Tag Archives: Old Testament

Sweet-heart gifts

In a couple of days we leave for a 6-week visit to Ghana to work with the translation team on the Kasem Bible. We are working towards having the Bible ready to start the publication process in November this year, and there are a lot of details to pick up on. Here is one example.

There are several different kinds of sacrifices and offerings described in the Old Testament, with details of when they are to be offered and for what purpose. Alongside these “obligatory” offerings, there is the opportunity for the people of Israel to bring “freewill” offerings that are presented to God on a voluntary basis. These might be to help with a particular need within the community of God’s people, e.g. work on the sanctuary (Exodus 36:3), or to express personal thanksgiving for God’s blessing (Deuteronomy 16:10).

In checking the consistency of  how we had translated the Hebrew term נְדָבָה (nǝdabah) I found we had used two expressions. Firstly there was “own-thinking gifts”, focusing on the element of choice. But we had also in some places used “sweet-inside gifts”, focusing more on the generosity of a gift one is not obliged to make. Kasem uses a lot of idioms based on body parts to express attitudes and emotions. In this case the “inside” (wo) is the equivalent of the heart, as used in English expressions. These would be gifts made from a sweet-heart (wo-ywoŋo pɛɛra), expressing the generous attitude with which they are made.

We have to decide which of these expressions would be better for translating “freewill offerings” and then check the consistency of translation for all 26 occurrences of the Hebrew term. This process needs to be repeated for many terms and expressions. We thank God for excellent software to assist in the task.

As a final warning, Kasem idioms are not always what they seem. To have a warm heart (n wo lona) means you are stingy. So I hope today your heart is sweet rather than warm.

Advertisements

Will there be drums in heaven?

There are plenty of musical instruments mentioned in the Bible—just have a look at Daniel 3:5, for example. But honest-to-goodness drums don’t seem to number among them. I was alerted to this when checking the Kasem (Ghana) translation of Daniel, where the translator had decided to draw on the wealth of Kasem words for different types of drum in order to arrive at a list of instruments as impressive as that in the original Hebrew text. Having determined that drums appeared to be without mention in Scripture, I decided that substituting drums as a cultural equivalent in the translation was not a good choice.

There is however one possible exception to all this—the Hebrew word tōp.  In nearly all versions this is translated as tambourine or timbrel in its 17 occurrences.  CEV (Contemporary English Version) translates it as small drum just once, in 1 Samuel 10:5, and GNB (Good News Bible/ Today’s English Version) also translates it as drum here, and in 6 other places. Both these versions use tambourine in all the remaining occurrences of  tōp, so it would be interesting to  know why they chose to use drum in just these few specific verses.

In any case, even if tōp could be classified as a type of drum, it is a small, hand-held percussion instrument, tapped rather than thumped. In fact, it seems to be one of the few percussion instruments of any kind  mentioned in the Bible. Psalm 150 mentions cymbals  of two types (v.5), as well as including one of the occurrences of tōp (v.4). The most complete collection of percussion instruments comes in 2 Samuel 6:5, adding rattles/ castanets/ sistrums  to the tambourines and cymbals. All in all, we are left with 17 references to tambourines, 3 to cymbals (2 of these in Psalm 150:5) and 1 to rattles.

So, will there be drums in heaven? Taken overall, Scripture seems to favour stringed instruments (harps, lyres), trumpets and woodwind (flutes) over any kind of percussion. This is even more pronounced in the New Testament, where a single mention of cymbals (1 Corinthians 13:1) is used to represent abrasive noise. In Revelation, where we might expect to get a glimpse of heavenly music, harps are definitely in vogue. Harps seem to represent peace and harmony, whereas flutes relate more to merriment, and trumpets to warnings and announcements.

I suspect heaven will be quite a noisy place (see, for example, Revelation 14:2 and 15: 2-4), but we won’t be putting our fingers in our ears, rather joining in, together with people of every nation,  tribe, people and language.

