untranslatable verses

The Swedish Bibel 2000 declared the 69 Old Testament verses referenced herein as “untranslatable.” Typically, other Bible translations translate those verses and mention in footnotes that the translation is uncertain or give alternate readings. Christer Åsberg, the Translation Secretary with the Swedish Bible Society at that time, explains why the Swedish Bible Society decided to not translate these verses at all (in The Bible Translator 2007, p. 1ff. ):

“In the new Swedish translation (SB) of 2000, [some verses are] not translated at all; [they are] indicated with three hyphens inside square brackets [- - -] [with a] reference to the appendix, where in the article ‘Text’ one will find a paragraph with roughly the following content:

In some cases the text is unintelligible and the variant readings differing to such an extent, that it is quite impossible to attain a reasonable certainty of what is meant, although some isolated word may occur, whose meaning it is possible to understand.

“If Bible translators find the Hebrew text untranslatable, what kind of text is it that they have produced in the translation into their own language? When a footnote says ‘The Hebrew is not understandable,’ what then is the printed text a translation of? And if the translators prefer to do without footnotes, are they then really released from the responsibility of informing their readers that the text they read is just mere guesswork?

“To leave a blank space in a Bible text seems to be an offensive act for many. (. . . ) To admit that a piece of Holy Scripture makes no sense at all may have been unimaginable in times past. In our enlightened era, an overprotective concern for the readers’ trust in the word of God is apparently a decisive factor when a translator tries to translate against all odds. The verdict ‘untranslatable’ is much more frequent in scholarly commentaries on different Bible books written by and for experts than in the translations or footnotes of the same books designed for common readers.

“Another reason (. . .) is a professional, and very human, reluctance to admit a failure. Also, many Bible translators lack translational experience of other literary genres and other classical texts where this kind of capitulation is a part of the daily run of things. They may have an innate or subconscious feeling that the Bible has unique qualities not only as a religious document but also as a linguistic and literary artifact. Completeness is felt to be proof of perfection. Some translators, and not so few of their clients, are unfamiliar with a scholarly approach to philological and exegetical matters. In some cases their background have made them immune to a kind of interpretative approximation common in older translations, confessional commentaries, and sermons. Therefore, their tolerance towards lexical, grammatical, and syntactical anomalies tends to be comparatively great.

“It is very hard to discern and to define the boundary between something that is extremely difficult and something that is quite impossible. I am convinced that all Bible translators in their heart of hearts will admit that there actually are some definitely untranslatable passages in the Bible, but are there a dozen of them or a score? Are there fifty or a hundred? Not even a group of recognized experts would probably pick out the same ten most obvious cases. (. . .)

“Conclusions:

  1. There are untranslatable passages in the Bible.
  2. How many they are is impossible to say—except for the translation team that decides which passages are untranslatable.
  3. An untranslatable passage cannot and should therefore not be translated.
  4. The lacuna should be marked in a consistent way.
  5. The translating team should stipulate their criteria for untranslatability as early as possible.
  6. It is an ethical imperative that the readers be comprehensively informed.
  7. Untranslatability has been and can be displayed in many different ways.
  8. An explanatory note should not confuse linguistic untranslatability with other kinds of textual or translational difficulties.
  9. The information given should make it clear that the translators’ recognition of untranslatability is a token of respect for the Bible, not a proof of depreciation.
  10. You shall not fear the void, but the fear of the void.”

With thanks to Mikael Winninge, Director of Translation, Swedish Bible Society

complete verse (Job 30:3)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Job 30:3:

  • Kupsabiny: “They were so poor that they went around digging for roots in the desert
    in order to chew (them) because of famine so they would not go to bed hungry.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Being poor and not getting [enough] to eat, they have become thin and lean.
    Night [after] night they keep on wandering in dried up places of the desert.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “They are extremely thin due-to too much poverty and hunger. They just gnaw the kakaruton (kind of a root-crop) in the desolate-place even at night-time.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “He was also angry with Job’s three friends, because they had declared that Job must have done many things that were wrong, but they were unable to convince Job that what they said was true. As a result, it seemed to Elihu that God did what was wrong by punishing Job.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Job 30:3

Through want and hard hunger: the Hebrew of this verse has three lines, but Revised Standard Version reduces them to two. The word translated hard is rendered “barren” in 3.7. There the basic meaning is “stony,” and, as stony ground is unproductive, the meaning is extended to include “barren.” The same allusion to stony ground here probably suggests “skinny, gaunt.” It is here a description of the men in verse 2, which Good News Translation renders “poor and hungry.” New Jerusalem Bible says “worn out by want and hunger.”

They gnaw the dry and desolate ground is literally “those who gnaw the dry.” Good News Translation and others supply the word “roots,” which Dhorme thinks fell out of the text in copying; but this expression may be a figure of speech, dry ground representing the roots that grow in it. Revised Standard Version includes the words and desolate ground in the second line, and notes in a footnote that the Hebrew has “ground yesterday waste.” Revised Standard Version omits the words “yesterday” and “waste.” New English Bible takes dry to mean “in the desert.” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project suggests either “those who gnaw the desert” or “those who flee to the desert.” The words “ground yesterday waste” are much disputed. The word translated “yesterday” occurs in Genesis 19.34; 31.29, 42, and is translated by Good News Translation as “last night.” Pope says the alliteration in this phrase is too striking for it to be removed, and translates “by night in desolate waste.” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project suggests “darkness/groping, waste and desolation.” And the sense of this may be “They gnawed (something, perhaps roots) in the desert, where they groped in the waste and desolation of the darkness.” Although no solution to the problems of this obscure verse can be at all certain, Good News Translation is recommended as a meaningful attempt. The verse may also be rendered, for example, “These people were so poor and starved at night out in the deserts, that they would chew on dry roots in the ground.”

Quoted with permission from Reyburn, Wiliam. A Handbook on Job. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .