Lost in translation

Originally posted by Conrau K
When wolfgang says the bible, I immediately think Hebrew and Greek. If he meant translation of the bible, then he was simply being sloppy with language. And if he really did mean that, then I have no idea what the question means anyway. What does it mean to take a translation literally?

Apologies for being sloppy with the language! I meant translation of the bible. But really that is the problem here. The original bible you say is in Hebrew and Ancient Greek (although I presume Jesus's parables had to be translated from Aramaic to Greek).

My question is can any text be translated into another language and retain its full meaning?

At a basic level there is no one-to-one correspondance between words in two languages. (e.g. English "you" has at least 6 translations in Spanish)

Some languages simply have no translation. (e.g. schadenfreude, pied-a-terre, ciao)

One language may have tenses not known in another (e.g. French Past Historic)

Languages have their own idioms (e.g. how does "pull your socks up" translate into other languages .... )

So how accurate are Jesus's teachings as given in an English (or any other modern language) bible given that his Aramaic words were translated into Ancient Greek, then Latin, then English. (And lets not even consider how the English language has changed since James I)

A quick google revealed this:

The literal Greek of Matthew 6:22 (ean oun ê ho ophthalmos sou haplous) "if therefore your eye is single" has been translated variously. The Greek word only occurs in this saying of Jesus and literally means 'single'.

Other translations have rendered it 'unclouded, sound, clear, healthy' or 'good':


"unclouded eye" (Westcott & Hort)
"sound eye" (Weymouth, Philipps, NEB, Williams, Amplified, GNB, NAB)
"clear/diseased eye" (Knox, NASB [clear/bad])
"single eye" (KJV, Bagsters, Tyndale, Rheims) - literally correct
"healthy eye" (Beck, NRSV)
"good eye" (NKJV, NIV) - Hebraically correct


http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/goodeye.htm

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So why the big disagreement between christians?
BTW I do loosely agree with your rundown on the bible. It's just that if you put it that way, there is so much room for personal intepretation. (which is good, but not really for unifying the religon)

The Jews rarely agreed on the ancient texts and their meanings, but they were unified in their belief in the almighty. Its arrogance that creates division in the church. The "MY way or the highway to hell" mentality is sinful arrogance.

Originally posted by Doward
The Jews rarely agreed on the ancient texts and their meanings, but they were unified in their belief in the almighty. Its arrogance that creates division in the church. The "MY way or the highway to hell" mentality is sinful arrogance.

sigh,

(Ephesians 4:4-6)  One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called;  one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons, who is over all and through all and in all.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
A quick google revealed this:

The literal Greek of Matthew 6:22 (ean oun ê ho ophthalmos sou haplous) "if therefore your eye is single" has been translated variously. The Greek word only occurs in this saying of Jesus and literally means 'single'.

Other translations have rendered it 'unclouded, sound, clear, healthy' or 'good':


"unclouded - Hebraically correct


http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/goodeye.htm

yes indeed, but one must look at the etymology of the word or phrase in question and the immediate context as well, its really no use to isolate as these renderings have done. For example, 'Simple', here (Matthew 6:22) is translated from the Greek word 'haplous', which basically means singleness of mind or devotion to one purpose. Now when one puts that in its immediate context, is it not rather easy to deduce the intent of the phrase? in that Christ was advocating avoiding anything that would cause spiritual myopia? Thus the text is rendered as,

(Matthew 6:22) . . .“The lamp of the body is the eye. If, then, your eye is simple, your whole body will be bright. . .

Vines expository comments,
haplous

"simple, single," is used in a moral sense in Matt. 6:22; Luke 11:34, said of the eye; "singleness" of purpose keeps us from the snare of having a double treasure and consequently a divided heart. The papyri provide instances of its use in other than the moral sense, e.g., of a marriage dowry, to be repaid pure and simple by a husband (Moulton and Milligan). In the Sept., Prov. 11:25.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm still confused. What is the bible a translation of? (And I am talking here specifically about the original text, not the following translations which Christians do not generally consider inspired.)

