They, Them, Their

[John of Japan]

Regardless of 19th or 20th century usage (or that of any BB denizen posting here) of "they" for "he, him" (etc.), this usage in translating a 1st century document is an anachronism. They simply did not talk or write that way in 1st century Greek. In Venuti's terminology, it is domesticizing, and thus inappropriate in a formal translation of the NT.

Our usually excellent proofreader recently suggested 口座 (kouza), which is the word for a modern bank account, for λόγος (usually trans. "account") in Phil. 4:17. Doesn't work.

I'm out of here till Monday. Enjoy yourselves.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Regardless of 19th or 20th century usage (or that of any BB denizen posting here) of "they" for "he, him" (etc.), this usage in translating a 1st century document is an anachronism. They simply did not talk or write that way in 1st century Greek. In Venuti's terminology, it is domesticizing, and thus inappropriate in a formal translation of the NT.

The usage of the singular they, their and them were used long before the 19th century.

You have used it yourself, as I quoted. And the other grammar Nazi --MM, has used the 'improper form' as well. I agree with Purvey, Luther, Tyndale and other translators. Put it in the language of the people. It should be translated in their idiom. You and Venuti may think it's inappropriate to translate in a certain manner for a formal translation. But for a modified literal translation it works perfectly fine. And I thought you didn't like the word formal when it comes to translation.

 

[agedman]

Why should he or she care how the instructions are given as long as they can understand and follow them?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Why should he or she care how the instructions are given as long as they can understand and follow them?

Who are you addressing? And what is the context of your remarks?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Matthew 16:24
NIV
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."

I have a problem with the above. But the way in which I would solve it would be to use a currently non-standard word. And that word is theirself. So I would substitute 'themselves; with theirself. I know, it's controversial. So is theirselves.
...

What is correct about theirself? Their is a plural form. Self is singular. Combining them sounds like an attempt to accommodate a collective noun.

If one needs a "self" form, then themself would seem the more obvious solution, but still has the same strange feel. However, it evidently has historical roots all the way back to the 14th century.

On the other hand use of hisself evidently dates back to the 12th century. Hmmm.

But I foresee other problems with this situation.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

What is correct about theirself? Their is a plural form. Self is singular.

We use the word their all the time referring to a singular individual.

Whoever is singular. Theirself deals with a single individual.

Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny theirself, take up the cross and follow me.

There, I substituted 'theirself' for 'themselves' and removed the unnecessary 'and.'

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

We use the word their all the time referring to a singular individual.

Whoever is singular. Theirself deals with a single individual.

Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny theirself, take up the cross and follow me.

There, I substituted 'theirself' for 'themselves' and removed the unnecessary 'and.'

The point was that using their for singular involves the exact same issues as using them for singular. That is, the comparison is themself vs theirself. Why go off into using theirself rather than keeping to themself? Themself, singular; themselves, plural.

"Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themself and take up their cross and follow me."

 

[John of Japan]

The usage of the singular they, their and them were used long before the 19th century.

You missed my point entirely, which was about 1st century Greek.

You have used it yourself, as I quoted.

Nope, you did not quote me, although if you want to go through 15 years of JoJ quotes and find something, go right ahead. It would still not be relevant to my point.

And the other grammar Nazi --MM, has used the 'improper form' as well. I agree with Purvey, Luther, Tyndale and other translators. Put it in the language of the people. It should be translated in their idiom. You and Venuti may think it's inappropriate to translate in a certain manner for a formal translation.

Do you know what Venuti means by "domesticizing"? He's an excellent translation scholar. I highly recommend him.

But for a modified literal translation it works perfectly fine. And I thought you didn't like the word formal when it comes to translation.

Are you okay? This is the second time in your post you mentioned something that I did not say.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

JohnofJapan ""Have you won anyone to Christ lately? If so, are you teaching them to be a good Christian?"

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Do you know what Venuti means by "domesticizing"? He's an excellent translation scholar. I highly recommend him.

Why don't you summarize some of his points.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Matthew 16:24

NIV
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."

I have a problem with the above. But the way in which I would solve it would be to use a currently non-standard word. And that word is theirself. So I would substitute 'themselves; with theirself. I know, it's controversial. So is theirselves.