Another God coming along behind

I have been working my way through checking the Kasem translation of Isaiah for a few weeks now. The repetitive nature of Hebrew poetic form presents a challenge. Pairs of lines tend to repeat the same information, with some variation in the words used,  sometimes pairing a positive with an equivalent negative, or mirror image;  sometimes with the second line expanding or strengthening the idea contained in the first line. This has been described as rhyming ideas, rather than the rhyming of sounds, which we are more used to.

The challenge is that people not familiar with Hebrew poetry (such as most Kasena) will want to read a different meaning into successive lines–why say the same thing twice over? Here is an example from the English Standard Version:

… for the LORD will go before you,
and the God of Israel will be your rear guard.
Isaiah 52:12b (ESV)
That surely must mean that one God (the LORD) is at the front and another (the God of Israel) is following at the rear. Of course those with a good Bible knowledge will know that these are one and the same, and that the LORD, the God of Israel will protect them in front and behind.
Recognising that it is the Israelites who are being addressed the Good News Bible gets around the problem with:
The LORD your God will lead you and protect you on every side. (GNB)
Surprisingly, the New Living Translation keeps the potentially confusing parallelism:
For the LORD will go ahead of you, and the God of Israel will protect you from behind. (NLT)
Omitting the and between the lines may help a bit, as New International Version and others:
… for the LORD will go before you, your rearguard will be Israel’s God. (Revised English Bible)

Once again, we are faced with the dilemma in translation between maintaining the dynamism of the poetic form (or at least a hint of it), and spelling out the meaning clearly in a rather flat and uninteresting way. A more ambitious alternative may be to research equivalent poetic forms in the target language and mould the text into those patterns, but this is moving further away from the cultural setting of the original.

One more example: Isaiah often interchanges the names Jacob and Israel in successive lines, referring in each case to the same people of God. The names refer to the founding ancestor of the nation, whose name was changed from Jacob to Israel. I count 23 instances in the book of Isaiah where the two names are used in parallel, but with essentially no difference in who they refer to. Here is an example:

But now thus says the LORD,
he who created you, O Jacob,
     he who formed you, O Israel:
Isaiah 43:1a (ESV)
In these cases it seems necessary to combine the two forms of address into one appellation, so as to avoid the inference that God is addressing two groups of people. There is the added complication that of course it is not the long-dead ancestor who is being addressed but his descendants, as a group. In Kasem it is possible to combine these and translate the above into something like:
Offspring of Jacob who are the Israel people,
God has created you and brought you into being.
This keeps a hint of the parallelism, but avoids possible ambiguity in who is being addressed, two groups of people or one. What do you think?

Accurate translation

What makes an accurate translation? Even if we say that an accurate translation conveys the full meaning of the original, without adding anything or taking anything away, that still leaves some fuzzy edges. Meaning can be conveyed in different ways, especially when we consider poetic language where the form of the expressions used is a significant factor in the communication. In poetry for example, maintaining the rhyme and rhythm of the original text in a translation is often only possible at the expense of reduced correspondence in the exact meaning of the words used. It is a balancing act. For the Bible translator, priority must usually be given to conveying the full meaning of the message clearly, sometimes at the expense of maintaining formal characteristics of the original text. It is however especially satisfying when it does prove possible to carry over in translation some of the “poetry” of the original without distorting the meaning.

While what we consider “rhyme” in English is not (as far as I know) found in Biblical Hebrew writings, there are examples of assonance–words which sound similar, or use the same selection of letters/sounds in a different combination, what we would tend to call a “play on words”. I came across an example when I was checking the Kasem translation of Isaiah recently.

In Isaiah 5:1–7 God’s people are likened to a vineyard which he has prepared and tended with special care. Yet when he looks for the expected good grapes, bitter wild grapes are all he finds. Isaiah sums up God’s disappointment as follows:

And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed;
for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.
Isaiah 5:7b (NIV)

In terms of the meaning of the words, this is an accurate translation, but it fails to convey the poetic balance of the Hebrew:

He waited for justice [mishpat]
but behold bloodshed [mishpakh]!
For righteousness [tsedaqah]
but behold outcry [tsa’qah]!

In fact the word translated “bloodshed” occurs only here in the Old Testament and is of uncertain meaning (bloodshed/disobedience/dishonesty). It was clearly chosen for its wordplay value, rather than its precise meaning. The dramatic form of the two parallel statements and the play on words helps to communicate the broken expectations which God had for his people in the light of all the care he had lavished on them. So is a translation which fails to capture this poetic form fully accurate? Can a translation ever be fully accurate, given the nature of language? It seems that it isn’t always possible to capture all the elements of meaning in a translation. But sometimes it does work out to a certain extent, much to the satisfaction of the translators. In Kasem it is possible to say:

When he looked for goodness [nɔn-ŋonne],
murder [nɔn-gom] only he found there.
When he looked for truth [chega] to be at work,
it was destruction [chɔgem] he found.

The last line does not include the idea of cries of distress, but focuses on the iniquity or bad treatment which gives rise to those cries. This seems a price worth paying in order to keep the play on words: chega/chɔgem.

Translation is a delicate balancing act, stretching and rewarding!

Solomon’s litter

Was King Solomon a litter lout? Tongue in cheek, let me draw your attention to a somewhat unfortunate combination of expressions used by the English Standard Version (ESV) in translating Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) in Chapter 3 verses 2 & 3:

What is that coming up from the wilderness like columns of smoke … ?

Behold, it is the litter of Solomon!

At least he was burning his rubbish as he went along.

There are some lessons to learn here about unseen pitfalls for the translator. You, as translator,  may have a very clear idea of what the translated text is communicating, but a reader approaching it with a quite different mindset or worldview may manage to draw out of it a totally unintended meaning.

ESV use of the word ‘litter’ is quite justified, but the predominant use of the term in English nowadays as meaning ‘rubbish’ may push the reader to try and interpret the passage in the light of this more common usage. Anything else in the immediate context which can be taken to collocate with that sense of the word will only strengthen the incorrect hypothesis being formed in the reader’s mind.

Revised English Bible (REB) also uses the word ‘litter’ but forces the correct choice of sense by the wording:

Look! It is Solomon carried in his state litter …

Other versions use different terms, not always very poetical in nature:
‘portable couch’ (NET),  ‘throne’ (several versions), ‘carriage’ (several versions). I haven’t found one that uses ‘palanquin’.

How does the word ‘litter’ in English come to have such diverse senses? Possibly:  (1) couch carried as a comfortable seat or bed; → (2) material used to provide comfortable bedding for animals (straw, bits & pieces); → (3) bits & pieces left lying around which make a mess.

Ecclesiastes: Looking on the bright side

Last week I finished checking through the 12 chapters of Eccelsiastes in draft translation in Kasem. No hiding the fact that the writer takes a rather negative view of life, but following the guidance of the Translator’s Handbook produced by United Bible Societies, I came to see that he generally gets a harder press than he perhaps deserves. A lot depends on the particular slant you give to two or three key Hebrew words and phrases that form a pattern throughout the book. Maybe the author was not so much depressed by the uselessness of life itself, as he was frustrated by the impossibility of coming up with a satisfactory explanation for all its anomalies.

How do we understand his frequent use of the Hebrew term <hevel>, which has a primary meaning, of “vapour, breath, breeze”? Does the ‘Teacher’ (Qoheleth) use it in the sense of “empty, vacuous, transitory”—giving us the translation “vanity of vanities, all is vanity”, or is it rather used in the sense of something difficult to get a handle on, enigmatic, hard to understand and explain? The latter fits well with his other much-used expression; it’s like trying “to shepherd the wind”, a frustrating exercise. The Translator’s Handbook has the following to say by way of introduction:

In this Handbook we have assumed that Qoheleth was an honest scholar who observed life very carefully and thoroughly. We see a person who believed firmly in God’s control over the universe and human lives, but also someone who experienced much pain when confronted with the injustices and unanswered questions in life. He worked within the framework of the wisdom school and the traditional beliefs of his time, yet he saw their limitations. However, Qoheleth never renounced his faith. His continual advice to enjoy the good things in life—eating, drinking, and working—affirms his belief that God is in control and life is worth living.

Looking at Ecclesiastes in a more positive light made me want to translate it this way into English. Here is my version (PPV—Philip’s Positive Version) of Chapter One:

This is what the Teacher has to say, the one who is David’s descendant, king in Jerusalem.

