| Страниц в теме: < [1 2 3 4] > | New gender-neutral Bible translation angers conservatives
|
|---|
| | Samuel Murray 
Нидерланды
Local time: 07:20
Член ProZ.com c 2006
английский => африкаанс
+ ...
Peter Nicholson wrote:
The 2011 version of Revelation 3:20 sounds more like how a TEFL teacher might explain the 2005 rendering to a class at around pre-intermediate level.
I agree that the 2011 version of Rev 3:20 sounds very awkward:
NIV (1984): ...eat with him, and he with me.
TNIV (2005): ...eat with them, and they with me.
NIV (2011): ...eat with that person, and they with me.
Interestingly, one or two modern translations took the plural route here, and so did the 2005 edition of the NIV, but the fact that they reverted to a singular (that person) tells me that they believe the singular is quite important and that it can't be left to the reader to figure out that the "they" is meant to be singular. Quite a lot of the modern translations took the "eat with you, and you with me" route.
The 2011 NIV policy is that if gender is not important, a gender-neutral term should be used. If your client had a similar policy, how would you have dealt with the exact same text as Rev 3:20 (keeping in mind that it is important that "anyone" is not to be misunderstood as possibly plural, and assuming that gender here is not important)?
| | | | | It is not for us to determine about gender! | Mar 21, 2011 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The 2011 NIV policy is that if gender is not important, a gender-neutral term should be used. If your client had a similar policy, how would you have dealt with the exact same text as Rev 3:20 (keeping in mind that it is important that "anyone" is not to be misunderstood as possibly plural, and assuming that gender here is not important)?
But, in this decision, they disregard the fact that the Bible says what it says, and most probably for a reason at the time. I really doubt all biblical translators are inspired by God, but those who wrote what they wrote were inspired by God, or such is the belief of Christians.
No person in his/her right mind will understand that "Man does not live by bread alone" did not refer to the human nature in general!
| | | | Peter Nicholson (X)
Польша
Local time: 07:20
польский => английский
| The NIV gender-neutral policy appears to be inconsistent | Mar 21, 2011 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The 2011 NIV policy is that if gender is not important, a gender-neutral term should be used. If your client had a similar policy, how would you have dealt with the exact same text as Rev 3:20 (keeping in mind that it is important that "anyone" is not to be misunderstood as possibly plural, and assuming that gender here is not important)?
If a client has any special requirements, I always incorporate them in my translations. However, in this case, I would have to say that I do not understand the NIV's policy as you describe it, Samuel. What exactly does "if gender is not important" mean? We would need some very precise guidelines. According to the Daily Mail, the 2011 NIV has in at least one case not only violated its own policy, but has even rejected the gender-neutral reading from the 2005 version in favour of the traditional reading of Mathew 4:4.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Нидерланды
Local time: 07:20
Член ProZ.com c 2006
английский => африкаанс
+ ...
| A translation for new believers | Mar 21, 2011 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
But the "target audience" has been "digesting" translations of the Bible containing "man" for over two thousand [years]!
That is not true, I'm afraid.
Very few of the countries in which the NIV is used are currently still "Christian" countries in the sense that parents practice the religion regularly while their children still live with them. This means that most people's exposure to Christianity is the same as their exposure to any other religion. For them, they have not been digesting it for 2 millenia, or even for 2 decades, but for e.g. 2 years, or even for 2 months (if they are recent converts). Exposure to "biblical" type of language is minimal among most non-Christian English-speaking people, and so to them "forefather" means male ancestor, and when Jesus speaks of "my father's house" it means that his parents are divorced.
I just want to prove how ridiculous can things get if we let sexism/anti-sexism intervene in what should be an informed, consistent translation of ancient texts...
Yes, but the debacle of gender-neutrality does not relate to the reporting of specific historical facts. If a man was created first (i.e. a specific historical fact), then it would be correct to call him a man, even if you're aiming for a gender-neutral translation, or even if you're aiming for a digestable non-sexist happy-modernist type of translation. Gender-neutrality relates more to doctrinal statements.
No-one is saying that a journalist should write "a person was arrested" instead of "a man was arrested", and he might want to think about whether to call a dog "man's best friend" if the dog owner is a woman. But I'm sure you'll agree that if he calls female politician a "man of his word", that that would be downright silly.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray wrote:
This means that most people's exposure to Christianity is the same as their exposure to any other religion.
Samuel, you just can't believe this, if we talk about the Western world to which --I think-- South Africa belongs. Or maybe South Africa is very different from what I thought!
| | | | Samuel Murray
Нидерланды
Local time: 07:20
Член ProZ.com c 2006
английский => африкаанс
+ ...
| Client's requirements versus moral obligations | Mar 21, 2011 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
It is not for us to determine about gender! ... I really doubt all biblical translators are inspired by God, but those who wrote what they wrote were inspired by God, or such is the belief of Christians.
This may be the difference between many modern Bible translators and earlier ones -- modern translators often do not feel a moral obligation towards the source text, but are willing to translate to the specifications of the client (in this case, the publisher). I think that if a translator feels morally obligated to treat a source text differently from what the client has asked, then he also has the obligation to inform the client of his refusal to implement part of the client's request.
Let me ask you this: do you believe that a Bible translation aimed at (a) first-generation immigrant speakers of a language, (b) at native speaking 10-14 year olds, (c) at university-level native speakers and (d) at socially handicapped people should all be exactly the same, or would you allow the translators to adapt their translation to those target audiences?
Peter Nicholson wrote:
If a client has any special requirements, I always incorporate them in my translations. However, in this case, I would have to say that I do not understand the NIV's policy as you describe it... According to the Daily Mail, the 2011 NIV has in at least one case not only violated its own policy, but has even rejected the gender-neutral reading from the 2005 version in favour of the traditional reading of Mathew 4:4.
While I think it would be impractical for most translators to write detailled explanations of each decision they made, and how it conforms to the client's instructions (in a worrying trend some agencies actually expect this!), I do think that in the case of a major Bible translation the authors should provide more detailed explanations of what principles they applied for each of the verses that are likely to cause concern.
Thankfully the translator does give a reason for his decision at Matt 4:4 (not that I agree with his reasoning):
For instance, Matthew 4:4 is rendered, 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'
This in itself is a change from the previous version, where the same phase read, 'People do not live on bread alone.'
'I think that clause has entered into standard English,' translator Douglas Moo explained of the move back to the more traditional 'man.'
'People know it who don't know the Bible.'
I ask myself if people who don't know the Bible but know this phrase also know what the phrase means, and if what they think it means is also what it means here in this verse. My answer to my own question is: no, I don't think so.
| | | | | "Do what I say, not what I do" | Mar 21, 2011 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Let me ask you this: do you believe that a Bible translation aimed at (a) first-generation immigrant speakers of a language, (b) at native speaking 10-14 year olds, (c) at university-level native speakers and (d) at socially handicapped people should all be exactly the same, or would you allow the translators to adapt their translation to those target audiences?
The Bible is the Bible, and should be just one. Children and people with developmental disabilities should be explained the contents of the Bible by someone who understands it enough to convey a clear, positive, useful message.
And now comes the moment when I completely discredit myself about the above because I bought a children's version of the Gospel for my sons.
| | | | | Completely agree | Mar 21, 2011 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
'Man shall not live on bread alone.'
...
I ask myself if people who don't know the Bible but know this phrase also know what the phrase means, and if what they think it means is also what it means here in this verse. My answer to my own question is: no, I don't think so.
Absolutely. People use this sentence mostly to justify the fact that they indulge themselves to some good wine, theater tickets, or a trip to Gloweeransheegan (wherever that may be), and I am pretty sure very few people know what this means or have assumed its profound implications. Out of context... the sentence is worth very little.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Нидерланды
Local time: 07:20
Член ProZ.com c 2006
английский => африкаанс
+ ...
| Translation versus adaptation | Mar 21, 2011 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
And now comes the moment when I completely discredit myself about the above because I bought a children's version of the Gospel for my sons.
I'll wager the "children's version" is not a verse by verse translation from the original Greek, but an adaptation or a retelling of the story in simpler language.
When I said "translation aimed at 10-14 year olds" I meant a *translation*, i.e. verse by verse (or close to it) from the original Greek as done by Greek and New Testament scholars, with the intention of being used as a real Bible (and not as a "Children's Bible"). We have such a translation in Afrikaans -- it is a very interesting exercise in the implementation of translation theory.
| | | | Steven Capsuto
США
Local time: 01:20
Член ProZ.com c 2004
испанский => английский
+ ...
It is not for us to determine about gender!
Hi, Tomás.
It is for Bible translators to determine. As you know, translators don't render individual words; we render the meaning of entire phrases. Different languages use gender in different ways to convey meaning, but the translator must follow the grammar and usage of the target language.
In Hebrew, as in Spanish, the masculine plural can be either specifically masculine or it can be inclusive. In cases where it is clearly generic, there is an extremely long history of using gender-inclusive language. For instance, there have been English Bibles that translate "B'nai Yisrael" as "the Children of Israel" (and not as "the Sons of Israel") for many centuries.
This isn't about being fashionable or political. It's about being a good translator. No one complains about the term "Children of Israel" because they have heard it all their lives. But it is exactly the same principle. If it was an acceptable approach centuries ago, when the masculine was assumed to be inclusive in English, how much more appropriate is it to use gender-inclusive language in today's English, in which masculine nouns usually refer to males alone? Again, we don't translate words; we translate meaning in context.
Unfortunately, what I think a lot of people want from a Bible translation isn't really a translation: they want a text that reminds them of the Bible they read as a child and which reflects the specific (usually post-Biblical) beliefs of their particular branch of their particular religion.
Look through the reviews of Bible translations on Amazon and you'll see what I mean. The complaints generally aren't about how this or that word is rendered (because the reviewers don't seem to know the source languages). Instead, you get a lot of complaints that boil down to "this isn't what I was taught it's supposed to mean."
[Edited at 2011-03-22 14:35 GMT]
| | | | Krzysztof Kajetanowicz (X)
Польша
Local time: 07:20
английский => польский
+ ...
| question to all | Mar 23, 2011 |
If the Bible should be re-translated to 'suit the target audience', can same be said about Shakespeare?
Is the Bible more like a school textbook or a literary piece?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Нидерланды
Local time: 07:20
Член ProZ.com c 2006
английский => африкаанс
+ ...
| W.r.t. Shakespeare | Mar 23, 2011 |
Krzysztof Kajetanowicz wrote:
If the Bible should be re-translated to 'suit the target audience', can same be said about Shakespeare?
1. AFAIK there are some moderner translations of Shakespeare. There are also simplified versions, shortened versions and retellings. The problem with Shakespeare is that it is commonly thought that studying it in its original form will teach you more about good English, so there's little point in translating it for modern readers (it would not be considered very good literature anyway).
2. The Bible is a sacred text (i.e. people think that is contains the word or words of God), and so translating it means retaining the essence of what God is assumed to have been trying to say.
Is the Bible more like a school textbook or a literary piece?
The Bible is a library of different books, each written in a certain style. Some believers believe that when translating the Bible, the type of text (even its genre) should be taken into account, but others believe that all of the Bible should be treated uniformly as if it is all instructional.
| | |
|
|
|
Steven Capsuto
США
Local time: 01:20
Член ProZ.com c 2004
испанский => английский
+ ...
| Source language versus translation, literary versus sacred | Mar 23, 2011 |
If the original text said "man", may it be "man" in the translations. Or are we also going to edit Hamlet too to change "proud man" to "proud people"? How come we should respect Hamlet and not the Bible in this respect?
There is a difference between publishing a text in its original language and creating a translation into another language. This is why Shakespeare is much easier to understand in translation than in English. The English editions are full of terms that modern readers do not understand or, worse, which they think they understand but don't.
Look at any current Spanish edition of Shakespeare and you will find a text that is absolutely understandable, even if it uses archaisms to preserve the flavor of the original. It's the difference between "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" (which the average English speaker surely will think means "Where are you, Romeo?") and "¿Por qué sois Romeo?" (archaic but clear).
If I buy an edition of the Hebrew scriptures in Hebrew or the Christian scriptures in Greek, clearly I don't want modern Hebrew or modern Greek (though I imagine such editions exist, just as there are modern English translations of Shakespeare). But a translation to another language should be as unambiguous to modern readers as the original was in its day... to the degree that the exact meaning of an ancient, mystical text can be known to us.
Because the definitions of countless ancient words are ambiguous and because there are disagreements even among the most erudite Bible scholars, I prefer English translations that explain those disagreements or ambiguities in footnotes.
Is the Bible more like a school textbook or a literary piece?
Obviously, no one is going to translate the Bible as if it were a newly discovered literary text that modern readers had never heard of.
Any translation will reflect the assumptions of the translators' and target audience's religion. These are reflected not only in the words chosen, but in such subtle matters as the use of capital letters. There is no way around making certain interpretive decisions. For instance, either "spirit" has a capital S at the beginning (Christian interpretation) or it doesn't (Jewish interpretation). When translating from Hebrew, the translator must choose one or the other, and either way it adds information (since Hebrew does not have upper and lower case letters).
If we were to approach the Bible as a newly found literary text with no religious importance, the translations would look very different. Moses might retain his Hebrew name (Moshe), or he might be called Drew: "She called him Drew, for she drew him from the water" (preserving the original wordplay between Moshe and mashah). I doubt any translator would do this, because the normal rules of literary translation do not apply to sacred texts of modern religions.
The Bible is a library of different books, each written in a certain style. Some believers believe that when translating the Bible, the type of text (even its genre) should be taken into account, but others believe that all of the Bible should be treated uniformly as if it is all instructional.
Exactly. This is why some translations of the Song of Songs are relatively literal, and treat it as love poetry, while others interpret it is an allegorical text about the relationship between humans and their god. I find the love-poetry translations more convincing, but clearly there's room for honest disagreement.
[Edited at 2011-03-23 14:56 GMT]
| | | | liz askew
Великобритания
Local time: 06:20
Член ProZ.com c 2007
французский => английский
+ ...
| The Bible is a historical document - political correctness is totally inappropriate in a translation | Mar 24, 2011 |
Well,
I find this rather ridiculous. Any translator who is worth their salt would reflect the language of the original text. Political correctness did not exist when the Bible was written. Does this mean that any document pre 1990s is to be re-written in a politically-correct form. I find the whole idea dishonest and disingenuous. Are these political correct authors and translators the new holders of the "truth" and the "new morality"?
Liz Askew
[Edited at 2011-03-24 1... See more Well,
I find this rather ridiculous. Any translator who is worth their salt would reflect the language of the original text. Political correctness did not exist when the Bible was written. Does this mean that any document pre 1990s is to be re-written in a politically-correct form. I find the whole idea dishonest and disingenuous. Are these political correct authors and translators the new holders of the "truth" and the "new morality"?
Liz Askew
[Edited at 2011-03-24 18:38 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | liz askew
Великобритания
Local time: 06:20
Член ProZ.com c 2007
французский => английский
+ ...
| And I will send you out to fish for people.”‘ | Mar 24, 2011 |
I cannot resist a facetious remark about the politically-correct translation.
.."to fish for people"...has me laughing out loud.
Liz Askew
| | | | | Страниц в теме: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » New gender-neutral Bible translation angers conservatives | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
