Excuse me, I think you’re in my chair
Two of my favorite Bible bloggers, Rich and John, have been tangling over translation philosophies. If you’re not a Bible translator maybe you don’t get all goose-pimply at the thought of academics arguing about communication theory. But for a guy like me that lives and breathes translation this is more exciting than tinfoil in a microwave. Rich quotes at length from one of the greatest writers on the planet, Pulitzer-prize winner Dave Barry who as you may have noticed has been greatly influenced by my writing style. For including Dave’s article, Rich deserves our thanks. Thelonius Monk once said, “Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.” In the same way, reading about Bible translation theory is like listening to sportscasters talk excitedly about a cricket match. Anything Rich can do to spice things up a little is appreciated.
John can’t quote anyone funny to support his argument since his translation philosophy essentially advocates telling jokes even though no one gets the punchline. But I enjoyed his stories about nursery rhymes that his daughter often recites without understanding what a tuffet is for example. Children recite and enjoy nursery rhymes like Little Miss Muffet without ever thinking about Mary Queen of Scots. And they happily sing “Ring-a-ring o’roses” without ever knowing about the Black Plague. Why did Peter keep his wife in the pumpkin shell? Well, because he couldn’t keep her, meaning either she was unfaithful or a spendthrift.
But Matthew 23 is not a nursery rhyme. Jesus was speaking to be understood and so we should expect a Bible translation of this passage to be understandable. If he used idioms of his era, they were used to bring impact to his message not mystery. I can imagine that while Jesus was insulting the Pharisees and scribes there was a lot of laughter in the crowd. Jesus uses the same verb tense for “sat” that is used in Little Miss Muffet! And the order of the constituents in Matthew 23:2 is dramatically arranged for comedic effect:
On Moses’ seat sat… [This is the set-up]
…the scribes and Pharisees. [This is the punchline]
In this passage, going back to the end of Matthew 22, the idea of a seat is established information. Jesus has just finished quoting Psalm 110 and applying it to the Christ.
The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right until I put your enemies under your feet.”
So when Jesus goes on to say that the scribes and Pharisees have sat on Moses’ seat, the new, and shocking, information is that the scribes and Pharisees have sat down in a seat reserved for the Messiah. Such a transgression in a shame-honor culture is exceedingly embarrassing. He is not acknowledging their authority but rather accusing them of usurping authority that belongs only to God.
Jesus was a rebel. He saw the power structure in place and he sought to overturn it. Don’t let anyone call you teacher. For you have only one teacher. Don’t let anyone call you father. For you have only one father. Don’t let anyone call you leader. For you have only one leader. Jesus was a revolutionary. He was speaking to the common people and utterly rejecting anyone who would try to impose a level of hierarchy between Abraham’s descendants and Abraham’s God.
And it is for this reason that it’s appropriate for a debate about Bible translation to be fought on the battlefield of Matthew 23. For those who would try to impose “formal” translations on the populace are the scribes and Pharisees of our day. Jesus said, “You bar the door to the Kingdom of Heaven to others and you yourself don’t even go in.” This message is as appropriate to the formalists as it was to the religious leaders of 1st century Palestine. Why do scholars and preachers prefer a formal translation? Because then they decide what it should mean1. If the “riches of the original” are inaccessible to the illiterate then they must bow to the authority of those who claim that they understand the original. A nursery rhyme at least sounds nice even when it is incomprehensible. But formal translations are nonsensical without euphony. And so the average Joe votes with the remote. He shuts the Bible and switches on the TV. At least the sitcoms make sense.
In answer to my rhetoric, you might argue that relying on translators is just another form of turning over authority to someone else. But there is a difference between translators whose stated purpose is to be faithful to the original and those who want to communicate in natural language. Look at these versions of Matthew 23:4:
NASB: They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.
NIV: They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
CEV: They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help.
NLT: They crush you with impossible religious demands and never lift a finger to help ease the burden.
While the wording of NASB, NIV and CEV is accurate to the form of the original, NLT communicates the meaning of what Jesus was saying. An average reader of Matthew 23 will not assume that it is talking about religious demands. It sounds like the scribes and Pharisees were putting people to forced labor. I think any of these translations is acceptable provided that they have a footnote. If you want to approximate the form of the original you should footnote the meaning. And if like the NLT you give the meaning, I think you should footnote a literal translation2.
But here’s the deal. People don’t read the Bible for a lesson in ancient history and language. They want to hear from God. And in the case of Matthew 23, Jesus is giving a liberating message to the oppressed. But asking people to read a translation full of bizarre vocabulary like “phylacteries” and “tassels” and “Rabbi” is a burden too heavy to bear.
Read the original posts here:
- Rich Rhodes: Do we think in words?
- John Hobbins: Do we think in words? A Reply
1: In John’s defense, I should say that I know full well that he advocates the use of idiomatic translations for his children and parishioners. But maybe he’s the one who should defend the mismatch between his position in this post and his practice in the pulpit.
2: In talking with my children about “straining a gnat and swallowing a camel” in verse 24, Andrew said, “The Pharisees really did strain their water through cloth to get out the gnats.” Where did he learn that? From a note in his NIV Student Bible. See! People really do read footnotes.
Yep, you’re right up there with Dave Barry in my book. Genuises at pulling out the hilarious from the ordinary.
For Matthew 23:4, couldn’t one argue for the value of a little ambiguity? Because while Jesus’ metaphor may have been more clear to his immediate hearers, it was still a metaphor. And maybe the pause it takes to understand the metaphor – even if that pause is longer for us than for Jesus’ immediate hearers – may be important for preparing one to understand Jesus’ message. I could imagine, in contrast, reading the pre-cooked NLT and responding, “Yeah! Screw your religious demands! Dying to myself, bearing my cross, abstaining from sex, loving my enemies – those are some impossible religious demands!”
Now obviously it is possible to respond to the NLT rightly and to the others wrongly – but my point is still something worth thinking about.
P.S. Why all the closing of comment threads? I suppose I can understand doing so for Writing is a dish best served hot, but why Cyber-Psalm 16?
Thanks, e.
Phil, in this case I think the metaphor doesn’t properly communicate so something has to be done. Your idea is a good one. You could also retain the metaphor with a little explanation or just footnote it so when a modern reader says, “Hmmmmm” they will be drawn to the footnote.
And regarding closed comments. I always have comments closed on the Cyber-Psalms but usually have a commentary thread on lingalinga, but since it is offline right now… Sorry about that. And you can always send me a private message from the link at the top of the sidebar.
Until I read your post, I always wondered what Papa Bear and Mama Bear were so upset about when it was Baby Bear who’s seat got crushed. It’s not just that absence of Goldilocks, it’s the very Mosaic idea of her. Great (inspiring) and brain stretching post indeed. Thanks!
BTW – I think you are right on with the imagery of the ’seat’ – I noted somewhere else – if sitting on a seat wasn’t a comprehensible metaphor – it soon would be in the target language. These translations have often created our language structures. Growing up i.e. incarnating metaphor is one of the jobs of life and something God does in us if we let it happen.
Let’s suppose that we want to translate “the candidate was standing for reelection” into a language that doesn’t use that idiom. If we wanted to be understood we would use an idiom natural for that language “sitting for election” “throwing his hat in the ring” or whatever. Now for the Bible, out of regard for the source text it is acceptable to footnote what the original “says” but maintaining an awkward expression for the sake of concordance is not a sound translation policy. I’m not advocating anachronism here: “the electric chair” instead of “cross.” There are certain overarching metaphors and images that have to be maintained but I expect the list would be pretty small.