In language translation there always a problem with cultural nuances being misinterpreted.  This even happens when interpreting texts in one's own language expressed in dialects or anachronistic syntax.

The sanitisation is probably due to the cultural sensitivities of the translator rather than any lack of capability in the language.  Languages that use large amounts of euphemism are of course wide open to this.  Ancient Greek is of course such a language and the word Eu-phemism speaks for itself. 

Remember the pithy assertion "lost in translation" and we would all recognize that there is no direct equivalence in the practice, only estimations and approximations...always almost but not quite. The translator is also a creative spirit, adding the nuances and deleting some. The translator straddles two or more language...s/he is the habitus, and in using one repertoire to mediate another, the linguistic ensemble becomes a performative zone...

Dear Kathleen,

I',m not a specialist (my subjet is the port history). But I am a lover of classical literature and I can bring something to the subject.

Traditionally, in Spanish, it tended to purge the translations of every vulgar term. No classic author (Shakaspeare included!) could write obscenities! For a long time, the poems of Catullus in Spanish were cryptic, full of euphemistic veiled allusions.

Fortunately, this time passed. I know latinists from Argentina (in my university, for example, Sergio Raimondi), who rescue the  brothel language  of Catullus.

What is the original ? Can you put it in the thread so we can take a look?

A friend and I are talking a lot about this issue of late; he does a lot of translation of Old English sorts of things. 

Larry, the text is μὴ μόνον τρίδουλον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρίπορνον αὐτήν.

The passage comes from Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 595.b.  Athenaeus is quoting Theopompus comments regarding the courtesan Pythonice.  Please see the text for the fuller context.  (And hopefully, I've transcribed the text correctly.)

Dibakar, please be assured that the three examples provided in the original question were all done by properly trained scholars.  The third example I give was taken from a new edition of a book by Waldemar Heckel, a prominent Ancient Historian who has published several works on Alexander the Great.

My concern is the possibility that modern translators may be inclined, as Gustavo says, to purge the translation of every vulgar term.  Possibly for the sake of political correctness. Such sanitations of the translation can at times be quite misleading to students who lack the linguistic skills to check the text themselves, and are therefore dependent on the accuracy of the translations they have to work with.

Attached here is an interesting set of conference references on the use of translation as censorship.

Another excellent example is the book Telling Lies About Hitler by Richard Evans in which he exposes the deliberate mistranslations of discredited historian and holocaust denier David Irving.    

hetaira (courtesan) and pornē (lower class and literally "woman for sale").  This is not a relative construct, but a distinction that needs, and deserves, to be presented in context relative to the social prejudices of the times the work was written in.

For a detailed discussion on the use of these words see Glazebrook, A. & Henry, M. M., Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE–200 CE, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2011, pp. 4 – 8.

I work with translation, especially in greek, and I can garantee to you: There's a lot of translations that is a very bad thing to read, just because the person who did it doesn't think about that distinction.

I agree with Gustavo: even leaving beside more general questions regarding translation and the concept of "vulgar", there was (perhaps there is) a tendency for scholars to censor certain uses in Ancient poetry. In certain cases, I have been told, they actually added the equivalent of TV's "pip": in some spanish Aristophanes' translations from the 19th century, words deemed too vulgar were translated in latin. Fortunatelly (and the fact that we are having this conversation is proof), nowadays most translators consider the style and speech level of the characters and works as a fundamental part of what should be translated.

Yes, this is not rare. I can give you examples from Plato's Timaeus and Critias where the Atlantis story is told. Each translator translates according to his interpretation of the Atlantis story. The wide-spread translation by Benjamin Jowett for example translates "logos" with "tale" in order to make it more plausible that the Atlantis story is just a tale. But "logos" is never a "tale". Mostly it means a reliable and true story. It can be neutral ("story"), too, but not a tale. Another important translatory problem is a passage "in the middle of ", where it is not said in the middle of what. Literally it is in the middle of the island, but most translators translate in the middle of the coastal line. But this is an important thing, whether a place is at the sea coast, or within the island inner land! And so on. And so on. -- Yes, if you are not able to read Greek, you should really try to read as many translations as you can, and ask an expert, if you feel that there is a problem.

