JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

of communication. Most modern translations have tended
toward this ideal. The second pole, called “literal,” “formal
equivalent/correspondent,” or “foreignizing,” seeks to move
the reader back toward the text, as part of a more active process.
Here the reader must make the effort to know the text
as something from a partially unfamiliar world, with its own
distinctive modes of expression, and learn how to read it. In
such an approach, stylistic features and modes of speech, such
as word order, idioms, and wordplays are particularly important.
The result, as in the 20th-century German Buber-Rosenzweig
translation, may confound some readers, who are seeking
mainly a comfortable way into the text.
Regarding these two directions of translation, E. Greenstein
has noted in the former a tinge of Christian missionizing,
which is, to be sure, one of the goals of a number of institutions
involved in Bible translation, such as the American
Bible Society. The latter methodology he views as more essentially
Jewish, concerned as it is with the precise wording and
nuances of the Hebrew.
Scripture itself seemed to encourage formal correspondence:
Deut. 4:2: “You shall not add anything to what I command
you or take anything away from it.” Consequently, a
literal translation alleges exactness. Similarly, for the rabbis,
according to Max Margolis, “the multiple sense of the scriptural
word was an accepted fact and it is for this very reason
that they frowned upon all translation.” In a transitional mode,
Jerome translated the Vulgate through stages, developing from
formal correspondence to a dynamic equivalence. He saw the
work of Aquila (a second century C.E. Greek literal translation)
as slavish literalism and disparaged “the word for word,”
seeking instead a “sense for sense” translation. Ultimately, dynamic
equivalence was not unappreciated by translators. The
16th-century Martin Luther, who translated the Bible into German,
could describe dynamic equivalence:
Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style.
Rather, he must see to it – once he understands the Hebrew
author – that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking
himself, Pray tell what do the Germans say in such a situation?
Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him
drop the Hebrew words, and express the meaning freely in the
best German he knows…. I endeavored to make Moses so German
that no one would suspect he was a Jew.
It may be helpful to visualize the broad spectrum of translation
by means of a hypothetical illustration. If one imagines a
culture in which the description of a heavy rainfall, whether in
everyday language or in a recited story, translates out as “the
rains fall rhinos and zebras,” there are at least four possibilities
that present themselves to the translator: (1) “the rains are
falling like rhinos and zebras”; (2) “the rain is like stampeding
animals”; (3) “it’s raining cats and dogs”; and (4) “It’s pouring
outside!” It will be observed that the first is rather literal,
although not totally so (“like” has been inserted for clarity);
the second retains the basic concept but is less language-specific;
the third uses a parallel image from the target culture,
bible
in this case, American; and the fourth is a clear rendering of
the action, but without any reference to the original language
or mode of cultural expression. In the end, the degree of literalness
or idiomatic fluidity in a translation will depend on
the translator’s goals and on the audience at which the work
is aimed. Broadly speaking, 20th century Bible translations
tended in the direction of choices 3 and 4, with some more
recent movement back toward the earlier numbers.
One specifically biblical illustration of the possible range
of translation can be found regarding a common expression,
limẓo ḥen be-einei X. Available translations render this across
the spectrum from literal to idiomatic; hence, in Gen. 19:19,
the New International Version has “Your servant has found
favor in your eyes,” while the New American Standard Bible,
1995 Revision, renders “Your servant has found favor in your
sight”; the Revised English Bible for the same phrase reads
“You have shown your servant favor,” whereas the New Jerusalem
Bible proposes “You have already been very good to
your servant” (note also the New American Bible’s “You have
already thought enough of your servant”).
Despite the best of intentions, it will not always be possible
to realize the translator’s goals. For those committed to
a “modern,” idiomatic rendering, there will be cases where
current language sometimes runs afoul of changes in usage.
In this regard, the New Revised Standard Version translators
note how they had to change the 1952 Revised Standard Version’s
rendering of Psalm 50:9, “I will take no bull from your
house,” to “I will not take a bull from your house,” for obvious
reasons. Similarly, E. Fox’s 1972 translation of Gen. 28:17,
“How awesome is this place!,” gave way to “How awe-inspiring
is this place” (1995), to avoid using what had by then become
teenage lingo. Such examples demonstrate that changes in usage
and taste dictate changes in performance.
At the same time, like any language, biblical Hebrew
abounds in idiomatic expressions which pose dilemmas for
the literally minded translator. Phrases such as “he lifted up
his eyes” or “to fill the hand” (e.g., Ex. 28:41), usually rendered
by less literal equivalents such as “he looked up” and
“to consecrate,” provide one kind of example. Further, yamim
will often signify “years” instead of “days” in biblical usage,
while leh’em, nominally “bread,” in many contexts denotes the
broader “food.” Another type of construction is that found in
Gen. 44:18, literally “like you is like Pharaoh,” which virtually
all English translators, albeit some with an explanatory note,
render as “you are like Pharaoh.”
The Bible translator therefore must decide where he or
she fits along the spectrum; yet since a “pure” translation of
one extreme or the other is not possible, decisions, often compromises,
must be made on every page, in every verse. Tyndale
famously coined many words and phrases in his work
which have become standard, not only in the English Bible
but in the language in general (e.g., scapegoat, Passover) but
he also did not hesitate to be less literal in the many cases
where he felt that clarity of style was paramount. Thus he felt
no compunction to reproduce biblical Hebrew wordplays
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 607