Translator Bias

[Jhanananda]

Translator bias has to be kept in mind when reading any literature in translation, especially religious literature.  There is always a bias in translation. What we want is the bias of the translator being the same as the bias of the original intention.

A comparative analysis of 23 translations of Dhammapada Verse 372 to Reveal the Variability in Translation.

Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament Paperback – April 29, 2003 by Jason David BeDuhn (Author)
The PDF can be downloaded here

[Jhanon]

Ooooooo, this looks juicy! Very good find. Thank you for posting

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you for the reply, Jhanon.  I am of course the author of A comparative analysis of 23 translations of Dhammapada Verse 372 to Reveal the Variability in Translation, and I wrote the essay years ago.

I only just started reading Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament and found the preface worth quoting here in part, but my PDF will not allow me to copy any text.  But, if the rest of Jason David BeDuhn's book is as well thought out as his preface, then it should be very instructive for us here. 

I did happen to notice that the author has confused bias with accuracy in translation.  However, all translations require bias.  What we want in a translation is for the translator to have the same bias as the original author.  Sadly, every translation of the bible and gospels that I have examined exhibited an outrageously inaccurate bias in their translations.

In the introduction I noticed another error in his thought.  He believes that no translator or critic of biblical translation is qualified if they cannot read the original form of Greek that the bible and gospels were written in.  Well, being able to read the original form of Greek that the bible and gospels were written in is simply not a reliable means of assessing biblical translation qualifications, or otherwise we would have far more reliable translations of the bible and gospels. 

I cannot read any of the writing systems that the Pali canon has been written in; however, I can exercise the skills of linguistic anthropology, as well as my skills with English poetry composition, to determine the accuracy of translations of the Pali Canon.  And, I can do the same thing to determine the accuracy of translations of the bible and gospels.

[Michel]

I ran across this sutta today which is relevant to this topic:

Bhikkhus, those Bhikkhus who exclude the meaning and the Dhamma by means of badly acquired discourses whose phrasing is a semblance of the correct phrasing are acting for the harm of many people, for the unhappiness of many people, for the ruin, harm and suffering of many people, of devas and human beings. These bhikkhus generate much demerit and cause the good Dhamma to disappear. AN 2:41

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, Michel, for posting the useful sutta quote.  I am now past the first chapter of Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament and find the book excellent, not just for anyone who wishes to study Christian doctrine in translation, but for anyone who wishes to study and ancient literature in translation, such as the Pali Canon.

In following chapters Jason David BeDuhn described different translation methods.  I recognized my method as the "dynamic equivalence translation method,"  with an attitude of "as literal as possible while being as free as necessary," which might be frowned upon today, but I find it requires a poet's skill with language, and a mystic's insight.

The more I study the bible, and its original language, and the behavior of the earliest Christians, the more I realize that every translation of the Gospels has built into it an erroneous bias.  It is an accepted fact that the earliest Christians were monastic, which means that this passage from Paul is about celibacy; however, not one translation that I know of understands that.

1 Thessalonians 4 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

4 Furthermore then, we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received from us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

4 that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor,

5 not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles who know not God;

6 that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

8 He therefore that despiseth this, despiseth not man but God, who hath also given unto us His holy Spirit.

9 But concerning brotherly love, ye have no need that I write unto you, for ye yourselves are taught by God to love one another;

10 and indeed ye do it toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia.

1 Thessalonians 4 American Standard Version (ASV)

4  Finally then, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as ye received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, even as ye do walk, --that ye abound more and more.

2 For ye know what charge we gave you through the Lord Jesus.

3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication;

4 that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor,

5 not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who know not God;

6 that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in the matter: because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as also we forewarned you and testified.

7 For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification.

8 Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you.

9 But concerning love of the brethren ye have no need that one write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another;

10 for indeed ye do it toward all the brethren that are in all Macedonia.

1 Thessalonians 4 New International Version (NIV)
Living to Please God

4 As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.

9 Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. 10 And in fact, you do love all of God’s family throughout Macedonia.

NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES (2013 REVISION)
1 Thessalonians 4:1-18
4  Finally, brothers, just as you received instruction from us on how you should walk in order to please God,+ just as you are in fact walking, we request you and appeal to you by the Lord Jesus to keep doing it more fully. 2  For you know the instructions* we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 3  For this is the will of God, that you should be holy+ and abstain from sexual immorality.*+ 4  Each one of you should know how to control his own body*+ in holiness+ and honor, 5  not with greedy, uncontrolled sexual passion+ like the nations have that do not know God.+ 6  No one should go beyond proper limits and take advantage of his brother in this matter, because Jehovah* exacts punishment for all these things, just as we told you previously and also strongly warned you. 7  For God has called us, not for uncleanness, but for holiness.+ 8  So, then, the man who disregards this is disregarding, not man, but God,+ who gives you his holy spirit.+ 9  However, concerning brotherly love,+ you do not need us to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another.+ 10  In fact, you are doing so toward all the brothers in all of Mac·e·do′ni·a.

[Jhanananda]

I am now up to chapter 4 in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, where I find Jason David BeDuhn has correctly understood that the Magi who visited Jesus after his birth were Zoroastrian priests, and that the "star" was an astrological alignment.  If more Christians would read this man's book they would have a far better understanding of Christianity. 

In chapter 4 he is also tackling a number of Greek terms, which Alexander and I have been working on for some time here. On page 46 he also tackles the "son of god" issue, and states "yes, 'a son of god."

[Alexander]

I am now up to chapter 4 in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, where I find Jason David BeDuhn has correctly understood that the Magi who visited Jesus after his birth were Zoroastrian priests, and that the "star" was an astrological alignment.  If more Christians would read this man's book they would have a far better understanding of Christianity. 

In chapter 4 he is also tackling a number of Greek terms, which Alexander and I have been working on for some time here. On page 46 he also tackles the "son of god" issue, and states "yes, 'a son of god."

Very nice. The idea Christ was a successor of the Magi was something I appreciated a lot. And when it comes to the second - we see that a different article (a -> the) can change a whole religion!

[Jhanananda]

I would not necessarily agree that it is clear that Jesus Christ was a " successor of the Magi;" however, I do agree that it is possible.  What I find strange in the Gospels is the reference to the Magi, and why?  The use of the term 'Magi" in the Gospels clearly shows a connection to Persia, which does not seem to develop in the rest of the Gospels as they have been preserved and/or translated for us.

I suspect that the use of the term 'Magi" in the Gospels might have been a generic term for any priest of any Persian religion.  If that is true, then the "Magi" could have been Buddhist or Hindu priests.

On the subject of the use of the term 'bias,' I seem to have taken too much liberty in my interpretation of that term, because wiki states the following below. 

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, or a political party. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.[1]

However, I still maintain my stance that bias does not necessitate "holding a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view."  My point is every writer has a position that he or she is attempting to express.  I take that position as a bias, without necessarily holding a partial perspective, which is often accompanied by a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view.

[Jhanananda]

Continuing on to chapter 11 in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, we find Jason David BeDuhn tackles a number of problems in the English translation of the bible and gospels.  Here he examines the term 'logos' and he shows that conflating Jesus with the logos is incorrect. 

In the same chapter he also examines other terms in the same phrases with logos: Luke 20:38, John 1:1 and Mark 12:27; where the Greek refers to "a god" not "the god" which most translations err in.  He argues that surely the Abrahamic religions were not referring to multiple gods.  He suggests that the Greek term 'theos' in its 192 uses throughout the Greek Bible and Gospels, must refer to a class of subject, not multiple gods, so he suggests 'theos' in its 192 uses throughout the Greek Bible and Gospels is probably better translated as "divine.'  I think 'sacred' might be better.

Thus, the Greek term 'theos' is not 'a god' but is recognized as sacred, or divine, which gives a radically different interpretation of the Bible and Gospels.  It suggests for the mystic, and us here, that Jesus was using the a term to refer to charismatic sound (logos) being sacred (theos).  Which is what we here, and many mystics in every religion have referred to.  Thus, Jesus was not the logos, but he recognized that the logos (the charismatic sound) was sacred (theos).

[Jhanananda]

Continuing on to chapter 12 in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, we find Jason David BeDuhn tackles the term 'Holy Spirit' (Greek pneuma hagion), (Hebrew, shekhinah).  There he tells us that the term 'Holy Spirit' appears 87 times.  He states, "The real danger here is that the "holy Spirit" as it is actually found in the New Testament" will be misunderstood and distorted (in translation) by adding to it qualities it does not have and attributing to it acts that the biblical authors ascribed to other kinds of "spirit."

