When implication hijacks meaning

In “When implication hijacks meaning” Jefferson Vann shares a pet peeve about modern Bible translation.

 

First, a progress report.

 

As of this day, January 31st, 2024, I have completed the initial translation of the following Bible books. The number at the end of the filename is the date of the last edit:

 

 

01 - Genesis (JDV) 20201026

02 - Exodus (JDV) 20210622

03 - Leviticus (JDV) 20201127

04 - Numbers (JDV) 20191002

05 - Deuteronomy (JDV) 20200428

06 - Joshua (JDV) 20210108

07 - Judges (JDV) 20210517

08 - Ruth (JDV) 20210906

09 - 1 Samuel (JDV) 20230213

10 - 2 Samuel (JDV) 20230323

11 - 1 Kings (JDV) 20230929

12 - 2 Kings (JDV) 20231026

13 - 1 Chronicles (JDV) 20240110

14 - 2 Chronicles (JDV) 20240124

18 - Job (JDV) 20231004

19a - Psalms (Book 1) (JDV) 20210513

19b - Psalms (Book 2) (JDV) 20210629

19c - Psalms (Book 3) (JDV) 20210629

19d - Psalms (Book 4) (JDV) 20210627

19e - Psalms (Book 5) (JDV) 20221022

20 - Proverbs (JDV) 20231204

21 - Ecclesiastes (JDV) 20210117

23 - Isaiah (JDV) 20201127

24 - Jeremiah (JDV) 20210120

25 - Lamentations (JDV) 20210210

26 - Ezekiel (JDV) 20220530

27 - Daniel (JDV) 20211028

27 - Daniel (JDV) 20221009

28 - Hosea (JDV) 20190514

29 - Joel (JDV) 20190419

30 - Amos (JDV) 20221119

31 - Obadiah (JDV) 20191002

32 - Jonah (JDV) 20231214

40 - Matthew (JDV) 20210630

41 - Mark (JDV) 20210607

42 - Luke (JDV) 20210607

43 - John (JDV) 20200910

44 - Acts (JDV) 20210120

45 - Romans (JDV) 20201121

46 - 1 Corinthians (JDV) 20210114

47 - 2 Corinthians (JDV) 20190509

48 - Galatians (JDV) 20190422

49 - Ephesians (JDV) 20190615

50 - Philippians (JDV) 20210603

51 - Colossians (JDV) 20210603

52 - 1 Thessalonians (JDV) 20210603

53 - 2 Thessalonians (JDV) 20210226

54 - 1 Timothy (JDV) 20210217

55 - 2 Timothy (JDV) 20210920

56 - Titus (JDV) 20201130

57 - Philemon (JDV) 20210627

58 - Hebrews (JDV) 20220214

59 - James (JDV) 20221111

60 - 1 Peter (JDV) 20231004

61 - 2 Peter (JDV) 20231213

 

Praise the LORD. When I first began this project, I was not sure I would live to complete it. I have now completed the first draft of 55 out of 66 books!

 

Now, for my rant.

 

When implication hijacks meaning

 

 

Ortony roughly defines a metaphor as “an instrument for drawing implications grounded in perceived analogies of structure between two subjects belonging to different domains.”[1] If, for example, I describe myself as a night owl with cold feet who likes beating dead horses, readers will understand that I am not actually a nocturnal bird with circulation problems who abuses deceased animals. I have lapsed into metaphor. Every metaphor I use is immediately recognized as such, and instead of fostering misunderstanding, the metaphors I use are quickly translated into their implied meanings. It happens practically automatically.

 

But the process gets a bit more complicated when we are translating from one language to another. This is true especially when what we are translating is separated from present time and culture by thousands of years and multiple worldviews.

 

One problem is when metaphors are not immediately recognized as metaphors. The reader may attempt to envision the literal meaning of the statement and wonder at the sanity of the original writer. I can imagine a first-time reader of the Gospels who struggles with how Jesus can be bread, a vine, a road (way) and a door all at the same time.

 

But that’s not the problem I am ranting about today. I’m speaking about the tendency our modern translators of the Bible have of “helping” us readers by removing all trace of metaphor from metaphorical statements in the text.

 

One example I have noted in my translation is that the generic words for sky (שָׁמַיִם in Hebrew and οὐρανός in Greek) are commonly rendered “heaven” when the generic meaning is perfectly understandable in context. Is “our Father in the sky” a wrong translation? No, it is not. But translators consistently choose the traditional reading instead. By so doing, they are choosing to express an implied meaning and to avoid the generic meaning of the text.

 

I have also noted that the words commonly translated as “spirit” (רוּחַ in Hebrew and πνεῦμα in Greek) are the generic terms for breath. The words commonly translated as “soul” (נֶפֶשׁ in Hebrew and ψυχή in Greek) are terms originally denoting a person’s throat or neck. But our translators are quick to hide these generic meanings as well. They seem to be biased in favor of anthropological dualism. As such, their translations suggest that the real person is this invisible being inside the shell of the body.

 

My translations reject that premise. I treat both these terms (breath and throat) as metonyms. I use the generic terms in my translation because they convey the actual usage of the biblical authors. To use the terms “spirit” or “soul” would be to suggest the legitimacy of the anthropological dualism that has attached itself to these terms.

 

Words can have more than one meaning. But what is happening in both ancient and modern translations is not simply the choice of one meaning over others in the word’s semantic range. Our translators have chosen the approved meaning which they believe is implied by the metaphor, and systematically translate accordingly. As such, their translations hide the fact that the words are used metonymically.

 

Many translations have corrected this error to a certain extent, particularly with the word נֶפֶשׁ. Often the term is translated as a pronoun. I suppose I should be happy when a text that reads “my throat” is translated as “me.” But I am not. Although the translation recognizes that the term is being used as a metaphor, it eliminates the metaphor with the translation. It substitutes the implication for the intended meaning. The implication hijacks the meaning.

 

In most of my translation work, I am discovering that the current translations available are systemically accurate. But so far as their treatment of the terms mentioned above, my judgment is that that they all need improvement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Ortony Andrew. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press 1979. P. 32.