How many more shades of meaning have been lost over the centuries since Revelation was composed?
I imagine reading Homer is a similar experience.
As an afterthought, I recently read a very convincing take on a difficult NT passage - I can't for the moment remember which one - which suggested the wording used in that passage was to make the original more poetic and thus easier for an original audience of listeners (as opposed to readers) to retain. So yes, we can lose nuances as well as add ones that weren't there. But I think Scripture is, overall, robust enough to withstand that.
εξηλθεν (exēlthen) is the standard word for going out with no particular connotations.
Similarly the KJV/AV uses ‘forth’ freely where contemporary English would simply use ‘out’.
In a translation into modern English, therefore, ‘went out’ is a better translation for εξηλθεν unless something in the text indicates that more formal or elevated language is intended.
Fr Teilhard has it. |But I'm out of here. This is killing me - not just some posters, but managing the mechanics. I've got CAD and a sprained tendon in my shoulder - I thinj it#s RSI from trrying to stop things flying off the page. And last night I signed out with a bp of 160/78 - it;s usually around 118-124 - not bad for an 83-year-old. Covid 19 would be a doddle after another hour here. So goodbye and good luck
Ever since 'Blackadder Goes Forth' it will be just an hilarious word.
'Wibble'
Only if one is familiar with “Blackadder,” which the vast majority of people on the west side of The Pond, and perhaps elsewhere in the Anglosphere other than the UK, are not. I’ve heard of it but never seen it.
And I’d need a translation for “wibble.”
@Chemincreux, I’m sorry this discussion didn’t go as you seem to have hoped. I think most who’ve started threads on the Ship would say that sooner or later—most likely sooner—those threads move in unexpected ways. That’s how discussions often work.
Of course, do what you need to do to take care of yourself. But I do hope we’ll see more of you.
Blackadder goes Forth was the punningly named fourth series, set in the WWI trenches:
"Anyone can see he's as sane as I am! Baaaaaaaaaahhhhh!"
"My father was a nun"
"No he wasn't Baldrick"
"He was so sir! Whenever he was up before the magistrate, they'd ask him his profession and he'd say 'Nun'"
*Wibble* was IIRC the nonsense word used by Captain Blackadder to try to persuade the authorities that he was insane, and should be sent back to England forthwith (see what I did there?).
It didn't work, and Over The Top he went, to vanish into oblivion like the rest, in one of the most poignant anti-war scenes ever filmed.
*Wibble* was IIRC the nonsense word used by Captain Blackadder to try to persuade the authorities that he was insane, and should be sent back to England forthwith (see what I did there?).
It didn't work, and Over The Top he went, to vanish into oblivion like the rest, in one of the most poignant anti-war scenes ever filmed.
Indeed, prompting the line, regarding Private Baldrick's last ever Cunning Plan: "Whatever it was, it must have been better than my idea of getting out of here by pretending to be mad. Who'd notice another madnan out here?"
In actual usage, "to go out" is a mamby-pamby phrase about a change of physical location, while, "to go forth" carries the implication of a bold purposefulness ... "to go forth into battle," etc. ...
Not so sure I agree. At the end of the service Sunday after Sunday, I am charged with these words:
Go out into the world in peace;
have courage;
hold on to what is good;
return no one evil for evil;
strengthen the fainthearted;
support the weak,
and help the suffering;
honor all people;
love and serve the Lord,
rejoicing in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Nothing namby-pamby about that to my mind.
But even if “go forth” does have an implication of bold purposefulness that “go out” lacks, is that same bold purposefulness implied by the Greek exēlthen? And if it is not, then on what basis is “went out” a less accurate translation than “went forth,” as seems to be suggested in this thread?
I don't have a "dog in the fight" -- except that I prefer updated usage when possible
Chemincreux: Revelation 6:2 "And I saw, and behold, a white horse,and its rider had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer." That's the RSV version, in my interlinear Greek-English New Testament. The word-for-word translation given in the column next to it, for the word εξηλθεν is "he went forth". So, presumably, the translator of the time thought "went forth" was archaic. If not, why change it?
