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

wild animal

The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated in English as “wild animal” or similar is translated in Newari as “animal that lives in the jungle.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Isaiah 23:13

All the modern versions consulted use a mixture of prose and poetry in verses 13-18. Translators should do what is natural in their languages.

The meaning of this verse 13 in Hebrew is unclear. All major versions have a footnote to that effect. It is literally “Behold land of Chaldea, this the people it is not Assyria, he established her [Tyre] for wild beasts, they [the Chaldeans] set up their siege towers, they razed her [Tyre] palaces, they made her a ruin” or “Behold land of Chaldea, this is the people that is no more, Assyria established her [Chaldea] for wild beasts, they [the Assyrians] set up their siege towers, they razed her [Chaldea] palaces….” There is doubt about the clause breaks in the first half of the verse. The referents for the pronouns are also uncertain. Tyre is not explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew. These are the two main interpretations for this verse:

(1) Tyre was destroyed by Babylonia, not Assyria. This view sees the verse as a parenthetical remark (so Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Revised English Bible).
(2) Babylonia was destroyed by Assyria. According to this view, Tyre was also attacked by Assyria (so Contemporary English Version, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

The first interpretation sees Babylonia as the threat to Tyre, while the second one sees Assyria as the enemy. The main cause for this division of opinion is the uncertainty about where to divide the clauses in the first half of the verse (see the literal renderings above). Both interpretations are grammatically possible, so we have no objective way of determining which one is correct. Depending on their interpretation, scholars assign various dates to the possible historical situation alluded to here. Translators will probably not be able to resolve these issues, so they should place one interpretation in their translation, and the other one in a footnote. They should also note that the Hebrew is very unclear. If translators wish to follow the first view, Good News Translation provides a good model. See also the first example below. For the second view Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has a helpful model, which reads “Think of Babylonia! The people who used to live there don’t exist anymore. The Assyrians erected siege towers, they left the fortresses in ruins, and they abandoned the land to the wild animals.” See also the second example below.

Behold the land of the Chaldeans!: For Behold see the comments on 3.1. Here it calls on the people of Judah as the audience to reflect seriously about the Babylonians. It may be rendered “Just think about the example of.” The land of the Chaldeans refers to the nation of Babylonia. For the Chaldeans, see 13.19.

This is the people; it was not Assyria: For Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, which follow the first interpretation mentioned above, these two clauses continue to place focus on the Babylonians. An alternative model that expresses this for the first half of this verse is “Consider the Babylonians, they are the ones to be concerned about and not the Assyrians.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch and the other versions that follow the second interpretation mentioned above have one clause here with Assyria placed in the next clause; for example, New International Version begins this verse with “Look at the land of the Babylonians, this people that is now of no account! The Assyrians….” For Assyria see 7.17.

They destined Tyre for wild beasts is literally “he established her for wild beasts.” As noted earlier, Tyre is not mentioned in the Hebrew text (see the comments above). For wild beasts, see the comments on 13.21. These animals live in desolate places, so this clause is a figure for the devastation caused by the aggressors. Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh render the Hebrew noun for wild beasts as “ships.” This noun carries both meanings. However, the sense of “wild animals” fits this context better.

They erected their siege towers, they razed her palaces, they made her a ruin: These three actions describe how the aggressors treated the people they attacked. It summarizes a successful attack leading to the destruction of a city. As noted before, the prophet often uses three or four expressions to describe a situation. Their siege towers refers to the towers constructed by the enemy outside the city walls from which to launch an attack, as well as to prevent people from entering or leaving the city. It may be rendered “their towers from which to attack it.” They razed her palaces means they completely destroyed the fortified buildings within the city. The Hebrew word translated palaces is a general word for important buildings in a city. They may include the royal palace and some other fortified buildings (see Amos 1.4 and 3.11, where the same word is rendered “strongholds”). The fortified buildings offered a last line of defense. They were the places where the people could retreat if the city walls were breached or the gates were destroyed. So the prophet notes here that even the safest places in the city were captured and destroyed. As a result, they made her a ruin; that is, they completely destroyed the city.

Since the translation of this verse is so difficult, some translators may decide to follow a standard version in a major language already known to the readers. Two alternative models are:

• (Look closely at the Babylonians. They are the ones to consider, not the Assyrians. Babylonia determined that Tyre become a desolation. They built towers for attacking the city, destroyed her strongholds, and left her in ruins.)

• Look closely at the Babylonians. They are a nation no longer. Assyria destroyed it, setting it up as a haunt for wild animals. They built attack towers against it, destroyed her strongholds, and left her in ruins.

Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .