James McGrath has picked
up on a wonderful
post by Simon Holloway, who cannot “recommend NIV weakly enough.” I tend to
feel that way about all translations. McGrath and Holloway fail to note that
another blogger, Charles Halton, recently
addressed the issues of interpretation of Jonah 3:3 with exhaustive
attention to the secondary literature. Rightly in my view, Halton comes down on J. R. R. Tolkien’s side of the
debate. You didn’t know that Tolkien was one of the translators of the great Jerusalem
Bible? Then Holloway’s post will be an eye-opener for you.
McGrath and Holloway also fail to cite the FE
(functionally equivalent) translation of Jonah 3:3 I have made, but only in
private correspondence with Halton. They can’t be blamed for that. Here it is:
וְנִינְוֵה הָיְתָה עִיר־גְּדוֹלָה לֵאלֹהִים מַהֲלַךְ
שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים
Nineveh was a mammoth city, larger than life, the size of
Texas.
If a committee cannot find a way to transfer
hyperbole from source to target language, they are simply not up to the task of
Bible translation.
Bibliography
Charles Halton, “How Big Was Nineveh? Literal versus Figurative Interpretation of City Size,” BBR 18 (2008) 193-208
Nice post, John, and thanks for the shout out. Also, as I mentioned before, this is the best translation of Jonah 3:3 ever! I also agree with your parting comment on committees not being up to the task of translation if they can't deal with hyperbole and figurative language--sadly, there have been many incompetent committees... God bless Texas.
Posted by: Charles Halton | September 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Hi Charles,
It's asking a lot, but I hope the NIV committee reads your article, takes it to heart, and makes the necessary changes.
Posted by: JohnFH | September 26, 2009 at 04:02 PM
The TNIV had already changed this to "it took three days to go through it", so chances are good that the original NIV rendering will be changed.
As an Alaskan, I can only say that, based on John's translation, Nineveh must not have been all that very big!
Posted by: ElShaddai Edwards | September 27, 2009 at 05:57 PM
Too funny, Elshaddai.
However, I don't think TNIV is an improvement. It doesn't strike me as transferring over the hyperbole that Halton (and I) believe is in the source text.
Posted by: JohnFH | September 27, 2009 at 06:15 PM
Agreed - I was only pointing out that, for better or worse, the CBT had already moved away from the original NIV rendering.
I should be more careful on the Texas thing as my bloodlines run through that state as well.
Your translation of "mammoth city" will always make me think of Bill Peet's book, Fly Homer Fly, for children, in which an adventuresome farm pigeon goes to Mammoth City... Peet had such a wonderful way with language - good stuff!
Posted by: ElShaddai Edwards | September 27, 2009 at 07:26 PM
Presumably the author knew that this figurative/hyperbolic interpretation would be proposed and was thereby leaving a clue as to when the book was written: in the Persian era, during the reign of...Artexaserxes. :)
Posted by: James McGrath | September 28, 2009 at 07:50 AM
Quick question from a lay person. This post and comments reference the Jerusalem Bible. Based on limited personal devotional use of this translation, I’ve concluded that it is more supportive of contemplative spirituality than are the versions typically used by evangelicals.
Is this generally acknowledged? Do evangelical scholars accept the translation?
Psalm 5:3 provides a good example of the differences I’ve observed.
Jerusalem Bible
I say this prayer to you, Yahweh, for at daybreak you listen for my voice; at dawn I hold myself in readiness for you, I watch for you.
NRSV
O LORD, in the morning you hear my voice; in the morning I plead my case to you, and watch.
NIV
In the morning, O LORD, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait in expectation.
I see a sharp contrast between the notion of God and me awaiting our time together versus my pleading my case to God.
Posted by: Marilyn | September 28, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if JB and NJB have on average a more meditative tone in the Psalms than do NRSV and NIV. That would be following a long tradition that goes back to the Psalms in Greek and in Latin translation.
As far as JB Psalm 5:3 is concerned (not NJB, which corrects back to [a standard interpretation of] the Hebrew), it in fact follows the LXX interpretation of the Hebrew, an interpretation which, however inspired, is difficult to justify from the Hebrew. But the Hebrew is obscure in this instance.
Posted by: JohnFH | September 28, 2009 at 01:08 PM