untranslatable verses

The Swedish Bibel 2000 declared the 69 Old Testament verses referenced herein as “untranslatable.” Typically, other Bible translations translate those verses and mention in footnotes that the translation is uncertain or give alternate readings. Christer Åsberg, the Translation Secretary with the Swedish Bible Society at that time, explains why the Swedish Bible Society decided to not translate these verses at all (in The Bible Translator 2007, p. 1ff.):

“In the new Swedish translation (SB) of 2000, [some verses are] not translated at all; [they are] indicated with three hyphens inside square brackets [- - -] [with a] reference to the appendix, where in the article ‘Text’ one will find a paragraph with roughly the following content:

In some cases the text is unintelligible and the variant readings differing to such an extent, that it is quite impossible to attain a reasonable certainty of what is meant, although some isolated word may occur, whose meaning it is possible to understand.

“If Bible translators find the Hebrew text untranslatable, what kind of text is it that they have produced in the translation into their own language? When a footnote says ‘The Hebrew is not understandable,’ what then is the printed text a translation of? And if the translators prefer to do without footnotes, are they then really released from the responsibility of informing their readers that the text they read is just mere guesswork?

“To leave a blank space in a Bible text seems to be an offensive act for many. (. . . ) To admit that a piece of Holy Scripture makes no sense at all may have been unimaginable in times past. In our enlightened era, an overprotective concern for the readers’ trust in the word of God is apparently a decisive factor when a translator tries to translate against all odds. The verdict ‘untranslatable’ is much more frequent in scholarly commentaries on different Bible books written by and for experts than in the translations or footnotes of the same books designed for common readers.

“Another reason (. . .) is a professional, and very human, reluctance to admit a failure. Also, many Bible translators lack translational experience of other literary genres and other classical texts where this kind of capitulation is a part of the daily run of things. They may have an innate or subconscious feeling that the Bible has unique qualities not only as a religious document but also as a linguistic and literary artifact. Completeness is felt to be proof of perfection. Some translators, and not so few of their clients, are unfamiliar with a scholarly approach to philological and exegetical matters. In some cases their background have made them immune to a kind of interpretative approximation common in older translations, confessional commentaries, and sermons. Therefore, their tolerance towards lexical, grammatical, and syntactical anomalies tends to be comparatively great.

“It is very hard to discern and to define the boundary between something that is extremely difficult and something that is quite impossible. I am convinced that all Bible translators in their heart of hearts will admit that there actually are some definitely untranslatable passages in the Bible, but are there a dozen of them or a score? Are there fifty or a hundred? Not even a group of recognized experts would probably pick out the same ten most obvious cases. (. . .)

“Conclusions:

  1. There are untranslatable passages in the Bible.
  2. How many they are is impossible to say—except for the translation team that decides which passages are untranslatable.
  3. An untranslatable passage cannot and should therefore not be translated.
  4. The lacuna should be marked in a consistent way.
  5. The translating team should stipulate their criteria for untranslatability as early as possible.
  6. It is an ethical imperative that the readers be comprehensively informed.
  7. Untranslatability has been and can be displayed in many different ways.
  8. An explanatory note should not confuse linguistic untranslatability with other kinds of textual or translational difficulties.
  9. The information given should make it clear that the translators’ recognition of untranslatability is a token of respect for the Bible, not a proof of depreciation.
  10. You shall not fear the void, but the fear of the void.”

With thanks to Mikael Winninge, Director of Translation, Swedish Bible Society

cubit

The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that is translated as “cubit” or into a metric or imperial measurement in English is translated in Kutu, Kwere, and Nyamwezi as makono or “armlength.” Since a cubit is the measurement from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, one armlength (measured from the center of the chest to the fingertips) equals two cubits or roughly 1 meter. (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

In Klao it is converted into “hand spans” (app. 6 inches or 12 cm) and “finger spans” (app. 1 inch or 2 cm) (Source: Don Slager)

Translation commentary on Ezekiel 40:14

He measured also the vestibule, twenty cubits; and round about the vestibule of the gateway was the court: The Hebrew of this verse is so complicated and difficult that many translators simply guess at the meaning. The renderings in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation are just such guesses, based on the Septuagint. Both these renderings involve significant changes to the Hebrew. Following the Hebrew, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends the following translation for the whole verse:

and he calculated (lit. made) the pillars a height of sixty cubits; and the court all around the gateway the pillar.

Hebrew Old Testament Text Project‘s translation makes some sense out of a very obscure passage in Hebrew and translators will do well to follow it. Although the Hebrew says literally “he made,” in this context it can be rendered “he measured.” “The pillars” are the door jambs of the porch’s opening at the inner end of the gatehouse, mentioned in verse 9. They were “sixty cubits,” that is, 30 meters (100 feet), but the text does not indicate in what direction. On the basis of the other measurements given in this subsection, it cannot refer to how long or wide the jambs were, and so we must assume that it refers to how high they were. This suggests that the whole building was also 30 meters (100 feet) high. “The court” was the outer courtyard of the Temple. A “courtyard” is an open area of ground, surrounded by a fence or wall (compare verse 5). In some languages the best translation for “courtyard” is “compound” or “open area inside the walls.”

Concerning the second half of this verse, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project explains that “the term ‘pillar’ is a reference to the gateway, a building with pillars in its front façade, projected into the court so that it was surrounded by the court on three sides.” This means the gatehouse building extended right out into the courtyard, so that the courtyard surrounded it on three sides.

A model for this verse is:

• Then he measured the sides of the opening between the gatehouse’s porch and the Temple’s outer courtyard. They were 30 meters high. And the gatehouse [or, porch] extended right out into the courtyard, so that the courtyard was on three sides of it.

Quoted with permission from Gross, Carl & Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on Ezekiel. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .