The Bible Translator: Volume 71, Issue 1

This article is the second 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

Pinoy is a heterogeneous language that incorporates elements of English into an oral version of Tagalog, the national language of the Philippines. In 2018 the Philippine Bible Society published a written version of the New Testament in Pinoy. This study seeks to explain the success of the translation. The thesis is that any formulation that deviates from the current and natural way of saying something as articulated in its oral form makes the sentence more difficult to understand. (As in any language, it takes a native speaker to discern if a construction is natural.) The Pinoy New Testament translation was undertaken with the goal of reflecting the spoken form so that it would be easy to read and understand. View Less

Cognitive studies affect all disciplines that reflect the connection between the mind–brain and human behavior. To state the obvious, Bible translation is a multidisciplinary task influenced by cognitive processes. What, then, do Bible translators need to know about the intended communication of a biblical text on one hand and a people’s context-based inferences on the other? Can these disparate, but necessarily interactive, environments blend to reflect a totality of knowledge from the content of the biblical text? Together, the coauthors explore a variety of cognitive processes that reflect on the relationship between translation and human behavior. Our objective is to show how translated biblical text interfaces with human cognition to affect behavior in specific contexts. View Less

The phrase bêt ’ābîkā “your father’s house” in Num 18.1 is often translated as referring to the Levites or the Kohathites. I suggest the reference is, rather, to Aaron’s own family and descendants. That is, the whole of v. 1 refers to the priests only. The possessive suffix -kā “your” does not refer to ’āb “father,” but to the compound noun bêt ’āb “father’s house,” an expression that means “family.” The two lines in v. 1 should be read as synonymous lines, not as contrasting ones. In both lines Aaron’s family stands in contrast to the whole tribe of Levi, which is not mentioned until v. 2. This understanding is confirmed by a chiastic structure that underlies the passage. Translating the phrase with “your family” (i.e., Aaron’s own family, not his family of origin) is recommended. Further translation issues in the passage are addressed. View Less

Proverbs are characteristically open to multiple interpretations. This is problematic for the translator: (how) should she convey this “openness” in translation? This article confronts the problem by zooming out to see translation as part of a larger “proverb process.” This process involves interpreting, applying, transmitting, and translating the proverb. Focusing on Prov 10–29, I trace a single saying (Prov 18.4) through these stages. I show how, at each stage, “openness” is important. But so too are the dynamics of “closure” and “transformation,” for they give the proverb applicability and power. As such, the translator who closes down and transforms meanings (while arguably lacking faithfulness to the linguistic nuances of the Hebrew) may be showing great faithfulness to the nature, genre, and function of the proverb. View Less

The Song of Songs communicates both aesthetic and emotional “meaning,” but the poem’s message in historical context should not be overlooked. After arguing that it is possible to translate poetry, this article suggests—as a dynamic equivalent in-text solution—“pleonastic” translation. Within the chosen skopos, this translation style adds pleonasms (synonymous adjectives) to metaphors to convey the most essential associations from the source text’s cognitive environment. Meanwhile, it honours the purposeful polysemy and the emphatic elusiveness of the poetry. Although the use of pleonasms spoils the original brevity of the Hebrew poetry, one can compensate for this by other poetic devices. Part 2 (forthcoming) exemplifies this with a translation of Song 7.2-6 (English 7.1-5) that is true to the poetic nature of the Song of Songs, its emotional expressions, and its register, while also rendering the metaphors intelligibly for today’s reader. View Less

From the Lollard versions of the fourteenth century, the six words of the word family at the heart of Paul’s doctrine of justification have most often been represented by two English word families. Tyndale also used them for his 1526 New Testament, providing the model for KJV (1611), dominant for over 350 years. With the Reformation, this two-word-family approach became linked with the Protestants’ forensic model of justification. In the nineteenth century an alternative view was developed: the relational model. Characterized by a single English word family, it became quite influential in the last third of the twentieth century, being the preferred model of the mainstream Bible Societies in the USA and Britain. However, by the twenty-first century it had disappeared from commonly used English versions. Reasons given here show that reinstatement of the relational model is essential if Paul’s message of justification is to become intelligible to an English reader. View Less