[Jhanon]

What a coincidence that I came across the "a son of God" information a month or so ago. Christianity, in this context, is far more appealing to an intelligent individual looking for the sacred truth. This book sounds very important. I expect it will help melt away all the negative conditioning I've experienced in regards to Christianity.

Thank you both for sharing your findings and highlights. I look forward to reading it someday.

[Jhanananda]

Yes, Jhanon, I agree, I too find Christianity becomes more acceptable to the contemplative when the Gospels are properly translated.

I finished the book.  Here are his conclusions:

Conclusion:
“By providing some details about the origins of the various translations, I made it clear that every translation has been created by vested interests, and that none of the translations represents the ideal of a scholarly, neutral project.”

“The problem is that Protestant Christianity was not born in a historical vacuum, and does not go back directly to the time that the Bible was written.  Protestantism was and is a reformation of an already fully developed form of Christianity: Catholicism.  When the Protestant Reformation occurred just five hundred years ago, it did not reinvent Christianity from scratch, but carried over many of the doctrines that had developed within Catholicism over the course of the previous thousand years and more.  In this case, one might argue that the Protestant Reformation is incomplete, that it did not fully realize the high ideals that were set for it.

I conquer with most of Jason David BeDuhn findings and conclusions.  I enjoyed reading his book, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.  I highly recommend it.

[Jhanon]

The free PDF version for those of us who can't afford a 50 dollar book. Although I feel we should support the author buy purchasing--if possible.

https://thebibleisnotholy.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/truth-in-translation.pdf

[Jhanananda]

A friend of face book, Carlos Mondéjar Otero, a book Testaments Betrayed, by Milan Kundera, which looks like another book for those here who are interested in how the Christian gospels have been corrupted.

Fundamental, we need to ask some questions regarding how Asian literature was also mistranslated. Is it because the western languages are just so inadequate for the task? Or, the western translators so inadequate for the task? Or, is it possible that the Asian religions are no less corrupted than western religions?

Considering how westerners who have developed deep meditation are just as marginalized by the clergy of eastern religions as they are by the clergy of the western religions, I am forced to consider the third possibility that the Asian religions are no less corrupted than western religions.

Also, the Bible, Gospels and Koran have plenty of references to mystical experiences. The problems that I see at work in the religions of the world are:

1] The devout are the ones who tend to dominate any religion; whereas, the devout almost never become mystics; and further it is the devout who are the ones who tend to marginalize mystics.

2] As a consequence of the above, the language of gnosis shifts over time, such that a term that was in use in the past for one of the various manifestations of the mystical experience tends to be shifted to mean something else later.

An example of this language shift is the term ‘ecstasy,’ which was commonly used by Christian mystics to describe the over-all mystical experience has been recently downgraded to apply to the group hysteria that tends to occur at a sporting event.

And, we can take Buddhism as an example of this corruption, in every translator and Asian Buddhist priest subscribes to the translation of the term ‘samadhi’ as ‘concentration,' when the term ‘ecstasy’ is more appropriate.

Thus, there are certainly natives of Asia who have learned western languages who continue to participate in the misunderstanding of Asian mystical concepts, which supports my premise that all religions have been corrupted by their devout and their clergy.

[Michel]

And, we can take Buddhism as an example of this corruption, in every translator and Asian Buddhist priest subscribes to the translation of the term ‘samadhi’ as ‘concentration,' when the term ‘ecstasy’ is more appropriate.

I appreciate your insightful comments, Jhananda. You've given us a language of accurate terminology to descibe the religious experience.  I prefer the term 'ecstasy' over 'samadhi' or even 'jhana' for that matter.

I think the use of the term 'concentration' is used by the vast majority of Theravadan teachers/translators because one has to apply and sustain (vitakka and vicara) one's attention on a meditation object before the 1st ecstasy arises. They also very often refer to vitakka and vicara as applied an sustained thought. Many teachers refer to this stage as 'access concentration.' If I understand correctly, the 1st ecstasy -- arises by itself. By applying and sustaining one's attention on a mediation object, one is simply providing the right conditions for this to happen. I agree that the term concentration is a poor choice for categorizing all 8 stages of the religious experience.