Life poses lots of questions (1:2–11)

The Teacher says: Life is hard to understand; totally puzzling; a complete enigma. You just can’t get a handle on it. Tell me—what lasting benefit do people get from all their life of hard labour in this world? One generation passes on and another one succeeds it, but the earth continues the same as ever. The sun rises and the sun sets and as soon as you know it, it’s back where it started again. Round and round in circles! The wind goes through the same routine: north, south, east, and west; back and forth, then back to the beginning again. The rivers keep on channelling water down into the sea, but the sea never fills up! The water just makes its way back to the springs, and here we go again! All it adds up to is a ceaseless repetition. You’ll never get to the end of what people can say, nor to the end of what they can see, nor to the end of what they can hear.  Whatever has been around in the past will continue to be with us. Whatever people have done in the past, others will continue to do well into the future. You won’t find anything new coming up in the whole wide world. You may hear someone say, “Take a look at this! Now this is new!” But in fact you will find it was already around long before we were born. The trouble is, nobody looks back to former generations to think what happened then. Nor will it change—our offspring will soon be forgotten by their descendants.

My quest to make sense of life (1:12–18)

I, the Teacher, have been king of Israel, ruling from Jerusalem. I have made every effort to get to the bottom of all that goes on in this world, using [the methodology of] conventional wisdom. I found that the whole business is a sorry mess that God has given us human beings to cope with. I took a good look at everything that people do in this world, and what do you know? I just can’t make head or tail of it. It’s like trying to pin down the wind. A waste of time.

They say: “If something is twisted, you won’t be able to straighten it out.”
And: “You can’t count things which aren’t there.”
[Things are just the way they are, and you have to accept it that way.]

I reflected, “See, I have become very wise, more so than any of my predecessors that have ruled in Jerusalem. In fact I have got to the bottom of what wisdom and knowledge really are.” So I made every effort to understand what wisdom is and to compare it with foolishness and stupidity. But I realised that this is a fruitless task, like trying to pin down the wind.

As they say: “Too much wisdom only increases frustration; too much knowledge only increases sorrow.”

What do you think? Maybe there’ll be more to follow.

Psalm 119: 22 times 8

I have just this afternoon finished checking through the draft of Psalm 119 in Kasem, all 176 verses. I wanted to get it done before the weekend and just made it. An amazing Psalm all round, with a mention of God’s Word in almost every verse.

It poses similar challenges to the translator as the lists in Daniel (see my earlier blog). The Hebrew uses 8 different terms in referring to the Word of God, e.g. law, testimony, ordinance/judgment, commandment, statutes, precepts, word, promise/word. However, the Psalmist’s choice from among these terms is largely governed by the demands of the poetic structure, rather than focusing on a particular facet of meaning in each instance. The 176 verses are divided into 22 stanzas (strophes) of 8 lines each, and within each stanza each of the 8 lines starts with the same letter of the Hebrew alphabet, working through all 22 letters successively. Wow! Can you imagine the Psalmist composing within those restrictions? If we tried it in English, how would we manage when we got to the letter X? Even Q or J would be difficult enough. The Psalmist seemed most limited by the letter D (Daleth) in Hebrew, using just three words to start the 8 lines: derek “way” (5 times), dabaq “to join” (twice) and dalap “to drop, drip, droop, weep, melt… meaning uncertain” (just once).

But there seems to be another scheme interweaving with this, whereby the eight different Hebrew terms for God’s Word are spread across the 8 lines of each stanza. In fact, only 3 of the stanzas have all 8 terms, a different one in each line. Maybe the Psalmist found the constraints just too much to manage this in every stanza.

In Kasem, we have (so far) managed to identify 6 words which may be used to cover the 8 Hebrew terms. Three of these are compounds based on the word ni “mouth” which is the term used for a command or order.  The translator aims at consistency as to which Kasem term is used for each, but also tries to ensure that the 6 available terms are spread evenly through the stanzas in order to reflect the apparent aim of the Psalmist. Has there been any translation which tries to reproduce the acrostic nature of the Hebrew text, starting each line with the designated letter? Now that would be fun to try!