This is not a logical statement. The Bible is not a translation of anything in and of itself. What is missing here is crucial to the question.

The correct question is: What is the [language of your choice] Bible a translation of?

If you speak Japanese, then your question might be "What is the Japanese Bible a translation of?"

Originally posted by Badwater
This is not a logical statement. The Bible is not a translation of anything in and of itself. What is missing here is crucial to the question.

The correct question is: What is the [language of your choice] Bible a translation of?

If you speak Japanese, then your question might be "What is the Japanese Bible a translation of?"

This is not a logical statement. The Bible is not a translation of anything in and of itself. What is missing here is crucial to the question.

Duh. That is why I asked. See the OP.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Apologies for being sloppy with the language! I meant translation of the bible. But really that is the problem here. The original bible you say is in Hebrew and Ancient Greek (although I presume Jesus's parables had to be translated from Aramaic to Greek).

My question is can any text be translated into another language and retain its full meanin n English. (And lets not even consider how the English language has changed since James I)

My question is can any text be translated into another language and retain its full meaning?

Ok. I'm ambivalent: my feeling is yes and no. Sometimes a translation can make explicit something which was opaque in the original. I think here specifically of Plato's dialogues. The language is colloquial and loose and there is not always any philosophical precision. A good scholar can examine the whole text and, considering the philosophical arguments, make distinctions in his translations which were not clear in the original.

On the other hand, especially in poetry, no translation can realistically capture the original. No language is the same. In a poem, the author may intend certain nuances. He may be using sound and rhythm as part of the experience of the poem. The translator, working with different words of a different language, will be producing an entirely different-sounding sentence and certain subtleties of meaning can be lost too.

So how accurate are Jesus's teachings as given in an English (or any other modern language) bible given that his Aramaic words were translated into Ancient Greek, then Latin, then English. (And lets not even consider how the English language has changed since James I)

Well, I suspect the current translations are clearer than the original. You mention the Greek word haplous. It has a range of meanings definitely and to talk of a ophthamlos haplous is quite cryptic. I expect early readers had similar problems understanding what it meant. There is never a guarantee that two native speakers necessarily understand one another. On the other hand, a translator, who is more than just a syntax-parser, can consider the range of meanings, look at other teachings of Jesus, and from that find an expression in his own language which captures the original meaning in a univocal way. A translation can do better than the original language.

You mention the word schadenfraude for example. Imagine the converse: a Japanese man was describing a scene in a novel and is searching for a way to describe a character's frame of mind as the character revels in the pain of the other character. He has no word schadenfraude and so uses a dodgy approximate word. He isn't satisfied with the result but sticks to it. On the other hand, a German translator comissioned for this work would understand the situation and be able to capture the character's frame of mind with his own convenient native word schadenfraude. Translations do not necessarily equal a loss.

Originally posted by Conrau K
...
Well, I suspect the current translations are clearer than the original. You mention the Greek word haplous. It has a range of meanings definitely and to talk of a ophthamlos haplous is quite cryptic. I expect early readers had similar problems understanding what it meant. There is never a guarantee that two native speakers necessarily unders ...[text shortened]... he original meaning in a univocal way. A translation can do better than the original language.
...

I have an issue with the following two parts of the paragraph quoted above:

I expect early readers had similar problems understanding what it meant. There is never a guarantee that two native speakers necessarily understand one another.

and

On the other hand, a translator, who is more than just a syntax-parser, can consider the range of meanings, look at other teachings of Jesus, and from that find an expression in his own language which captures the original meaning in a univocal way.

So are you saying that translators have powers of understanding beyond that of other people, even religious scholars? Nobody else is able to consider the range of meanings of a phrase, look at other teachings and thereby understand the 'correct' meaning? Why then is there so much debate about the meaning of this and that passage, both in the translations and in the original?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I have an issue with the following two parts of the paragraph quoted above:

[b]I expect early readers had similar problems understanding what it meant. There is never a guarantee that two native speakers necessarily understand one another.

and

On the other hand, a translator, who is more than just a syntax-parser, can consider the range of me ...[text shortened]... ning of this and that passage, both in the translations and in the original?

