As I’ve noted elsewhere on the HSF, every translation involves some level of interpretation. This is inescapable. Because of this readers must understand translation committees’ aims when producing a translation. Some translations are upfront about their intentions. Others are willing to leave the obscurity for the reader to interpret for themselves. Regardless of their methodology, the committee must make interpretive decisions. This need not worry us since we have a host of reliable modern translations, but we do need to be aware of how interpretation influences translation.
Perfect translations simply do not exist. Translation will inevitably lose some things and perhaps misinterpret other things. We see this fact—that all translations involve some level of interpretation—even in the earliest Bible translation that exists, the Septuagint (or the Greek Old Testament). This essay will demonstrate this principle by looking at some of the translation features in Septuagint Proverbs (LXX-Proverbs), in which case the translator added a level of interpretation to his translation.
Translation Technique
An analysis of translation technique[1] is an essential prerequisite for understanding the translator’s interpretation of the text. Many suggest that the translation technique of LXX-Proverbs is best described as a free translation.[2] However, the term free is problematic because it can refer to a number of translation features. For example, it could be free in the way it reflects the sentence structure of the Hebrew or perhaps the words he chose to translate a single Hebrew term. Cook argues that the LXX-Proverbs translator employs a “free” technique based on the translator’s rendering of some vocabulary words consistently while interchanging others.[3] D’Hamonville points out the high quality Greek of LXX-Proverbs and suggests that the translator uses a unique type of freedom that no other translator seems to have taken.[4]
Perhaps because of the unique nature of the freedom to which D’Hamonville refers, Fox proposes that a better word to describe the translation technique of LXX-Proverbs is flexible.[5] He contends that free is too vague of a term and does not adequately describe the complexity of the translator’s approach to the text. By using the word flexible, Fox means that the translator utilized a variety of techniques that are determined by what is most appropriate for each passage. According to Fox, this allowed the translator to follow some passages mimetically while paraphrasing others.[6]
Whatever the case, the translator of LXX-Proverbs certainly does not follow the Hebrew word-for-word. In addition, the issue is clearly far too complex simply to label the translation as literal, free, or even flexible. The question then becomes: What is the translator doing with his freedom or flexibility? To answer this question, we must look deeply at the translation in order to notice its subtleties. Otherwise, we will overlook them because we simply assume that the translator carelessly handled his text.
Historical Context
When analyzing LXX-Proverbs in light of the historical context in which it was translated, readers will notice a sensitivity to the existing debates in the Greco-Roman world.[7] Numerous examples in LXX-Proverbs demonstrate where the translation technique reveals such sensitivity. One common feature of LXX-Proverbs is the correlating of ethical issues with eating or drinking, which was common at this time in antiquity.[8] In many instances, the Septuagint exaggerates the ethical point associated with the food or drink. The Septuagint translator associates greed and over-consumption with the wicked, and an analysis of his word choices reveals his exegetical approach to the Hebrew text.
During the Second Temple period (approximately 500 BC to 70 AD), various matters associated with the law and ethics of the Hebrew Bible merged with Greek matters of law and ethics, and many of these ethical concerns dealt with appropriate consumption of food and drink.[9] For example, simplicity of diet was a common characteristic of heroes in the Iliad and the Odyssey.
Similarly, we also see this emphasis in a Jewish context in Philo’s discussion on food and morality.[10] Michael Beer notes the reality of various dietary restrictions from what Philo considered the tastiest and fattiest of foods; therefore, Jews during Philo’s day put restrictions in place to ensure a temperate and virtuous life.[11] They believed that gluttony is both physically harmful and morally wrong.[12] They also viewed peoples’ over-consumption of alcohol as a moral issue, while considering those who remained sober as diligent.[13] Those who did not self-indulge prided themselves on having self-control and discipline, regarding themselves as victorious for the things they did not eat while feeling defeated for what they did.[14]
Cultural Influence on LXX Translator
The translator appears to have chosen carefully a few words in LXX-Proverbs to emphasize a moral concept associated with food and dining. One example is the Greek word methyskō, meaning to get drunk[15] when used in the passive voice as it is in both occurrences in LXX-Proverbs. In one instance, methyskō translates the Hebrew word šāṯâ that simply refers to drinking.[16] A much more common way to translate šāṯâ in Proverbs and elsewhere in the Septuagint is with the word pinō, a simpler and more generic term for drinking.
The Hebrew of Proverbs 4:17 says, “For they eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence.” The Greek translates, “For these people eat the bread of impiety, and they get drunk with illicit wine.” The Septuagint translator appears to be sharpening the ethical concerns with the over-consumption of alcohol by using methyskō, a more specific term associated with drunkenness rather than pinō,which would have been perfectly adequate in this context.
The other occurrence of methyskō appears in Proverbs 23:31. The Hebrew reads, “Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.” However, the Greek, says, “Do not get drunk from wine; rather converse with righteous people, and converse in public places; for if you give your eyes to saucers and goblets, you will afterwards walk around more naked than a pestle.” Obviously, a translator has added an interpretive addition to the end of the verse, but the beginning is quite interesting as well.
The Hebrew of Proverbs 23:31 warns the reader “not to look at wine when it is red.” The writer of the Hebrew text is urging readers to guard themselves from the consumption of alcohol by avoiding the visual temptation (“when it sparkles in the cup”) and the gustatory temptation (“and goes down smoothly”).[17] Instead of translating rāʾô (‘see’) with horaō (‘see’) as LXX-Proverbs typically does, the translator rendered rāʾô in this verse with methyskō. The Septuagint’s stress on getting drunk with wine again sharpens the ethical issues associated with greed and over-consumption.
Conclusion
In neither of these examples is the Septuagint translator changing the meaning of the text. Instead, he is interpreting the verses in light of his cultural context. This may have been an intentional and conscious decision on the translator’s part, since he might have wanted to stress this point in the way he translated the Hebrew. On the other hand, this could simply reflect the way in which the translator interpreted the word in these specific contexts.
Whatever his intention, he clearly made some interpretive moves in his translation. His move demonstrates a yet broader point: Translations involve some level of interpretation. And if this was true of ancient translations like the Septuagint, it is also true of our modern translations. An English translator in England will likely make slightly different choices than an English translator in North America. Likewise, a Spanish translator in Spain will utilize different vocabulary than one in Latin America. It’s also possible for translators with different theological positions to translate passages differently based on their theological convictions. Doing so, however, does not make one unfaithful to the Scriptures. It’s simply impossible to translate without also interpreting to some extent.
In conclusion, we need to know
the translation philosophy for whichever translation we decide to use. I trust
that translation committees are not trying to be deceptive and that they strive
to remain faithful to the original text. However, because interpretation is
necessary, we need to read their introductions, notice who is on their
translation committees, and familiarize ourselves with their backgrounds. And,
of course, we should strive, whenever possible, to read and interpret the
Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek and to grow our understanding of the original
languages.
[1]The term translation technique refers to the translator’s methodology. It answers questions pertaining to how closely the translator followed the source text and to what extent, and in what way he was concerned with reflecting the source text or was sensitive to what sounded best in the target language.
[2]Gillis Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint: III. Proverbs (Lund: Häkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1956), 12; Johann Cook, “Between Text and Interpretation: An Exegetical Commentary on LXX Proverbs,” in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Michaël N. van der Meer, and Martin Meiser (Munich: SBL Press, 2013), 659.
[3]Johann Cook, Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Porverbs, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 69 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 332; Johann Cook, “Ideology and Translation Technique,” in Helsinki Perspectives: On the Translation Technique of the Septuagint, ed. Raija Sollamo and Seppo Sipila (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society), 208.
[4]David-Marc D’Hamonville, La Bible D’Alexandrie: Les Proverbes (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000), 19. See also Natalio Fernández Marcos and María Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro, La Biblia Griega Septuaginta: III Libros poéticos y sapienciales, ed. Santiago Guijarro Oporto (Salamanca: Ediciones Sigueme, 2013), 276.
[5]Michael V. Fox, “A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs,” in Wisdom for Life: Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Nuria Calduch-Benages (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 4.
[6]Fox, “A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs,” 5. Jüngling also points to this inconsistency, pointing out the creativity of the translator in: Hans-Winfried Jüngling, “5.1 Paroimiai / Proverbia / Sprichwörter / Sprüche Salomos,” in Handbuch zur Septuaginta, vol. 1, ed. Siegfried Kreuzer (Germany: Verlagsgruppe Random House GmbH, 2016), 376.
[7]Several translation features in LXX-Proverbs reveal much about the translator’s thoughts on the religious and ethical issues of his day. He tends to heighten moral issues already present in the text. Whereas the Hebrew of Proverbs 3:9 discusses making an offering to God from one’s firstfruits (ûmērēʾšiṯ kol-tᵉḇûʾāṯeḵā), the Septuagint specifies only to make an offering from one’s “just” labours (kai aparchou autō apo sōn karpōn dikaiosynēs).
[8]Michael Beer, Taste or Taboo: Dietary Choices in Antiquity (Devon: Prospect Books, 2010), 10–11.
[9]Eckart Otto, “Ethics,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law, Vol. 1, ed. Brent A. Strawn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 278.
[10]Beer, Taste or Taboo, 74.
[11]Ibid.
[12]Ibid., 117. See also Richard B. Vinson, “Glutton, Gluttony,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 580–81.
[13]Beer, Taste or Taboo, 91.
[14]Ibid., 117.
[15]LSJ, 1091.
[16]BDB, 1059
[17]Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 177.
Recent Comments