one should translate the scriptures, and that the Good News Bible always got it wrong. Now, however, having made the attempt myself, I am far more inclined warmly to congratulate anyone who has produced a translation, of the whole Bible, or even of a single book. It is quite a tricky task.
One difficulty is that we simply cannot be absolutely confident of what the Bible actually says; it is very far from the case that we actually know what the original author wrote or dictated; another difficulty concerns the question of what we should be trying to do when we translate: a short-hand version of this might be to ask whether one should pay more attention to the source-language or to the target-language: is our translation to be “formal” or “functional”? Having made the attempt myself, I notice that my tendency when translating (and I suspect, that of many of us) is to “shoot first and then ask questions”; that is to say, keep the flow going by putting down what immediately occurs to us and then revise it later. I have noticed that sometimes my verdict when going through it has been “why on earth did you write that?” and other times “yes – that’s not too bad”.
Let me give two examples of this: one year, when I was working in South Africa, I took a group from there to the Holy Land to visit the beautiful Barluzzi Church of the Beatitudes at the top end of the Sea of Galilee. Our guide gave an excellent account of the church and the associated texts. Then, quite unexpectedly, though I should have known it was coming, he said, “Fr Nick – would you read the Beatitudes to us, please?” I only had a Greek New Testament with me, and so I read it through, translating into English, using the word “congratulations” for makarioi, which means something like “happy”. I did this without reflecting upon it at all. But I can, I think, justify it in retrospect on the grounds of the Greek word used. I notice that a good many people quite like this translation, while others hate it. Such are the perils of biblical translation.
The second example is from John’s gospel, where in the eucharistic discourse at chapter 6, the evangelist uses a very crude word for eating (an idea that is obviously very important in the argument of the chapter), which means something like “munch” or “crunch”. It seemed important to capture that nuance, so I always translated it as “munch”; and once again I observed that some people really liked it, while others hated it. Translators, you see, cannot possibly win.
Here are two instances of unfamiliar translations. I leave it to the you to decide whether they work. They are both renditions of the Lord’s Prayer. You can determine which you prefer. And why.
Eugene Peterson (20th Century)
“Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best – as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.”
Edward Harwood (second half of the 18th century)
“O Thou great governour and parent of universal nature – who manifesteth thy glory to the blessed inhabitants of heaven – may all thy rational creatures in all parts of thy boundless dominion be happy in the knowledge of thy existence and providence, and celebrate thy perfections in a manner most worthy thy nature and perfective of their own! May the glory of thy moral government be advanced, and the great laws of it be more generally obeyed – May the inhabitants of this world pay as cheerful a submission and as constant an obedience to thy will, as the happy spirits do in the regions of immortality – As thou hast hitherto most mercifully supplied our wants, deny us not the necessities and conveniences of life, while thou art pleased to continue us in it – Pardon the numerous errours and sins, which we have been guilty of towards thee; as we freely forgive and erase from our hearts the injuries that our fellow creatures have done to us – Suffer no temptation to assault us too powerful for the frailty of our natures and the imperfection of our virtue – but in all our trials may thine almighty aid interpose and rescue us from vice and ruin – These requests we address unto thee, for thou art possessed of power which enables thee to succour, and of goodness, which disposes thee to befriend all thy creatures – and these thy glorious perfections will continue immutable, and be the objects of praise and adoration throughout all the ages of eternity! Amen!”
Bible translation is different, in a number of ways, and for very different reasons. We need to recognise that there is often pain in hearing familiar texts in a different discourse. And there is more: Bible translation is always a work in progress. It is worth noticing, for example, that the King James Version (1611), which is always held up as a model of stability, had changes in every one of its many editions over its first 150 years.
Another point to remember is that God’s word is constantly spoken into a particular community, which is always in process of change. And there is an extraordinary range of bible translations, starting from at least the 3rd Century BC, and put into an amazing number of languages, and uttered to many different kinds of community. The first languages into which it was rendered were Aramaic and Greek, presumably because the worshipping community no longer spoke the more ancient language of the “sacred text”. There is also no other body of literature that contain so many different literary types, each of which presents the would-be translator with a new problem.
Another problem is that of what a particular version sounds like when read aloud. There is another important point here: many, if not quite all, of the translations into English are good for reciting in English. It is a great merit of King James Version that, after the panels had agreed on the translation of any one section, they read it out to each other, so see what it sounded like. It is because of this that KJV really does sound so very well.
One issue that it is impossible to escape is the question of inclusive language. It seems to be important to insist that the gospel is for all; and so I make it my aim always to use language that implies that the scriptures are for everybody. Most of the time it is easy enough to do so; sometimes that can result in inelegance, which may go the wrong way, and put people off. Here is a tricky example: Jesus often speaks of the Son of Man, which can sound too starkly patriarchal. Some scholars suggest that we should opt for the “Human One”; but that does not quite do justice to the original, both on Jesus’ lips and in its use in, for example, Daniel and Ezekiel. Or what about Paul’s metaphor of “sonship”, which makes for him an important theological point about what God has done for us, related to the importance of that term in Roman legal language? Nothing quite does the trick; but I did what I could, and if I have given the impression that half of the human race does not belong in God’s project, then I have done it wrong.
Now here is a rather unusual translation problem. In a small number of cases, 1 Kings 21:21 for example, the Hebrew text marks out “men” from “women”, with the phrase “all those who urinate against the wall”. You can see that there might be hesitation here on the part of translators. Modern versions tend to go rather coy and adopt “every male”, except for the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), which has “every manjack”. That has a robust sound to it, though most of us will not really know what a “manjack” might be. But the Vulgate is faithful to the Greek and offers “mingentem ad parietem”; and, God bless it, the KJV has “him that pisseth against the wall”. What would be your advice to a young translator tackling such a problem?
Perhaps this is enough to be going on with. It seems to me that you and I should get to know the English Standard Version (2001) as we use it in prayer from this Advent onwards. I should like to suggest two strategies. First, let it sink in for a year or two, and really get to know it, and then see what we like about it, as well as what we instinctively hate in it (for we are all much more conservative than we like to imagine, and do not care for the unfamiliar). Then, secondly, ask, “Where is God in the story?” As a part of this endeavour, we should at all costs avoid giving in to the temptation to assume the worst possible intentions on the part of those who are responsible for it. It will not be perfect, but I hope that enough has here been placed before you to show that biblical translation is difficult if not impossible. And no translation is perfect. How will you prayerfully listen to this version in the months ahead?
Nicholas King sj is a biblical scholar currently at Farm Street Church in London. He has translated the Bible into English from the Greek text (published by Kevin Mayhew 2014).