Ethics 101 for Translators

by Danilo Nogueira and Kelli Semolini 

e have a question: How should a Christian translator deal with wrong

Biblical references in a work of fiction targeted at a Christian
readership, since the Bible is The Word of God and target readers are
likely to identify the mistakes?

The question—or something like it—was posted by our friend and colleague
Betty Spíndola to a translators' forum sometime ago and we will try to find
an answer to it and a few related issues here.

Because this is not the Poughkeepsie Journal of Theology and both authors
are agnostics, we will tread very lightly on the matter of religion, but the fact
that Betty—as so many translators—is a religious person and was referring to
a book sacred to her cannot be overlooked.

The Translator's Responsibility

Our work is translating and that is what we are supposed to be accurate in.
Accuracy of the information provided is the responsibility of the author, not
ours. If the author says something stupid, that is none of our business.

However, many translators, possibly most, spend too much time trying to
catch faults in the original. They do it for two possible reasons: for fear that
they will be blamed by any inaccuracy found in the translation, no matter
how it originated, and to show the world and themselves that they are more
competent than the author. Sometimes we think those people are a bit
ashamed of being "mere" translators. Pity, because doing a decent
translation is quite a tall order.

There may be some strategic merit in the above approach, because it may us
help win some popularity with clients and avoid undeserved criticism. On the
other hand, since turnaround times are always so short, perhaps we should
devote our time entirely to polishing up our work. It is a pity to hear a
translator say "I could have done a better job if I had a couple more days'
time," when more than a couple days' time were spent doing work that has
nothing to do with translation.
In addition, you start pointing out mistakes in the original and the client will
start demanding that you do this additional job also in the future. "How come
you didn't notice this?" And there you will be doing the job of an editor for
free. Translating is the best and deepest form of textual analysis and if you
translate as carefully as you should, source text weaknesses will glare you in
the face but wrong information may pass unnoticed.

Disagreements, Mistakes, etc.

John loves a certain musical style; Jane hates it. This is subjective, a mere
difference of opinion, a disagreement. Either they have endless arguments
about it or they agree to disagree and John uses earphones to listen to his
favorite artists.

John says Paris is the capital of Germany. This is an objective statement, not
an opinion. After a bit of arguing, Jane opens an atlas or Wikipedia and
triumphantly shows John he is wrong. He has to concede she is right and
that is it. Stating that Paris is the capital of Germany is a mistake.

Mistakes, in turn, may be slips, errors and willful misstatements. A slip is a

mistake that escaped the writer or the editor; an error is an honest mistake
born out of ignorance; a willful misstatement is made on purpose.

What to do?

If you run across a mere slip, just translate it right and be done with your
job. Don't add a triumphant five-line translator's note every time you
see principle where principal would be the right word. That does not show
you're more intelligent, but that you're a huge pain in the ass.

If you find an error, you have to decide whether to correct it or not. If you
correct it, someone will say it was just poetic license and you should have
respected it; if you don't correct it, someone who never bothered to compare
source and target will call it a mistranslation; if you add a translator's note,
people will call you a show-off. The best thing to do is to sweep the mistake
under some verbal rug.

Sometimes, however, the error has consequences and thus cannot simply be
hidden somewhere: we have seen a harmless and delightful piece of
nonsense written based on the assertion that ethics and aesthetics have a
common Latin root, which simply is not true. We have good reason to believe
the author simply believed words with similar sounds must have the same
root and did not even know that he should check his etymologies.
Fortunately, we did not have to translate it.

In such cases the best is to ask the client for instructions. "You have carte
blanche to deal with this" is not a valid instruction. Someone at the client
must revise and approve what you do. Don't forget to charge extra for
handling the errors.

Willful misstatements are even worse. Willful misstatements always have

consequences and are an important part of some fundamental inference
made in the text, which makes them impossible to sweep under the rug or
correct them in any way. Either you translate them or simply refuse to go on
with the job.

Life is not that Simple

Unfortunately, it is far more complex than the above may suggest. It is often
difficult to tell a disagreement from a mistake, principally when people have
strong convictions regarding the issue.

Danilo learned this—and never misses the chance to tell the story—when a
reviser rewrote a perfectly good paragraph into something quite different, on
the grounds that the author of the book was a jackass who simply did not
understand the issue. The reviser believed he was correcting a mistake, but
we believe he was imposing his opinions on the defenseless author.

Years later the reviser wrote his own book presumably, expressed his own
opinions, which is the right thing to do. But in revising someone else's work,
he should have respected the author's point of view.

There is a limit to tolerance, however, and sometimes you really cannot

stomach the text and must reject the assignment. The can't-stomach-don't-
translate rule is not absolute, however. We would be glad to do a report on
rape for the use of the police or judiciary, no matter how gory it was. And we
would do it willingly.

But What if it is a Lie?

Talking about police and judiciary interpreters and translators, they teach us
another important lesson, this time about lies. The translator is working on a
deposition which contains several lies. Even if the translator knows for a fact
that the witness is lying, the translation must reflect such lies as accurately
as the translator can. The deposition is what the witness said, not what
happened. So, it may be a lie that John Doe was pushed downstairs before
he hit Jim Roe in the head with a length of pipe; but it is true that the
witness, a certain Jack Moe said so.

Oh, Betty, but we did not Forget your Question!

Might be high time to give Betty a reply. As we see it, Betty, translators,
regardless of their religion, are not required to identify wrong references.
However, if they do find a wrong reference, they are expected to ask
themselves a few questions before acting.

What sort of wrong reference? Just a slip? Does the text say offspring of
vipers is John 8:7, whereas it is know for a fact that it is Mathew 23:33
(John 8:7 is He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at
her, just in case you do not know). If this is the case, just straighten up the
reference and go ahead. If there are many of them, inform the publisher and
say that someone should check all references. If the publisher says "why not
you?" just put a price on it and go ahead.

Or is it something more serious such as claiming that the Bible says

something it never said? In fact, unless the quotes are in Hebrew, Aramaic or
Koine Greek, the author is using a translation. Are you sure the "wrong"
reference is not just a "disagreement" on how a certain point should be
translated? Bible translating is a tricky business and even Dr. Nida himself,
idolized by so many, is demonized by quite a few. And we have heard there
is a new Bible translation where Abraham himself is called "Abe". We must
confess we found it a bit amusing.

Or is the author saying something that decidedly is not in the Bible? In that
case, blow the whistle and contact the publisher, Bible in hand, if necessary.
It is silly to hunt for errors and it is not your duty to find them. If you find a
lesser error, you can use a bit of legerdemain to handle it, but if you find a
serious one, it is your duty to blow the whistle.

The fact that the book is targeted at a Christian audience who is likely to
know their Bible makes the situation of the translator a lot easier. No matter
how the author clothes his misquotes, the readers are not likely to be fooled.
Compare it, for example, with the case of the judiciary interpreter who is
painfully translating a bunch of lies and feels relieved to notice that neither
judge nor jury seem to believe a word of it.
An author who willingly provides wrong references or any other kind of false
information is bearing false witness, and thus breaking one of the Ten
Commandments (9th or 8th, depending on how you count them). The
translator who reads "A" and translates it as "B" is, in his turn, committing
the same sin and one error does not justify the other.

 
© Copyright Translation Journal and the Authors 2009
URL: http://translationjournal.net/journal/48ethics.htm
Last updated on: 07/19/2018 06:54:06