Re: When English Tanach translations "get it wrong"

Dear All,

Rabbi Berger brought to my attention the fascinating conversation that is taking place here, and while I am just a guest, I trust that it will be all right for me to make three short points.

1. I am in full agreement with Gary Levine's statement: It is hard to talk about "wrong" translations, rather what we are dealing with here are the inherent limitations in the reality of all translations. Specifically because every word has its own nuances (in his book Sematics - [www.amazon.com] - Leech presents no less than seven types of linguistic nuance), no language can be fully translated into another. Buber and Rosenzweig were aware of this challenge when translating Tanakh into German, and were sensitive to the "word play" it contained, although – by no fault of their own – they only were able to offer such translations in a limited number of cases.

2. Interested readers may want to see the article by David Marcus who discusses two models of translation in Joseph's interpretation of the dreams of Pharaoh's servants - [connection.ebscohost.com]. Joseph begins each of the interpretations with the same exact words "In three days Pharaoh will lift your head…" It is only to the baker that he adds the word that changes the meaning of the sentence entirely – "…off of you." Marcus shows how some translations make use of parallel language in an attempt to retain the literary effect (he dubbed this the School of Literal Translation), while others aimed to present the general sense of the verse, sacrificing the literary play-on-words (which he called the School of Idiomatic Translation).

3. Since we are dealing with an issue that is inherent in all translations, there are hundreds of such examples that can be brought. Word play depends on the phonetic sound of the word or its multiple meanings, both of which are untranslatable. In a modest attempt at self-promotion I will mention that I bring many examples of this type in my book Galuy U'mutzpan: Al Kamma Mi-Darkei Ha-Itzuv shel Ha-Sippur Ha-Mikra'I (Text and Subtext: On Exploring Biblical Narrative Design (Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2015; Hebrew) - [www.academia.edu] . I have checked the translations of every example that appeared in the first chapter, dealing with the nuance of language, as well as all of the examples in the third chapter that deals with how surprises are woven into the biblical story. In every single case the word plays were lost in the various translations.

And since Purim is soon approaching, here is a single example that illustrates this point.

One of the leitmotif – and somewhat surprising – words in Chapter 1 of Megillat Esther is the use of the term devar (as in devar ha-melekh).

As expected, we first find a devar malhut in the mouth of the king
"וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי לָבוֹא בִּדְבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר בְּיַד הַסָּרִיסִים"
(א יב)
although the verse attests to the fact that the king's command was abrogated.

Reeling from the outcome of the encounter, the king gathers his advisors, and again we find this language used:
"וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לַחֲכָמִים יֹדְעֵי הָעִתִּים כִּי כֵן דְּבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ לִפְנֵי כָּל יֹדְעֵי דָּת וָדִין"
(א יג)

It was Memukhan who stepped forward as representative of the advisors, and he, too, wove this term into his statement. This time, however, it was the Queen – devar ha-malkah – who is being referenced:
"כִּי יֵצֵא דְבַר הַמַּלְכָּה עַל כָּל הַנָּשִׁים לְהַבְזוֹת בַּעְלֵיהֶן בְּעֵינֵיהֶן"
(א יז)
Having been exposed twice to devar ha-melekh, the reader now encounters devar ha-malkah. This expression could be understood as the Queen's response to devar ha-melekh; she now gives her own commands. Nevertheless, the expression could be more simply understood as a reference to the incident that took place with the Queen, and not an actual statement made by her. However, Memukhan repeats this language a second time, saying:
"וְהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה תֹּאמַרְנָה שָׂרוֹת פָּרַס וּמָדַי אֲשֶׁר שָׁמְעוּ אֶת דְּבַר הַמַּלְכָּה לְכֹל שָׂרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וּכְדַי בִּזָּיוֹן וָקָצֶף"
(×™×—)

The syntax of this sentence seems to imply that the Queen made her statement to the members of the court (even if the main intent of the verse is that the women of the court in Persia and Media will say this to the servants of the king). Repetition of this phrase in the mouth of Vashti certainly seems to indicate that she has proclaimed that women should demand freedom from following the whims of their husbands.

Memukhan sums up his statement with the leitmotif in an attempt to restore the king's dignity as the Commander in Chief of the kingdom:
"אִם עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יֵצֵא דְבַר מַלְכוּת מִלְּפָנָיו"
(א יט)

Note the sensitivity here. He does not make use of the full phrase – devar ha-melekh – but he alludes to it by using the term devar malkhut. On some level the suggestion is that the king reconstitute the devar ha-melekh by proclaiming a devar malkhut and redeeming the honor of all the males of the kingdom.

Had this been the end of the use of the leitmotif, it would have been a case of rhetorical flourish. Memukhan succeeded in convincing the king of the danger that lay in the wake of Vashti's refusal of his command – the loss of credibility of his devar malkhut. However, megillah makes use of the word one more time in a stinging manner in the closing verse of this portion:
"וַיִּיטַב הַדָּבָר בְּעֵינֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַשָּׂרִים וַיַּעַשׂ הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּדְבַר מְמוּכָן"
(א כא)

Notice that while the king has been convinced of the necessity of the advisors' plan, a new commander has been anointed, for the king follows the command of his advisor – devar Memukhan. It is the advisor who has usurped the role of Commander in Chief.

It is hardly surprising that this play-on-words is totally missing from the various translations. Here is an example of the verses discussed above from the new JPS translation:
1:12: "But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command conveyed by the eunuchs."
1:13: "For it was the royal practice to turn to all who were versed in law and precedent."
1:17: "For the queen's behavior will make all wives despise their husbands"
1:18: "This very day the ladies of Persia and Media, who have heard of the queen's behavior"
1:19: "If it please Your Majesty, let a royal edict be issued by you"
1:21: "and the king did as Memucan proposed."

I suspect that anyone reading Megillat Esther in translation could not possibly imagine that a hidden conversation is taking place in the course of these verses and that the megillah is offering a literary game of inter-textual word-play that pokes fun at the king and those who rule in his kingdom.

Enjoy! Purim Same'ah!

Yoni Grossman
Alon Shvut

Dr. Grossman attached the article by David Marcus referenced above. Please contact e if you would like a copy.
Shalom



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2016 10:18AM by mlb.