Followers

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Challenges of translation

For the most part translators of ancient texts – especially bible translators – are honest scholars who strive to the best of their ability to convey the meaning of the text before them.  Every translator begins his task with his own presuppositions and biases as well as personal limitations in linguistic skill and in personal knowledge of cultural and historical detail.  As a result, every translator's approach to a difficult passage will inevitably be different from one to another.  In the case of biblical texts, literally hundreds of English translations are available along with even more in European and other commonly spoken modern languages.  Readers who are not able to consult the original languages can readily identify a difficult passage simply by comparing several different translations that they can read.  Perhaps 80% to 90% of all biblical translations, ancient and modern, are essentially identical to one another.  The points of divergence between translations identify the passages that translators have found to be difficult for one reason or another.  Some of common sources of such problems are as follows:
·        The source text is corrupt.  This can be the result of a scribal error or a defect (e.g., a hole in the page or a blurred word) in the scribe's source text.  Similarly, a scribe may conflate, omit, or duplicate text.  All such errors render a translator's task more difficult.
·         Some scribe interpreted a side note as part of the text or left part of the text out as a side note.
·         An abbreviation in the text is misinterpreted either by a scribe or a later editor.
·         The translator misinterprets an inflected form in the text by either incorrectly parsing the form or deriving the observed form from the wrong root.
·    Words in every language change meaning over time, so a translator may misunderstand the author's intended meaning by using a meaning from the wrong time period.
·       Homonyms exist in every languages, and a translator may incorrectly identify the word intended by the author.
·    Most words in every language have a multiplicity of uses based on context and syntactical relations within a sentence.  A translator may incorrectly interpret either the overall context or the syntactical relationships within the sentence.  
·   Ancient texts were written without punctuation of any sort.  Greek was written without any separation between words; Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and other Semitic languages separated the words but had no representation for vowels.  All modern printed editions of the ancient texts include punctuation, verse divisions, vowels, etc., all of which were added by various editors centuries after the fact.  Change the division of clauses and verses within a text, and you inevitably change the meaning of the text.  Let me suggest that this aspect of interpretation is implied at least in part by "rightly dividing (lit., cutting straight) the true message" (2 Tim 2:15).    
Literally thousands of biblical manuscripts have been preserved that pre-date the invention of the printing press, and all of them differ from one another to some degree.  As the original autograph was copied by scribes, errors crept into the text, producing textual families based on geographic region.  So, for example, the New Testament manuscripts developed into four major text families – Roman, North African, Byzantine, and Egyptian.  The same thing happened with the Septuagint.  This, however, is not true of the Hebrew bible.  Prior to discoveries in the recent past there were just two known text types for the Hebrew bible, the Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch.  In 1896, the contents of the Cairo Genizah first started to be examined by scholars.   This genizah contained literally thousands of Hebrew texts and fragments, many of which pre-dated the Masorites (c. 900 to 1000 CE).  These fragments indicated the kind of textual diversity present in the New Testament and Septuagint but notably missing from the Masoretic Text.  This diversity was confirmed by the discovery of the Qumran texts about 50 years later.  For those who are not aware of this history, the earliest of the Qumran manuscripts date from around 200 BCE, or roughly contemporaneous with the initial translation of the Septuagint.  The Masorites developed a detailed system for preserving the text that they approved, and they added vowel point vocalization, verse divisions, and cantillation accents.  All of this standardized the textual content and reading tradition, but the pre-Masoretic text types ceased to be used and were ultimately forgotten.  As a result, when one is confronted by an interpretive problem in the Hebrew text, the only available option is to consult secondary sources, the ancient translations. 

Does this make a difference?  Let me present an example based on Exodus 20:22, 23.  Both the Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch have the same consonantal text at this point.
ויאמר יהוה אל משה כה תאמר אל בני ישראל אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם.  לא תעשון אתי אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב לא תעשו לכם.
Then YHWH said to Moses, "Say this to the Israelites: 'You perceived that I spoke with you from heaven.  You shall not make with me gods of silver and gods of gold you shall not make.'"

Verse 22 presents no difficulty for translation, but it provides the essential context for understanding the next verse, which presents several interpretive problems.
·         Verse 23 contains two independent verbs, both of which are transitive and require a direct object. 
·         The fact that there are two independent verbs means that there are two clauses present.  The text as it stands provides no clear point of separation between the two clauses.
·         The word אתי has two homonyms.  The Masoretic vowel points present the word as 'iti meaning with me; the other possibility is 'oti identifying a direct object me.
·         The words אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב could be a reference to idols made of silver and gold or it could be a reference to a a material representation of the true God made from silver and/or gold.  
So, what did the author actually intend to say???

Apart from the Masoretic and Samaritan texts, the only Semitic language sources for this text are the Aramaic targums and the Syriac Peshitta.  Separate Aramaic targums were created for every book of the Hebrew bible starting from about 200 BCE, or roughly contemporaneous with the initial translation of the LXX version of the Torah.  Both the LXX and the targums were translated from some version of the Hebrew text, but the relation between these source texts and the Masoretic text cannot be determined with any certainty.  The date for the initial translation of the Syriac Peshitta cannot be determined with any certainty, but it probably dated from the second or third century of the common era.  Also, the source text for the Peshitta is uncertain; however, it frequently agrees with LXX readings.  The Vulgate was translated by Jerome during the fourth century of the common era (completed in 405 CE), and he also used some Hebrew text for his source document.

The LXX and Vulgate omit any translation for אתי and render the verse thus:
You shall not make for yourselves gods of silver, and gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves.

The Peshita retains a form for אתי but inserts changes in word order and content:
You shall not make for yourselves a god of fine gold, and a god of silver you shall not make for yourselves.

Targum Onkelos, which is generally the most literal of the various targums, has קדמי (before me) instead of אתי (יתי in Aramaic), and it changes אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב to דחלן דכסף ודחלן דדהב.  The verbal root דחל does occur in the Aramaic sections of the bible, and the nominal form may refer either to fear or to a worshipper.  In the present context it would refer to a worshipper of silver and gold idols in preference to (before) YHWH.  The difficulty here is that it is impossible to determine if these differences are based on the translator's interpretation or a Hebrew source text.

English translations fall into one of two groups:
A.   You shall not make gods of silver with me, yea gods of gold you shall not make for yourself.
B.   You shall not make gods of silver before me, yea gods of gold you shall not make for yourself.
Problems with these translations:
·    The LXX and Vulgate leave out any representation for אתי, indicating that it is in the translator's opinion a scribal error.  The translation divides the clause after gods of silver, thereby supplying both verbs with a direct object.
·       Both the targum and the Peshitta deviate from the Hebrew text we have. They could have been based on alternate Hebrew texts or the result of the translator's interpretation.
·     The first English translation renders אתי as with me, which is the meaning indicated by the Masoretic vowels, and it divides the verse after gods of silver.
  • The second common English translation renders אתי with before me.  This duplicates the force of the command in verse 20:4, and it corresponds to the targumic reading.
The Masoretic text divides the two clauses at אתי, but the meaning with me leaves the first verb without a direct object.  If we consider that the Masoretic vowel pointing may be in error, we end up with You shall not make me as the first clause.  It is understandable that the Masorites, and the Jews in general, would have a problem with this reading.

As previously mentioned, the phrase אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב could be a reference to idols or to a material representation of the true God.  There are three Hebrew words that are used specifically for idols: פסל, מסכה, and משכית, all referring to something that is formed or shaped.  The term פסל occurs in Exodus 20:4, which is the specific commandment against making or worshipping any image, and all three terms are commonly used to describe the idols of the people surrounding them.  However, the phrases אלהי כסף and אלהי זהב occur nowhere else in the Hebrew text of the bible, but the equivalent terms do occur twice in the Aramaic section of Daniel (Dan 5:4, 23), where they are clearly a reference to idols.  

The ultimate answer to the intended meaning of the text depends on the original reading of the verse.  Evidence of Targum Onkelos suggests that a Hebrew text with the variant reading of  קדמי for אתי may once have existed, but the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with that of the Masoretic text.  The source text of the Samaritan Pentateuch potentially dates back to the sixth century BCE or earlier, implying that אתי was the original reading.  (In both instances the text of Daniel reads gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.)

Now in the overall context of chapter 20, the Israelites had just heard the ten words spoken from heaven.  As Moses said later, you heard his voice but saw no form.  Several days later Moses wrote down the commandments spoken by God in a scroll and presided over a covenant ceremony between God and the people (Ex 24), and then Moses led 70 leaders of the people part way up the mountain where they ate a communal meal in God's presence.  There the leaders all saw God at a distance (Ex 25).  The text of Exodus gives little detail about the appearance of God that they saw, but the little detail there corresponds to the descriptions in Ezekiel 1.  After the communal meal Moses went up the mountain for his first stent of 40 days.  During that time Aaron made the golden calf, and he clearly intended it to be a representation of YHWH (Ex 32:5).  


Based on this context of the narrative, let me suggest that Exodus 20:23 is not a repetition of Exodus 20:4 but a prohibition against making any material representation of YHWH.  After the event with the golden calf, the Israelites continued to have problems with idols, but they never again attempted to make a material image of YHWH.

No comments:

Post a Comment