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

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Isa 64:5)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding the Lord.

addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed. The first example is from a language where God is always addressed distinctly formal whereas the second is one where the opposite choice was made.

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff.), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.

Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”

In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.

Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking (source Philip Noss).

In Dutch and Western Frisian translations, however, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.

See also female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.

Translation commentary on Isaiah 64:5

The first half of this verse continues to describe Yahweh; in the last half the people begin to confess their sins again (see 63.10, 17).

Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness: The Hebrew verb rendered meetest has a wide semantic range. It can have a negative or positive sense, depending on the context. It is rendered “laid on” in 53.6, where punishment is implied, and this is what New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh believes it means here also. It has a positive sense in 47.3 (“spare”), 53.12 (“make intercession”), and 59.16 (“intervene”). In the present context it has a positive sense, which Good News Translation and Revised English Bible reflect by using the verb “welcome.” New International Version translates “come to the help of,” and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “are good to.” Him that joyfully works righteousness renders two Hebrew participles that are literally “the one who rejoices and the one who works righteousness.” The Septuagint omits the first participle, but Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends keeping it. Together these participles describe a person who delights in doing what is right and just. Both participles are singular, but they refer to all who joyfully do what is right, so Good News Translation uses the plural pronoun “those” instead of him. For righteousness see 1.21.

Those that remember thee in thy ways refers to those who worship God by following his laws. In this context remember thee does not mean to recall God because they forgot him, but to follow him by doing what he requires. The Hebrew preposition in may be rendered “by means of.” Thy ways refers to God’s requirements, his laws (compare 63.17). It does not refer to the way God behaves, but to the way the people are required to behave in order to please God. This is clear in Good News Translation, which renders this line as “those who remember how you want them to live,” and in Bible en français courant with “who intend to follow the ways you have traced.”

Behold, thou wast angry, and we sinned: The word Behold marks a transition point in the lament as the people turn to confess their sin. This confession continues through verse 7. There is a slight difficulty in this line as it stands in Revised Standard Version, since it may give the impression that God’s anger led the people to sin. Revised English Bible expresses this sense explicitly with “When you showed your anger, we sinned.” But New International Version reverses the order of the two clauses here, stating that God was angry only after the people continued to sin: “But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry” (similarly Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). However, the Hebrew clause rendered thou wast angry is quite emphatic, so this line more likely means that despite God’s anger with the people, seen in the way they were sent into exile, they continued in their sinful ways. Good News Translation expresses this sense with “You were angry with us, but we went on sinning.” The common Hebrew conjunction for and sometimes expresses contrast, as it does here, so it may be rendered “but” or “yet.”

In our sins we have been a long time, and shall we be saved?: There is a textual problem here, so the versions differ considerably from one another. Masoretic Text has strong textual support and is preferred by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. It reads “in them forever and we will be saved.” But what does it mean? First of all, the phrase “in them” probably refers back to “God’s ways,” though Revised Standard Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh link it back to the people’s sin. De~Waard favors the connection with God’s ways and recommends the following New Jerusalem Bible rendering as a model: “now we persist in your ways and we shall be saved.” This means God will rescue his people if they continue to obey his laws. An alternative model with this meaning is “If we persist in your ways, then we will be saved.” New Revised Standard Version renders an emended text, saying “because you hid yourself we transgressed.” This is a better parallel to the previous line, but it appears to be very different from the Hebrew text. Like New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation and Revised English Bible do not mention “be saved,” a verb that is clearly present in Masoretic Text. Revised Standard Version and New International Version render this line as a question, but this seems to be incorrect since there is no interrogative marker in Hebrew. Whatever model translators follow, they should add a footnote to indicate that the Hebrew text is unclear and that any translation offers only one of several possibilities.

Translation examples for this verse are:

• You welcome those who joyously do what is right,
who remember you by following your ways.
Look, you were angry with us, but we kept on sinning;
if we always follow your ways, we will be saved.

• You welcome anyone who rejoices to do what is right,
who recalls your ways and follows them.
See, you were angry with us, but we continued to sin;
if we follow your ways, you will save us.

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 .