Not only do I sympathise with you, Chemincreux, but to my mind 'forth' is to be preferred to 'out' because there is an affective purposive element in the former which is absent in the prosaic latter.
I remember (more or less) a comment from a French writer about translation:
"If a translation is faithful, it is not beautiful. But if it is beautiful, then it is not faithful."
(It's also easier to talk about a translation being a betrayal in French, as traduire - to translate - and trahir - to betray - are more similar than their English equivalents. However, as my French lessons stopped at 'O' Level, I accept that my linguistic expertise is limited).
There is no perfect translation from one language to another. There is a thread elsewhere on the Ship that shows that English speakers cannot always understand what is said by other Anglophones from different (or even the same) countries. You can only choose the translation that suits you and accept that others' preferences will be different.
But the point at issue here is whether the translation embellishes the original - in your terms, makes it more 'beautiful' than the original.
"Go forth" etc. has all sorts of exciting connotations in English, and several people here are hanging quite a bit on those connotations. When it comes to Bible translation and exegesis, this is perilous if those connotations weren't there in the original. In this case, I don't believe they are.
My argument was that "forth" carried elements that added meaning not emphasised by "out". Eutychus recognises the point when he suggest its use in this context constitutes an "overtranslation".
My argument was that "forth" carried elements that added meaning not emphasised by "out". Eutychus recognises the point when he suggest its use in this context constitutes an "overtranslation".
The issues overlap because the OP said of "forth"
It's a much-used invigorating tool in the bible.
"Forth" may not be redundant in everyday speech, but so far as I can see its current connotations and archaic register in modern English mean it's not a good translation of anything in the Bible.
It’s not clear to me that a “good translation” means that everything in the Bible should be presented in everyday modern English. In the example above we had:
Revelation 6:2 "And I saw, and behold, a white horse, and its rider had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer."
It now has “out” instead of “forth”, so that makes it, what, more relatable? Because that’s how people go conquering and to conquer these days?
It's an attempt to keep the language modern, acting incrementally. It is most likely that "forth" will continue to diminish in use, except in set phrases like "brought forth her firstborn", and if they wait too long to make the change, it will be glaringly obvious. No biggie, just a small adjustment similar to the tiny movements drivers make all the time to keep their cars in the center of their own lanes.
It’s not clear to me that a “good translation” means that everything in the Bible should be presented in everyday modern English. In the example above we had:
Revelation 6:2 "And I saw, and behold, a white horse, and its rider had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer."
It now has “out” instead of “forth”, so that makes it, what, more relatable? Because that’s how people go conquering and to conquer these days?
To my mind a "good translation" of the Bible means one that strikes the right balance between terminological accuracy and accessibility in such a way that the impact on the reader (or hearer) is as close as possible to the imagined impact on the original reader (or hearer).
In the above example, "forth" is unnecessarily archaic: "out" is a perfectly adequate translation, and has the advantage of not needlessly adding a more complicated word that carries with it something that isn't (I believe) there in the Greek.
A good translation applies a sort of linguistic Occam's razor: don't use something more complicated than necessary, even if it's tempting in terms of a stylistic flourish.
This is of course all a matter of hot debate, but my guess is the Message translation is currently as good as it gets when it comes to achieving the aim I, um, set forth1 above:
I saw a white horse. Its rider carried a bow and was given a victory garland. He rode off victorious, conquering right and left.
==
1 I do actually find myself using "set forth" quite a lot in legal translations from French, but not long ago I started trying to avoid it precisely because I decided it was needlessly archaic and obfuscatory. British legalese simply doesn't use language like that any more (then again, register for any given purpose differs wildly between languages, which is another whole can of worms).
(From time to time, I toy with the idea of attempting a translation of CS Lewis' Till we have faces into French. Apart from the minor detail that French isn't my native language, one of the big challenges would be that Lewis has deliberately written it in an artificially archaic style (including words such as "possets" and "doxy" and other obscure phrases). The question of whether a translation of all this into archaic French would be a) achievable and b) required in order to be faithful is a besetting one).