Yuk! What exactly is wrong with the generic use of the Third Person Singular, 'himself'?

NLT
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me."

Any problems with that wording?

It's wrong. Apart from the fact they the word 'you' is not found in the original, it also restricts the application to the disciples. 'If anyone' translates the Greek ei tis precisely, and rightly opens it out to all people of all times. This frantic exclusion of the word 'he' may satisfy the gender fascists but it doesn't help good translation.

CEB
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross, and follow me."

The only problem that one may have is that the CEB says "All who want to come after me" instead of saying "Whoever wants to be my disciple" or even "If any of you wants to be my follower."

Just so.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Who are you addressing? And what is the context of your remarks?

That's 'whom are you addressing?'

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Matthew 16:24

CEB
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross, and follow me."

The only problem that one may have is that the CEB says "All who want to come after me" instead of saying "Whoever wants to be my disciple" or even "If any of you wants to be my follower."

The NET Notes states in the Greek it's "to come after me." So the CEB wording is quite faithful.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

That's 'whom are you addressing?'

One has to stick out their pinky to say that.

 

[John of Japan]

Why don't you summarize some of his points.

Venuti follows Schleiermacher:

”In an 1812 lecture on the different 'methods' of translation, Schleiermacher argued that 'there are only two. Either the translator leaves the author in peace as possible and moves the reader towards him, or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him" (Lawrence Venuti, The Translator's Invisibility, 2nd ed., p. 15).

The first method is called foreignization, and the second is called domesticization.

"Schleiermacher made clear that his choice was foreignizing translation, and this led the French translator and translation theorist Antoine Berman to treat Schleiermacher's argument as an ethics of translation, concerned with making the translated text a place where a cultural other is manifested" (Ibid).

 

[RipponRedeaux]

To break it down more simply, as Moises Silva has an article Are Translators Traitors? Some Personal Reflections. He goes on to say that translators could err on either side : being too dependent on the source language or, on the other hand, domesticizing the text too much for the target language readers. Where Silva lands is that translations should sound natural. The better translations are "more easily read and understood than if they reflected the foreign syntax and word usage. Incidentally, since the message communicates more clearly, one can argue that they are more accurate than literal renderings would be."
(Taken from the book The Challenge Of Bible Translation, page 39.)

 

[John of Japan]

Jerome (the historical translator, not ours on the BB) domesticized when translating the Bible:

“For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek (except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word," from “To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating,”

[1] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed. The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Volume VI. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co. reprint, 1989, 113.)

 

[Jerome]

Venuti....He's an excellent translation scholar. I highly recommend him.

Why don't you summarize some of his points.

Rippon, here's an example that suggests how Lawrence Venuti might treat certain passages of Scripture:

In The Translator's Invisibility [cited by John of Japan above], pp. 33-34, Venuti takes issue with a 1950s translator of Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars employing the terms "homosexual relationship" or even "catamite".

Venuti: "the translation is...homophobic", "Grave's use of 'homosexual relationship' to render 'prostratae regi pudicitiae' ('surrendered his modesty to the king') is an anachronism....[it] diagnoses same-sex sexual activity as pathological"

Venuti: "Suetonius later touches on Caesar’s sexual reputation, and here too Graves’s version is marked by a homophobic bias....the Latin text makes rather general and noncommittal references to Caesar’s sexuality ["'contubernium' ('sharing the same tent', 'companionship', 'intimacy')"]...Graves chooses English words that stigmatize same-sex sexual acts as perverse...makes Caesar a 'catamite'....As an archaism, 'catamite' deviates from the modern English lexicon....a deviation that is symptomatic of the domesticating process in Graves’s version."

all from first chapter of The Translator's Invisibility by Lawrence Venuti (Phd, Columbia University) pdf link

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Eh thanks Jerome. I think I will stay clear of Larry.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"What is the point of needlessly adhering to scrupulously and stubbornly to words which one cannot understand anyway? Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it ---once he understands the Hebrew author --that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, 'Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?' Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows."
[Quoted by Ernst R. Wendland, Martin Luther, the Father Of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation.]