Thorwald

Very interesting.  Logos can therfore translate to Log and one should always record the most accurate facts in a log.

λόγος -  Therein hangs a tale and a good example of the perils of translation.

The online Liddell and Scott, link below, offers multiple alternative translations under 10 principle categories, ranging from computation to the Biblical the Word.  The closest I can find to your example, Thorwald, is V. continuous statement, narrartive (whether fact or fiction).

I can't argue the rights or wrongs of your contention, Thorwald, but the entry overall does demonstrate the importance of the need to look at the translation in context, and to seek expert advice wherever possible.

Another factor to bear in mind is that words do change their meaning over time, so the meaning of a word in the 5th century BC need not be the same as its meaning five hundred years later.

But this takes us away from my original question, which really relates to the issue of potential biases in the way texts are translated.  In Phenomenological terms, this comes down to the Intentionality of the translator's perception of the text, and the way that may have been affected by their own upbringing, education, and the social biases of their day.

http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=65855&context=lsj&action=from-search

You found the same as I said, Kathleen:

"logos" is used in Plato's texts either as true/reliable story, or as neutral "word" / "speech" (basic meaning). There is no meaning of "tale" in it. "logos" viewed from its root does only mean something "said". This can be anything, there is no interpretation in it.

Depending on the context, a neutral "word" can be used to talk of a tale, of course, but nevertheless, the "word" itself does *not* say this, but if so, then *only* the context does say this.

Thus, a good translation will try to emulate the original: To use a neutral word and to reproduce the context in the translated version. If you translate the neutral "word" by "tale", then you do not translate correctly and you force an interpretation into the translation which can be disputed.

And believe me: The correct interpretation of Plato's Atlantis is *heavily* disputed. In my humble opinion, there is nothing in these dialogues which indicates that it is meant as a tale. Therefore, many scholars consider it to be a deception ("Noble Lie"). We can go further: If you want to know about scholars who think that Atlantis is meant as a real place (in the sense of a distorted historical tradition), then have a short look at http://www.Atlantis-Scout.de/

If Plato himself had described his story as "tale", it could neither be a deception, nor a real story. You can twist and turn the problem as you like, Jowett's translation with "tale" is clearly wrong and heavily misleading.

Thus, the proposed translations of "fable", "legend", "tale" etc. in Lidell-Scott are utter nonsense, in my humble opinion. You should translate it with "word(s)", "speech", "narrative", or "story", and leave it to the context to understand it as fable, legend, or tale. Where is the FAKE NEWS button in Lidell-Scott?

one thing that often seems to be 'censored' in translations is anything that would reflect badly on the hero causing them to lose sympathy with an audience, this is particularly so with the sort of popular translations that are used for film scripts, an outstanding example is in the film El Cid, in the Song of the Cid when he kills his father's enemy he decapitates the body and presents the severed head to his father while he is sat at table, an action which revives the old gentleman's appetite, however, in order to fit in with 1950s notions of appropriately heroic behaviour this had to go.  In this, and similar instances, the text is sanitised but not necessarily to mislead merely to conform to contemporary notions of heroism.

Yes, this is certainly the case! Even in more recent translations (Grimm Brothers'  fairy tales from German, for example), the stories have been sanitized to make them palatable for modern readers (and movie-watchers in the case of the many Disney movies made from the fairy tales). The original German versions are scary and terrible - not the stuff one would read to a child at bedtime, for sure!

Censorship of anything that would reflect badly on the hero is an interesting point, Timothy - not just in translations and not only in modern works.  As I have been trying to piece together the life of Alexander the Great's treasurer, Harpalus in my current project, I've noticed a similar phenomenon in the ancient sources.  Arrian, in particular, seemed to be so intent on writing about Alexander and his deeds, that the deeds of his key generals and supporters are often overlooked until there is a need to make some reference to them in the context of Alexander's own story at that point.  If that makes sense. 