I have to admit it hadn't occurred to me that "the imagined impact on the original reader (or hearer)" of the apocalyptic prophecy of Revelation might be something like "British legalese". But I suppose one wouldn't want to let archaic language get in the way of the clear meaning of the text.
DaveW: But I suppose one wouldn't want to let archaic language get in the way of the clear meaning of the text.
God forbid that the otherwise lucid text of Revelation should be so obscured. I guess it's important to know that the warrior in question was been outed rather than forthed.
I suppose one wouldn't want to let archaic language get in the way of the clear meaning of the text.
Quite. Where it enters nightmare territory, however, is when people start building their teaching on the connotations, ancient or modern, of archaic translations that don't match those of the original.
(heard in my childhood: a long digression during a sermon on the relationship between "divers diseases" and "the bends"...).
DaveW: But I suppose one wouldn't want to let archaic language get in the way of the clear meaning of the text.
God forbid that the otherwise lucid text of Revelation should be so obscured. I guess it's important to know that the warrior in question was been outed rather than forthed.
No, it's important to understand that "he went out" rather than being tempted to give up reading the text due to a surfeit of unnecessarily difficult words. Not everybody has the lexical reach of most of those who hang out here.
Of course we could go back to having it all in Latin, or to weed out the merely slightly dumb as well, the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.
I suppose one wouldn't want to let archaic language get in the way of the clear meaning of the text.
Quite. Where it enters nightmare territory, however, is when people start building their teaching on the connotations, ancient or modern, of archaic translations that don't match those of the original.
(heard in my childhood: a long digression during a sermon on the relationship between "divers diseases" and "the bends"...).
How is it that people that dumb are allowed access to a pulpit?
Ever since 'Blackadder Goes Forth' it will be just an hilarious word.
'Wibble'
Only if one is familiar with “Blackadder,” which the vast majority of people on the west side of The Pond, and perhaps elsewhere in the Anglosphere other than the UK, are not. I’ve heard of it but never seen it.
And I’d need a translation for “wibble.”
Truly said. Never heard of either. As for "wibble" - is there not a Ship rule that non-English words must be accompanied by a translation?
Yeah, that's the Bible for you. Full of that fake highbrow - like poetry, or Shakespeare.
I would suspect the last good poet who would use Shakespeare or the AV as a model of diction unironically was Yeats, and he was an outlier. Maybe Stevens though it's hard to tell when he's being ironic.
With those exceptions good modern poets have tried to avoid diction that sounds Shakespearean or Biblical; a modern poet who didn't would be considered fake highbrow.
If a word is in dictionary.com, it's English unless the definition says otherwise, as it's a dictionary of the English language. It labels "je ne sais quoi" as French, for example, but we're not told what language "nincompoop" belongs to.
If a word is in dictionary.com, it's English unless the definition says otherwise, as it's a dictionary of the English language. It labels "je ne sais quoi" as French, for example, but we're not told what language "nincompoop" belongs to.
I suppose one wouldn't want to let archaic language get in the way of the clear meaning of the text.
Quite.
Dude, it’s Revelation. There is no clear meaning of the text. All you’re doing is making it boring and ugly, as well as unclear.
And I thought you were joking about making like British legalese.
I had this idea that Revelation was a book, like other NT texts, written for its time. My idea is that Revelation had significant meaning for certain people at the time it was written, but the meaning was not clear to others of that time.
This idea of mine is based upon dimly-remembered reading. I am not much interested in that book.
I suppose one wouldn't want to let archaic language get in the way of the clear meaning of the text.
Quite.
Dude, it’s Revelation. There is no clear meaning of the text. All you’re doing is making it boring and ugly, as well as unclear.
And I thought you were joking about making like British legalese.
There's a difference between reproducing what is there as accurately as possible and riffing on what is there with poetic license.
