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 (Malachi 2:3)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Malachi 2:3:

  • Kupsabiny: “Listen, I shall punish your children and smear their faces with dung from those animals that you are using as sacrifices for me, and then I shall throw you on the dunghill.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “I will rebuke your descendants because of your actions. And I will rub the garbage of the animals that you sacrifice at the festival on your face. You also will be thrown out with the garbage. ” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “‘You (plur.) listen! Because of you (plur.) I will-punish your (plur.) descendants. And I will-spread on your faces the dung of the animals which you (plur.) offered, and you (plur.) will- also -be-thrown to the place-where-dung (is) -thrown.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “I will punish your descendants and will cause- you -to-be-shamed in front of the collective-people. Its comparison/illustration is, I will plaster your faces with the manure of the animals you are sacrificing and it will be as if you are added-to the manure to be thrown-out into the garbage-place.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • English: “I will punish your descendants , and it will be as though I will splatter on your faces some of the material inside the stomachs of the animals that are brought to be sacrificed, and you will be thrown away with the rest of that material.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

1st person pronoun referring to God (Japanese)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a first person singular and plural pronoun (“I” and “we” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used watashi/watakushi (私) is typically used when the speaker is humble and asking for help. In these verses, where God / Jesus is referring to himself, watashi is also used but instead of the kanji writing system (私) the syllabary hiragana (わたし) is used to distinguish God from others.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

See also pronoun for “God”.

formal 2nd person plural pronoun (Japanese)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Malachi 2:3

The opening Hebrew word, which Revised Standard Version translates Behold, indicates the beginning of the second half of the unit 2.1-4. Within the first clause I will rebuke your offspring, there are two problems of understanding arising from uncertainties in the Hebrew text. A literal translation is “I will rebuke the seed for your sake” (Revised Version), and there are four possible understandings of “seed.”
(1) The first meaning, found in King James Version and Revised Version, takes “seed” literally so that the clause then refers to the failure of crops. The priests did not own land, so the failure of the crops would affect them only indirectly in that they would receive smaller amounts of tithe from a smaller crop.
(2) The second meaning takes “seed” figuratively to refer to the descendants of the priests. When the LORD says he will rebuke (or, “punish” as in Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) the descendants of the priests, this is understood to mean that he will reduce their numbers so that eventually there are none left. Since the priesthood was hereditary, this means it would come to an end (compare Verhoef). This is the view taken by the majority of modern versions.
(3) Some modern scholars and translators follow the Septuagint in reading the Hebrew word for “seed” with different vowels, and translate it “arm” (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Beck) or “arms” (Moffatt, Revised English Bible). This makes it necessary to decide what rebuke could mean in connection with a part of the human body, and thus involves a second problem in the clause. This concerns both the form and the meaning of the Hebrew word underlying rebuke. The Septuagint seems to suggest the meaning “cut off” (New English Bible/Revised English Bible), but other choices are “disable” (Moffatt), “break” (Bible de Jérusalem, New Jerusalem Bible), “paralyse” (Jerusalem Bible), and “restrain” (Beck). If the priests had their arms damaged, they would not be able to perform their sacrificial duties, nor raise their arms to bless the people. But the lack of agreement among those who hold this view is an argument against accepting it.
(4) New American Bible follows the Septuagint more literally and translates “arm” as “shoulder” and interprets the verb underlying rebuke to mean “deprive.” The priests were entitled to receive the shoulder of a sacrificial animal as their special portion (Deut 18.3), so “I will deprive you of the shoulder” makes sense in connection with priestly privileges. The problem is that this does not appear to be a sufficiently severe punishment to fit the context of this verse, especially the last part.

This Handbook recommends that translators follow the Hebrew text and accept (2), the interpretation found in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. The language is somewhat similar to that used in the description of the punishment of the priest Eli in 1 Sam 2.31. This interpretation means that the promise given to the priestly line in Num 25.12-13 would be canceled. “I will punish your descendants” (Contemporary English Version) is better than “I will punish your children” (Good News Translation).

And spread dung upon your faces: According to the Law (for instance in Exo 29.14; Lev 4.11-12), certain parts of sacrificed animals, including the dung, were to be taken away and burned, so for the priests to have it spread on their faces was a serious insult (compare Nahum 3.6). As well as dishonoring the priests, it would make them ritually unclean so that they could not carry out their duties. The word translated dung refers to the contents of the stomachs of sacrificial animals, not to what they had already excreted. In more detail it probably refers primarily to the contents of the fourth stomach of ruminant animals, that is, animals that chew the cud. In some languages there may be a special term for this, and if so it could be used here.

The dung of your offerings makes it clear what dung is referred to. The Hebrew word that Revised Standard Version renders offerings is literally “feasts” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible), but in this context it must refer to the animals sacrificed at the feasts. Thus New International Version has “festival sacrifices” and this may be a useful model for translators in some languages.

The final clause I will put you out of my presence renders the last three words of the verse in Hebrew. It is difficult to understand these words (literally “one shall take you away to it”). The Revised Standard Version translation depends on changing the difficult Hebrew text, and this change is followed by a number of modern versions (Moffatt, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version). However, it is possible to make sense of the Hebrew text as it stands, and no change is recommended in Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament or Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. The impersonal subject of the verb “take” is equivalent to “they will take you” or, more naturally in English, “you will be taken.” The last word “to it” refers to the dung already mentioned, and thus the effect of the clause is to say “you [the priests] will be thrown out with the animal dung” or “they will throw you priests out with the animal dung.” The priests would not only be insulted by having the animal dung smeared on their faces, but they would also be treated as if they themselves were dung!

Good News Translation has “you will be taken out to the dung heap” in the American and Australian editions. (The British edition has “dunghill” instead of “dung heap,” but this is only a dialect variation.) Other versions that translate in a similar way to Good News Translation include New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Beck, New Living Translation, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. This is the approach that this Handbook recommends.

An alternative translation model for the whole verse is:

• See, I am going to punish your descendants. I will spread on your faces the dung of the animals you sacrifice, and you will be taken away with the dung.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Malachi. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

SIL Translator’s Notes on Malachi 2:3

2:3a

In this verse the LORD gave a vivid description of one way he would “curse their blessings,” as he mentioned in 2:2. Unlike most verses in Hebrew, this one does not begin with a connector. However in some languages it may be helpful to use a transition phrase. For example:

Because of you I will rebuke your descendants. (New International Version)

Behold: The Hebrew word hinneh which the Berean Standard Bible translates as Behold is difficult to translate. Many English versions leave it untranslated because it has no equivalent in English.

The usual function of hinneh is to direct the attention of the reader or listener to what follows. Here, the LORD described what would happen immediately. Try to find a way to produce this effect in your translation. For example:

Now, I am going to break… (New Jerusalem Bible)
-or-
I am about to discipline… (NET Bible)

I will rebuke your descendants: That is, I will punish your descendants.

descendants: The Hebrew word which the Berean Standard Bible translates as descendants literally means “seed.” Most versions and commentators understand this to refer to the descendants of the priests.

2:3b

I will spread dung on your faces: This is a shocking picture. The LORD was saying that he would rub the faces of the priests in or with the excrement of the animals they sacrificed. This, of course, would make the priests ritually unclean and unable to serve the LORD in his temple and to offer sacrifices there.

dung: The Hebrew word pereš which the Berean Standard Bible translates as dung refers to the excrement that came from the intestines of a sacrificed animal. These were the parts of the animal which were considered unclean and which were to be taken outside the temple and burnt. See Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:11, 8:17, 16:27; Numbers 19:5.

2:3c

you will be carried off with it: The Hebrew clause which the Berean Standard Bible translates as you will be carried off with it literally means “and someone/he will carry you off with it.” Here the LORD referred to the custom of taking unacceptable parts of sacrificed animals outside the camp to be thrown away or burned. He implied that the priests were of no value to him and would be carried away with these unacceptable, useless things.

The LORD probably did not mean that he would literally cause the priests to be taken to the dung heap. This was an emphatic way to say that he would remove them from their work just like they removed the excrement and disposed of it. There are two possibilities for translation:

Use the figure explicitly.

…splatter your faces with the dung of your festival sacrifices, and I will add you to the dung heap. (New Living Translation (2004))
-or-
…the excrement from your festival sacrifices. You will be discarded with it. (God’s Word)

Omit the figure in 2:3c and translate the meaning directly. For example:

and I shall banish you from my presence. (Revised English Bible)
-or-
and then be done with you. (Contemporary English Version)

Use the option that communicates best in your language.

© 2007 by SIL International®
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible.
BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.