Jodi, I'm not sure the point you raise is just one of translation.  There are also judgements at play that really come down to issues of marketing.  I know that in the 1960's in particular, and probably earlier, there was a proliferation of adaptations of classic 19th century novels like Ivanhoe, Kidnapped, and Black Beauty, to meet the growing demand for 'suitable' children's books.  These editions often abridged the original books, and modernised the language.  Just compare the Penguin Classics edition of Little Women with the copies sold for children.

Even authors who generally wrote for children were not spared.  I can remember reading some years ago that in one of the World War One Biggles books by W. E. Johns, one short story has Biggles and his friends celebrating a recent combat by drinking Lemonade in the '60's edition, rather than the whiskey referred to in the original tale.  (These stories were loosely based on Johns own experiences as a pilot in the Royal Flying Corps in WW1.)

As to the Brothers Grimm, I agree that Disney has too often sanitised such stories.  But, to be fair, I watched their film of Sondheim's Into the Woods last night, and in that at least the fate of Cinderella's stepsisters with their feet mutilated by their mother to try and fit them into the slipper, and their eyes pecked out by birds was very much in the spirit of the Brothers' Grimm.

Kathleen,

yes, you make a good point. Money drives many things!

Just as any writer, journalist, whatsoever, will express themselves under the influence of their beliefs, religion, ideology or political correctness of the time, so will a translator behave according to the same set of intelectual conformers. An easier example of this fact is the Bible. Let's just take a look at the evolution this unique Book has undergone over time in any language.

Hermes Trismegistus translated as The Thrice Great Hermes. Probably related to an inscription found on an ancient Egyptian temple, Thoth, the great, the great, the great. I think Loeb, like everybody else, is struggling with the meaning of the words thrice, triple, and the like.

You can read into it whatever you like, of course, but I personally do not see any conscious attempt at toning down or changing the translation of the quotation, just maybe an attempt at clarification.

Remember the song "Once, twice, three times a lady"? Was the woman in this case not so much a lady but quite a whore? Or were her grandmother and mother also whores...seems pretty arbitrary judgment.

Take a look at how Mary Magdalene came to be declared a prostitute by the Catholic Church; maybe there is some similarly subjective interpretation of old writings going on there.

Translations of ancient texts also require the necessary understanding of the culture and historic period where the original was written. This is more so as the difference of time and space increases, and the consequent loss of meaning of many words and expressions that post quem translators come across.

At the end of the day it's the old adagio:

Traduttore traditore.

Aurelio,

You are quite right of course; however, "the culture and historic period" is itself defined by other ancient texts. How does an interpreter of the new document know he is not perpetuating an error in interpretation committed on an older document that was used to establish the cultural and historic paradigm which he is now applying to the new document?

I agree, Hugh, re your point of not perpetuating an error of interpretation, or even a deliberate distortion of the historic record.  That's what Historiography is all about - analysing our surviving sources to get a better understanding of the sources they used, and the background and biases of the authors of those lost works.  Another important point is to look at the way an ancient author may use essentially the same story for very different ends.  I touch on this with regard to Plutarch in my Harpalus paper, and two different examples of how Plutarch reports on Harpalus' attempt to grow Greek plants in Babylon.

Hugh, you made good point, too. This is why I meant to get as close to the context of the original source as possible, although the task implied is formidable.

Errors later detected in many ancient manuscripts have been possible by the effort to penetrate the original culture, language and style . May I cite the Donatio Constantini unveiled by the patient and erudite work of Lorenzo Valla, in the 15th century AD, by proving that the Latin contained in that text did not exist in the 4th century AD.

If we do not try some kind of quality checking on original sources, it is obvious that errors will keep accumulating over time.

It's very common for Victorian and early twentieth-century translations to tone down the original. You might find Harrison & Stray's 2012 book Expurgating the Classics interesting on this topic: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/expurgating-the-classics-9781849668927/

Having said that, the text you quote doesn't sound like a typical example of softening to me - it's less rhetorically snappy, but about equally explicit, I'd have thought.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/expurgating-the-classics-9781849668927/

The sexual behaviour of ancient Sumerians is still being toned down, and by some of the best Assyriologists unwilling to accept the culture's tolerance and promiscuity. 

Will have to keep a look out for Expurgating the Classics, Carol.  I'm sure it would be interesting, though it can't be a priority at the moment.  As to the example I cite, it's the 'rhetorical snappiness' missing from the modern translation that I consider unfortunate.  Without an understanding of that, readers could miss the bitter sniping in Theopompus' writings, generally, such as his derision of Philip II's Companions as being selected not "on the basis of excellence", but for their "lewd, disgusting or arrogant way of life".  Just one small section of a diatribe in his lost Philippic History, quoted by Athenaeus IV.62.  (As quoted in Ellis & Milns The Spectre of Philip.)  Theopompus' writings had a strong influence on later Greek historians works.

Can't really comment on your point, Stanley, as I only touched briefly on the Sumerians, fascinating as they are, in my first year of Ancient History.  Would be interested to hear others views on the points you raise.

Herodotus's description of wives prostituting themselves within a cult/temple context and also much earlier descriptions of Inanna cult's multivarious sexual proclivities. Prostitution was an invention of city-life, not known outside of it, and subject to occassional moralising by senior Assyriologists but rarely by the Sumerians themselves.Although Herodotus' accounts may not be true, something of that kind may have been prevalent alongside the obsession with contractual marraige and patriarchal family structure seen in 2nd and 1st millennium Mesopotamian societies, which  influenced West Semitic societies-such as the Hebrews. Nevertheless, the Hebrews' denial of sexual diversity may simply have been part of their defence against Ba'al cults threatening Hebrew culture. These had an urban base. 

Are you saying Stanley that the negative portrayal of the prostitute as a trap  in Gilgamesh is a modern moralising translation by 'senior Assyriologists' or is it in the ancient versions?

Where in Gilgamesh are you alluding to? Are you referencing the temple prostitute sent to entice Enkidu?

I believe, Timothy, you are referencing Gilgamesh's quarrel with Inanna, which I have analysed in Ancient Fictionality and elsewhere in terms of homosexuality and human autocracy.

autonomy -(a hasty slip)

Dear Gustavo

Shakespeare wrote countless obscenities...countless! Consider Anthony and Cleopatra and King Lear for instance. I delight at the reference to the power of Cleopatra: "Royal wench! She made great Caesar lay his sword to bed; He plough'd her, and she cropp'd." You need to see the "ploughing" here!. There is more..."Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety. Other women cloy the appetites they feed, but she makes hungry where she most satisfies...Egypt' widow plucks at the 'never lust wearied Anthony...

Get to Edmund's soliloquy about how he is labelled a bastard and your should train your ear for the grim verbiage of obscenities: "Why brand they us with base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base? Who in the lusty stealth of nature take more composition and fierce quality than doth within a stale, tired bed, go to the creating of a whole tribe of fops, got 'tween asleep and wake? Edmund, to hint at the ruinous disorders in 'whoremaster man' further states explicitly: "My father compounded with my mother under the dragon's tail and my nativity was under ursa major! The compounding here is today's equivalent of very explicit language.

And perhaps my best illustration of the obscene in Shakespeare would be Gloucester proclaiming that 'there was good sport at his making' in reference to the sexual gymnastics on the occasion of 'creating' Edmund!

Often, I teach Shakespeare to 15/16 year olds and have to move swiftly over many of his speeches heavily larded as they are with innuendo and onscenities. Romeo and Juliet for example.

Problems of this kind are even more complicated in the religious literature of the Greco-Roman world, Christianity included, where the biased or tendentious translation of a word can change the meaning of an entire sentence, with the consequences everybody can readily imagine! I just quote the example of the epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (about 57 CE), chapter 13,1-7: here, the Greek word "exousia" is currently interpreted as "political authority or power", whereas in the theological language of the time it had the meaning of "angelic power(s)". Of course, the question is still open to debate...

The curious word Elohim appears in the first five books of the bible and is roughly translated to mean either God, as in the all powerful one God or god meaning other gods. The word is plural and can also be translated as creator, power, almighty.

Confusingly the word is interspersed with other names for God in particular YHWH suggesting that the five books of the Pentateuch were written by several people over a significant number of years, only consolidated as one during the exile in Babylon.

Even more confusing is that some traditions prohibit the pronunciation of the name of God requiring various substitutes to be used such as ‘lord’. Oddly this prohibition is not found either in the Torah or the Mishna and may be a tradition that pre-dates them.

Even though pronouncing the name was either prohibited or restricted to prayer in the temple it was incorporated into many Hebrew names. Daniel translates to God (El) is my judge, Samuel is Heard by God, Nathaniel, Gift of God and even Elijah El is YHWH combining both of the names repeatedly seen in the books of Moses.

Interestingly the current Prime Minister of Israel, translation Prince of God incorporates the name of God into his name. Netanyahu is a version of Nathaniel, Gift of God.

It is not surprising that the early books of the bible have been virtually impossible to interpret.

Barry, doesn't this suggest the god was El, not YHWH-a sensible interpretation as he was the oldest West Semitic chief and creator god, and the first that I am aware of who created a personal relationship with his human creation and acolytes.

Seth. L. The Invention of Hebrew. University of Illinois Press. 2009: page 52-53.

Smith. Mark S. Smith. Mark S. ahweh, El, and the Divine Astral Family in Iron Age 11 Judah.Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past. Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbours from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Ed. Dever and Gitin. Eisenbrauns. 2003. ]L’Heureux. Conrad E. Rank Among The Canaanite Gods El, Ba’al, and the Repha’im. Scholars Press. 1979:3.

Stanley

The most likely interpretation is that he was both. El may have been a deity acknowledged in several parts of Canaan while YHWH appears to have been from the much further south. One theory is that the semitic tribe that migrated out of Egypt, giving rise to the Exodus story picked up this name along the way and the two deities somehow 'fused'.

I do not necessarily subscribe to ideas that the 'oldest' god has more authority over later imports. The very early scriptures do not suggest this and it is not until the second temple period that polytheism largely disappears from the scene.

Perhaps, Barry, the early scriptures do not subscribe to such a view but our knowledge of this period does. The scriptures are not historical and certainly not for this point in time. There is considerable knowledge of the West Semitic religions and theories of Egyptian origins are not sustainable except within a number of multiple factors influencing the religious dynamics of the time. Please read, if possible, the authorities I provided plus this one:

Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio. Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Trans by W.G.E.Watson. 2014. Ugarit-Verlag-Buch-und Medienhandel GmbH, Munster.

At present, although YHWH may have had southern origins, it is considered just as likely he emerged from the family of Canaanite gods and influences from the East. My point about El's relationship with his creations stands, as not only does it appear to have been novel it is also an important aspect of later YHWH worship. I have covered these matters both at length and in depth. The names you record-Samuel etc-could as easily and more likely reflect on the El origins of the early part of YHWH religion, with YHWH superimposed on the material.

The developments that you appear to subscribe to Biblical authenticity are at present subscribed, rightly, to later priestly attempts to convey longevity onto their god, a product of 7th to 4th century Hebrew courts. Although you reject the influence of older gods on later imports (we do not really know that YHWH was an import or simply a development, as above, of changes in Canaanite societies-growing more martial and influenced by the enegetic, spreading cult of Ba'l-note the appellation) this view does not reflect present understanding. Isn't one difficulty here, Barry, is still attaching authority to the origin of the older myths, which you reject, and accepting new, current myths from exactly the same authority-the Bible?

Stanley

I do not attach any authority to any of these biblical myths as they are unverifiable. No religion is scientifically or historically verifiable because by scientific method they are riddled with confounders.

Religious tenets and 'covenants' are so contradictory, including the Pentateuch that they could not be authoritative, at least from a historical perspective.

As for religious archaeology it is a fallacy. The events described in the bible are clearly impossible unless one subscribes to supernatural causes. I am not remotley interested in such attributions and am seeking evidence that events happened rather than whether it was YHWH, El, Baal or any other number of deities that were responsible.

Lingistically the name of god is almost infinitley variable and is intimately attached to the origins of the people who apply it. We know for instance that Dieu, Gott, Bog, Dios, θεός, Бог are all of Indo-European origin. A trip around all other language groups will display a wider range. It is also interesting that God is not always a 'being' but can be a force or spirit.

The Semitic peoples had numerous gods and the most logical explanation is that they morphed or fused into one over a significant amount of time. We know that shrines to idols were found in the homes of semitic peoples long after they are assumed to have embraced monotheism. This is of course testified to in the Bible and is even blamed for the destruction of the Temple by a vengeful Elohim/YHWH.

We can stil observe this today. A number of cultures who are devoutly Christian on the one hand still acknowledge spirit gods, in spite of the absolute prohibition of this in Deuteronomy. Western European Christian tradition also is heavily seasoned with references to our pre Christian past, Christmas itself for instance.

Since religions develop from earlier ones it is spectacularly unlikely that Judaism sprang fully formed into the world, unless of course one subscribes literally to the Genesis story.

It is likely that the authors of the Torah were extracting materials from many sources formed over centuries. EL and YHWH could be names for a single god but it is likely they were originally two gods.

Religion is largely formed out of consensus. I highly recommend the work of Adin Steinsalz who examines this in insightful detail and looks at the development of Judaism in the first temple period 950-586BC and then in the second temple period and Hellenistic influences on the faith.

I agree entirley that we cannot be sure of the origins or the full meaning of these names of God. It is unclear even if the earliest writings fully acknowledged a monotheistic faith or still subscribed to gods in the plural. Elohim is a masculine plural and has even been mooted to be the root of the Trinity.

I am fairly certain that unravelling the story is impossible and that we will never accurately know what happened in the 1st Millenium BC. It is of course written (Genesis 11:1-9) that The Lord wished to confound us with language.

Maybe there is something in it after all!

Statuettes of El are common from 10th century BCE Canaan and Palestine, at the time when David supposedly reigned. They continue, as does the worship, in the surrounding lands until at least the 5th century-probably later.

When the Egyptian's left Canaan, the Canaanite gods made a resurgence. Gradually, all representations of goddesses disappeared with greater emphasis on masculinity and martial gods like YHWH. El in fact was credited with humanity-unlike of course YHWH.

The appellation 'il, el in the earlier part of the Pentateuch is not simply coincidental. If 'il and el are expressed in names 'saul', Samuel, etc, then probably that is the god worshiped. Don't forget, genuine signs of YHWH appear much later. This is based on evidence, not scripture. Although 'il and el are both appellatives and nominatives, the number suggests the later is a high probability.

Please read what I have provided.

Although there was indeed variations on this god (el of the mountains) there is also accumulative evidence for him, as there is for Ba'l, his apparent relative in the West Semitic family of gods. This is well attested! As are the usual stories of Ba'l attempting to supplant the older god. Ba'l arose from within urban centres, while el represented mainly nomads and rural areas-thereby occasioning the very religious conflict the Pentateuch accords to Ba'l and YHWH between the claims of rural and urban life. One of my contentions is that from these ideological conflicts came Hebrew identity, emerging from el worshippers-hence Israel.

There is considerable literature about this group of gods, predating and influencing Hebrew literature. Of interest is the similarity of myths of el and stories of Abraham.

@ Kathllin Congratulations for posting an excellent Question, this is an genuine problem.

"Are modern translations of ancient texts sanitising their translations, and thereby misleading the reader?"

It is true that the translation and transliteration are many a times partially misleading the readers. This is due to many factors like Language of that ancient Sciences or literature, the Philosophy, Way of presentation, Vocabulary, Classification, Ancient Names and purpose are main issues, apart from these there are other like constant changes in almost all languages, writings, Addition of new words, phrases, En-reaching the languages by incorporating the words and concepts from other languages etc.

In Translation of Ancient Sciences and Literature a team of concerned experts should be involved to get correct sense and meaning otherwise the purpose of Ancient Sciences or Literature will be defeated due to misleading translations.

Dear Barry, you asked whether more than one individual wrote the pentateuch. Well from when I studied in the 1950s, you had four (groups of) writers, the jahwist, the elohist, the Priester codex and the Deuteronomist. Therefore some stories are repeated in the bible.

I may refer you to a site that refers to this phenomenon in:

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_430.htm

Warm greetings and have a good start of 2018. Jan

Jan

Lingusitic analysis has determined that apart from four groups of writers that within those groups there are a range of writing styles indicating different authors.

It is always interesting when writing style and metre change. This always indicates that a different writer is involved.

Perhaps I may refer to one of the first Nobel prize winners, Theodore Mommsen, a German historian who translated anew all ancient Roman authors and rewrote history because his translation was more perfect than all other before him who always quoted one translation or another.

The suggestion Gundhidas offers that translations should be undertaken by a team of concerned experts is tempting, but suffers from the same flaws as individuals. The problems are, who selects the people to go on the team, and how do you avoid the problem of their work being affected by the current, potentially invalid, intellectual prejudices of their own time and academic disciplines. The translation of the King James Bible was undertaken, for example, by 47 scholars, all members of the Church of England.

The ideal translator should be someone who is well-schooled on the language, history, and cultural background of the text (and who can also access and weigh up conflicting expert opinions), who also can approach the work with an informed awareness of his own intellectual biases together with a willingness to put those aside whenever these can be shown to be invalid on the evidence.

This is a big ask. The problem lies in the fact that few people really understand just how Intentional our own perceptions and thought patterns are. I believe that unless you are aware of this, you cannot be truly unbiased in any academic work. For a discussion on this point, please see my paper Towards a Science of Nexialism; Article Towards a science of Nexialism

Kathleen, although I heartily agree with your comments on our inability to see our own multifold biases, wasn't the King James Bible mainly based on Tyndale?

Not my field of expertise, Stanley. The much maligned Wikipedia, on a quick scan through, seems to suggest that the King James translation was called for as a reaction to other translations arising from Tyndale. Either way, what I do know is that the King James version is an out of date, and quite flawed translation in many ways that should probably have been retired in favour of better translations decades ago. But too many people are in love with the elegance of its prose, regardless of whether the translation is accurate or not.

Kathleen, I did a quick search, and, yes, I am right. See below:

1 In the begynnynge God created heaven and erth.

2 The erth was voyde and emptie ad darcknesse was vpon the depe and the spirite of god moved vpon the water

3 Than God sayd: let there be lyghte and there was lyghte.

4 And God sawe the lyghte that it was good: and devyded the lyghte from the darcknesse

5 and called the lyghte daye and the darcknesse nyghte: and so of the evenynge and mornynge was made the fyrst daye

6 And God sayd: let there be a fyrmament betwene the waters ad let it devyde the waters a sonder.

7 Than God made the fyrmament and parted the waters which were vnder the fyrmament from the waters that were above the fyrmament: And it was so.

8 And God called the fyrmament heaven And so of the evenynge and morninge was made the seconde daye

9 And God sayd let the waters that are vnder heaven gather them selves vnto one place that the drye londe may appere:

Tyndale did not however translate all of the Old Testament and New, and even he based part of his on John Wycliffe's efforts. Nevertheless, this is in line with your question, I believe. Tyndale was highly critical of Catholicism and wanted ordinary people to know exactly what was in the Bible-up to then it was largely available in Latin and most people only knew the religion through what priests told them. For that, he was burned as a heretic as a consequence of the obsessive persecution of Thomas More. His legacy was Protestantism, within the UK at least.