I'm not a Hellenist and open to correction on this, but I understand the main problem with the text of Revelation to be that the Greek syntax and grammar is actually very poor, rather than very sophisticated.
The overall meaning of Revelation might be unclear, or disputed, but that's no excuse for claiming that what @mousethief has called 'fake highbrow' has any part in an accurate translation.
Any translator with integrity will make it clear whether their work is intended as such or intended as a paraphrase or more poetic interpretation - e.g. The Message or The Word on the Street (formerly The Street Bible).
Literary translators also recognise their translation will have a shelf life, as language changes. For Advent, I read a series of texts in the KJV, which I grew up with. There's no denying the language is beautiful, but there's also no denying it's completely inaccessible to an average modern audience. (Despite which there are also diehards who claim in all seriousness that it's the only "proper" translation into English, and not all of them because of the underlying manuscripts).
@mousethief it occurred to me that a key to Revelation might be in the early Church Fathers, which have their own difficulties for modern readers, no doubt.
Comments
As an afterthought, I recently read a very convincing take on a difficult NT passage - I can't for the moment remember which one - which suggested the wording used in that passage was to make the original more poetic and thus easier for an original audience of listeners (as opposed to readers) to retain. So yes, we can lose nuances as well as add ones that weren't there. But I think Scripture is, overall, robust enough to withstand that.
Similarly the KJV/AV uses ‘forth’ freely where contemporary English would simply use ‘out’.
In a translation into modern English, therefore, ‘went out’ is a better translation for εξηλθεν unless something in the text indicates that more formal or elevated language is intended.
Ever since 'Blackadder Goes Forth' it will be just an hilarious word.
'Wibble'
And I’d need a translation for “wibble.”
@Chemincreux, I’m sorry this discussion didn’t go as you seem to have hoped. I think most who’ve started threads on the Ship would say that sooner or later—most likely sooner—those threads move in unexpected ways. That’s how discussions often work.
Of course, do what you need to do to take care of yourself. But I do hope we’ll see more of you.
"Anyone can see he's as sane as I am! Baaaaaaaaaahhhhh!"
"My father was a nun"
"No he wasn't Baldrick"
"He was so sir! Whenever he was up before the magistrate, they'd ask him his profession and he'd say 'Nun'"
It didn't work, and Over The Top he went, to vanish into oblivion like the rest, in one of the most poignant anti-war scenes ever filmed.
Indeed, prompting the line, regarding Private Baldrick's last ever Cunning Plan: "Whatever it was, it must have been better than my idea of getting out of here by pretending to be mad. Who'd notice another madnan out here?"
I don't have a "dog in the fight" -- except that I prefer updated usage when possible
Not only do I sympathise with you, Chemincreux, but to my mind 'forth' is to be preferred to 'out' because there is an affective purposive element in the former which is absent in the prosaic latter.
"If a translation is faithful, it is not beautiful. But if it is beautiful, then it is not faithful."
(It's also easier to talk about a translation being a betrayal in French, as traduire - to translate - and trahir - to betray - are more similar than their English equivalents. However, as my French lessons stopped at 'O' Level, I accept that my linguistic expertise is limited).
There is no perfect translation from one language to another. There is a thread elsewhere on the Ship that shows that English speakers cannot always understand what is said by other Anglophones from different (or even the same) countries. You can only choose the translation that suits you and accept that others' preferences will be different.
"Go forth" etc. has all sorts of exciting connotations in English, and several people here are hanging quite a bit on those connotations. When it comes to Bible translation and exegesis, this is perilous if those connotations weren't there in the original. In this case, I don't believe they are.
1. Accuracy of translation.
2. Whether or not "forth" has become redundant.
My argument was that "forth" carried elements that added meaning not emphasised by "out". Eutychus recognises the point when he suggest its use in this context constitutes an "overtranslation".
The issues overlap because the OP said of "forth"
"Forth" may not be redundant in everyday speech, but so far as I can see its current connotations and archaic register in modern English mean it's not a good translation of anything in the Bible.