--- Penguin.[/b]

So are you saying that translators have powers of understanding beyond that of other people, even religious scholars? Nobody else is able to consider the range of meanings of a phrase, look at other teachings and thereby understand the 'correct' meaning? Why then is there so much debate about the meaning of this and that passage, both in the translations and in the original?

Of course not. First, a translator is not a genus of person removed from all others; a translator is merely anybody coming to a text with the intention of decoding its meaning and reformulating it in his own chosen words. A religious scholar would have to be some kind of translator because his job would involve something like that -- coming to religious texts and repackaging their meaning for his own scholarly audience.

Second, I do not think any translator is endowed with mysterious hermeneutical powers -- he can make mistakes, he can misapprehend, and there is always room for dispute with other translators. No translator is infallible. The point is that theoretically a translator could capture the intended meaning of the original text with greater clarity in his own language than that of the original.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]My question is can any text be translated into another language and retain its full meaning?

Ok. I'm ambivalent: my feeling is yes and no. Sometimes a translation can make explicit something which was opaque in the original. I think here specifically of Plato's dialogues. The language is colloquial and loose and there is not always any phil ...[text shortened]... convenient native word schadenfraude. Translations do not necessarily equal a loss.[/b]

Nope, "ophthalmos haplous" in NT (Matt. and Luke) is not at all cryptic, for the word "haplous" in this context has just one, single meaning. It strictly means "plain/unadorned/unembellished". So the Greek believers were forced to start their variations from that point (the dualist approach and the perrenial struggle is obvious: If you have an unadorned eye/ attitude, you are in the Light; otherwise, an ophtalmos poniros will get you into the Darkness)
😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh,

(Ephesians 4:4-6)  One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called;  one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons, who is over all and through all and in all.

then why are you so divicive?

Originally posted by Doward
then why are you so divicive?

sigh,

(Matthew 10:34-36) . . .Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword.  For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be persons of his own household. . .

the words of the Christ I believe.

Originally posted by black beetle
Nope, "ophthalmos haplous" in NT (Matt. and Luke) is not at all cryptic, for the word "haplous" in this context has just one, single meaning. It strictly means "plain/unadorned/unembellished". So the Greek believers were forced to start their variations from that point (the dualist approach and the perrenial struggle is obvious: If you have an unadorned ...[text shortened]... you are in the Light; otherwise, an ophtalmos poniros will get you into the Darkness)
😵

yes, here is a rather interesting take on the matter,

and then asking the question, what may hAPLOUS and POHNROS in these two
verses legitimately be understood to mean in the context? If one wanted
then to cite one or two versions that seem to the questioner to
misinterpret the original text, that would not hurt, but for this list the
real question must focus on the Greek text and the meaning(s) appropriate
to them in the context of the verses in question. That is to say, the
question for B-Greekers concerns primarily the Greek words in a Greek text,
and only secondarily whether or not translations into any other language
have misrepresented what the Greek words in their context mean.
--

Carl W. Conrad
Co-Chair, B-Greek List
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So are you saying that translators have powers of understanding beyond that of other people, even religious scholars? Nobody else is able to consider the range of meanings of a phrase, look at other teachings and thereby understand the 'correct' meaning? Why then is there so much debate about the meaning of this and that passage, both in the translations ...[text shortened]... aning of the original text with greater clarity in his own language than that of the original.

This is nonsense!

You say The point is that theoretically a translator could capture the intended meaning of the original text with greater clarity in his own language than that of the original.

How would the translator know more about the intended meaning if his only source is the original text? Any change in meaning from the original (even if you or anyone else believes it makes it clearer) has been added by the translator. It then becomes partly his work. Its his spin on the original surely?