As with Wycliffe, his translations were for political and social ends, the former creating, deliberately or not, the Lollards, an early form of Protestantism. As translations therefore both contain bias.

The James' I translators used both the above and made contributions for those left untranslated by Tyndale and Wycliffe, although the latters id considered prefunctory.

Stanley makes many great points!

Umberto Eco writes about the problem of all translations , which can already be well grasped by the title Saying almost the same thing (which, BTW, is my translation of the French title which is a translation from Italian. :-D ). All translations reinterpret the original, leave things out or even insert new ideas. Sometimes inadvertently, sometimes not so much. Modern translation are already much less sanitized than earlier translation (the XIXth century is almost mesmerizing in its sanitization of ancient texts). But even today, translations retihink the texts to make them more understandable...

Which is why it is so important to continue teaching the Classics, as well as other languages.

Sorry about the typos!

The attempt to transcribe the semantic content of the original version to another language, with a different cultural and symbolic heritage, often ends up in the risk of losing at least part of the richness and subtleties intended by the translated author. It is not difficult to imagine how true this can be when dealing with historical contexts far away from our actual timeline. Reading and studying the classics may, of course, help, but there is no definitive solution to this issue.

That's absolutely true, for modern languages as well as for ancient languages. I'm especially thinking of the numerous translations-adaptations-interpretations of Greek texts into Latin. It is not by chance, I think, that the Greek word 'hermeneia' (verb 'hermeneuein') means at the same time 'translation' and 'interpretation', and that the Latin word 'interpretatio' (verb 'interpretari') also means 'translation'.

Kathleen D Toohey, this is one of the most difficult questions relating to translation. I highly recommend reading an article my colleague wrote about striking the right balance between authenticity to the source and clarity in the target language. I hope you enjoy. https://www.aclang.com/blog/the-greatest-challenge-facing-translators/

interesting Avi that even the article you recommend acknowledges that there are times when literal accuracy is more important than 'clarity in the target language'. So we are back to the question of why the translation is being undertaken. If its for populist audiences go with clarity, however, an academic text must retain all the features of the original text and this includes making the reader aware of all possible meanings, otherwise its of no use.

For an indication of how time can distort meaning the book Language and German Disunity by Patrick Stevenson is fascinating. It charts the differences that evolved in just 40 years during the division of Germany after WW2.

Even after just over four decades significant differences were beginning to emerge, largely influenced by the different ideologies in the two Germanies. Where a state is so influenced by ideas that are different to ones own the effect of that influence needs to be considered when translating the texts that originate there.

Thanks, Avi, Timothy and Barry for revisiting this question. You all make good points.

However, I think that with regard to the Athenaeus translations I cited at the start, the following quote from the Kallenbach' article Avi cited, sets out the 'ground rules' that underlie the problem I am concerned with:

"clients want their texts translated so their message or research can effectively reach audiences who are only familiar with the target language"

If the modern Loeb translation was made in according to those guidelines, then there would be a strong impetus to temper the language in translation to play down its sexist overtones. But in so doing, that also sanitises Theopompus, whose work was being quoted, presenting him as less bitter and vitriolic than it appears he actually was.

Dear Kathleen. I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but you can take a look to this collective volume: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-10-08.html. It is readable and quite enlightening.

Every translation is an interpretation. Every interpreter brings their own biases, whether conscious or unconscious to their work.

الاغلب الاعم من الترجمات مشوه

If you look at different versions of the Bible you can see santising of translations of what would be today considered sexually explicit language and rated unsuitable reading for young children. Compare, for example, " Then Samson went to Gaza, and there saw an harlot, and went in unto her" KJV Judges 16:1 with "Once Samson went to Gaza, where he saw a prostitute and visited her" The African Bible Judges 16:1.