To my mind a "good translation" of the Bible means one that strikes the right balance between terminological accuracy and accessibility in such a way that the impact on the reader (or hearer) is as close as possible to the imagined impact on the original reader (or hearer).
In the above example, "forth" is unnecessarily archaic: "out" is a perfectly adequate translation, and has the advantage of not needlessly adding a more complicated word that carries with it something that isn't (I believe) there in the Greek.
A good translation applies a sort of linguistic Occam's razor: don't use something more complicated than necessary, even if it's tempting in terms of a stylistic flourish.
This is of course all a matter of hot debate, but my guess is the Message translation is currently as good as it gets when it comes to achieving the aim I, um, set forth1 above:
==
1 I do actually find myself using "set forth" quite a lot in legal translations from French, but not long ago I started trying to avoid it precisely because I decided it was needlessly archaic and obfuscatory. British legalese simply doesn't use language like that any more (then again, register for any given purpose differs wildly between languages, which is another whole can of worms).
God forbid that the otherwise lucid text of Revelation should be so obscured. I guess it's important to know that the warrior in question was been outed rather than forthed.
(heard in my childhood: a long digression during a sermon on the relationship between "divers diseases" and "the bends"...).
No, it's important to understand that "he went out" rather than being tempted to give up reading the text due to a surfeit of unnecessarily difficult words. Not everybody has the lexical reach of most of those who hang out here.
Of course we could go back to having it all in Latin, or to weed out the merely slightly dumb as well, the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.
How is it that people that dumb are allowed access to a pulpit?
And I thought you were joking about making like British legalese.
Better boring than fake highbrow.
Truly said. Never heard of either. As for "wibble" - is there not a Ship rule that non-English words must be accompanied by a translation?
Um, no, category error. I'm not speaking of the Bible, but of certain trends in translation.
With those exceptions good modern poets have tried to avoid diction that sounds Shakespearean or Biblical; a modern poet who didn't would be considered fake highbrow.
That link does not say that it's English. Never heard it used here, NZ, US, Canada or the UK.
If a word is in dictionary.com, it's English unless the definition says otherwise, as it's a dictionary of the English language. It labels "je ne sais quoi" as French, for example, but we're not told what language "nincompoop" belongs to.
There you go with the facts and logic thing.
Could be gibberish
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Gibberish is unintelligible or meaningless; the word "wibble" has a meaning.
The topic was translation, specifically using the word "forth". If you were talking about the Bible, you replied to the wrong post.
And it is.
I had this idea that Revelation was a book, like other NT texts, written for its time. My idea is that Revelation had significant meaning for certain people at the time it was written, but the meaning was not clear to others of that time.
This idea of mine is based upon dimly-remembered reading. I am not much interested in that book.
There's a difference between reproducing what is there as accurately as possible and riffing on what is there with poetic license.
I'm not a Hellenist and open to correction on this, but I understand the main problem with the text of Revelation to be that the Greek syntax and grammar is actually very poor, rather than very sophisticated.
The overall meaning of Revelation might be unclear, or disputed, but that's no excuse for claiming that what @mousethief has called 'fake highbrow' has any part in an accurate translation.
Any translator with integrity will make it clear whether their work is intended as such or intended as a paraphrase or more poetic interpretation - e.g. The Message or The Word on the Street (formerly The Street Bible).
Literary translators also recognise their translation will have a shelf life, as language changes. For Advent, I read a series of texts in the KJV, which I grew up with. There's no denying the language is beautiful, but there's also no denying it's completely inaccessible to an average modern audience. (Despite which there are also diehards who claim in all seriousness that it's the only "proper" translation into English, and not all of them because of the underlying manuscripts).
You never had jelly on a plate wibble-wobble when you were a kid?
It's even established enough to be borrowed into Welsh; 'Pysgod wibli-wobli' is the young child word (cf moo-cow, baa-lamb, doggy) for jellyfish.