The Bible Translator: Volume 71, Issue 2

This article is the last in a three-part survey of the various vocative forms used in direct discourse in the Gospels, and the similarities and differences among the forms used. Some of the problems associated with finding terms appropriate to each context in English and other languages are raised, and attention is drawn to the complexity of the issues. View Less

English translations almost universally understand the phrase כי תדרשׁנו בכל־לבבך ובכל־נפשׁך‎ in Deut 4.29 as a conditional statement: “if you seek him with all your heart and all your soul.” This article challenges the typical translation and argues that instead of expressing a condition, Deut 4.29 should be understood as the reason Israel will repent and turn to Yahweh. This argument is supported by the near context of Deut 4, as well as the remote context of Deut 29–30. In addition, the typical usage of כי‎ clauses in Hebrew grammar provides positive evidence for a causal understanding of Deut 4.29. In addition to the contextual and grammatical evidence, the LXX of Deut 4.29 and Jer 29.11 (36.13 LXX) demonstrates that the first translators of the text likely did not view this text as conditional. Thus, Deut 4.29 is best read as the reason for Israel’s latter-day return to Yahweh—Israel will find Yahweh because they will seek him with their whole heart. View Less

Hebrew kōl means “every,” “the whole,” “all.” However, a literal translation does not always make sense. I investigated cases where kōl does not express totality in the sense of “one hundred percent.” I present a collection of examples that show that kōl can also be used (1) to express variety, (2) as hyperbole, (3) in a way defined by the context, and (4) for stylistic reasons. I argue that kōl sometimes needs to be translated with expressions such as “all kinds of,” “all other,” “in unity,” or in other context-sensitive ways; where it is perceived as redundant or misleading, it may remain untranslated. View Less

Written text often has ambiguities or “gaps,” requiring readers to bring their own experience into making sense of the story (in line with reception theory). Translators need to be able to identify such gaps, determine if they are intentional or not, and then decide how best to deal with them in translation. In this study, oral performance of a text is used, with audience participation, to discern ambiguities and gaps. Two groups in South Africa present a performance of the book of Ruth to three audiences. A jester questions the audience, at particular points in the story, as to their perceptions of characters’ moods or motivations. The book of Ruth, being largely dialogue, lends itself to dramatic performance, but the methodology could be applied to any text, with enlightening results. The approach shows that by imagining texts as performances, translators can become more aware of ambiguities and decide how they should be treated. View Less

Part 1 of this article made a case for “pleonastic” translation, i.e., adding pleonasms (synonymous adjectives) to metaphorical nouns to bridge the cultural distance between the ancient Israelite text and the present-day reader. Part 2 exemplifies this approach with a translation of some of the body-description verses from the Song of Songs (esp. 7.2-6 [English 7.1-5]). Introductory considerations concerning this biblical book are offered, addressing, e.g., life-setting, register, and hermeneutical key. Rooted in translation theory and metaphor theory, this article draws attention to the various aspects of the Song of Songs and proposes a “dynamic equivalent” way (following Nida and Taber’s call for clarity) to provide present-day readers with a comprehensible translation of its ancient metaphors. This results in a respectful translation with additional pleonasms and other types of elucidations. View Less

This article is a practical guide for translating kyrios in the Gospel of John. It considers the context of those translating into minority languages and vernaculars, especially when their language communities have access to a pre-existing translation in a language of wider communication. It takes into account the importance of textual criticism, semantics, acceptability, narrative, and paratext when trying to address challenges in Bible translation. View Less

The spelling of δώῃ in NA28 in Eph 1.17 and 2 Tim 2.25 is wrong. The correct form is δῴη, as in Westcott and Hort (WH), and a number of other old editions. An additional difficulty is that the NA apparatus does not illuminate the problem for the reader as the WH editions do. The problem is not serious in the translation of 2 Tim 2.25, where the real problem is the translation of μήποτε. In any case, if the verb is an optative, expressing a wish, we can understand better the irony of the author. Translations of Eph 1.17 that read δωη as subjunctive (expressing possibility) rather than optative are erroneous: The verb is in fact optative, as earlier translations correctly reflect. View Less

This paper draws attention to the translation of a subset of impersonal constructions that has been called the reference impersonal. A Bible translator will encounter reference impersonals in the source text. In translation the target language may also require the use of impersonal constructions even when they are not present in the source text. The paper focuses on the reference impersonal first-person plural (1pl) in Magar Kham, a language spoken in mid-western Nepal, which tends to use the 1pl for a generic or referentially unspecified group of people. This impersonal 1pl often occurs in conjunction with the phrase mĩ-rə “man-pl.” Generally, the impersonal 1pl implies that the speaker identifies with the referent(s). The paper also demonstrates that though the reference impersonal 1pl and the personal 1pl both use the same pronoun and morphology per se, due to pragmatic constraints only the personal counterpart can occur in the singular. View Less