Comments on: Should translations run with puns?

By: More wordplay: John 15.2-3 - He is Sufficient

More wordplay: John 15.2-3 - He is Sufficient — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:43:12 +0000

[...] Pearce added a comment to the BBB post on translating puns regarding the opening verses in John 15. Most traditional [...]

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:39:46 +0000

I’ve posted more thoughts on this back on my blog, but I will note the REB, which translates the John 15 verses as follows:

Any branch of mine that is barren he cuts away; and any fruiting branch he prunes clean, to make it more fruitful still. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

By using “prunes clean”, the REB retains at least the semantic relationships between the Greek airō, kathairō and katharos in modern English.

By: Kenny

Kenny — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:02:03 +0000

One instance of wordplay that I think is really important in the NT is John 15:2-3. In English, v. 3 comes off as a non sequitur – ‘clean’ just comes out of nowhere. But in Greek, we have switched from an agricultural meaning of the word for ‘clean’ (namely, to ‘clean’ off unnecessary branches – i.e. to prune) to a ritual meaning of ‘clean’ which is not only not a non sequitur, but provides us with additional information about the meaning of the vine metaphor. I have no idea how, in English, to make both verses make sense at once while showing the connection between them. All I can think to do is to footnote. (The NASB, at least, does this, but their footnote says ‘Lit. cleanses’ and I’m not sure that’s quite right, since ‘prunes’ is one of the literal meanings in Greek.)

By: Bob MacDonald

Bob MacDonald — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:53:00 +0000

It’s closer to alliteration than punning. And it is clever to try and imitate but usually impossible.

By: Charles Dog

Charles Dog — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:34:00 +0000

Precisely the problem with attempting a pun. The snake is crafty, or even “moving past protective defenses”, the post deals with smooth skin and the making of loin cloths (why would they make loin cloths if the snake could move past these defenses? They did it because for whatever reason they wanted their sexual organs covered. They were still unprotected but no longer naked in the sense commonly assumed here. I believe the snake was crafty, i.e., not going to bite their privates, but was tricky. They were naked and covered themselves. I can’t imagine that fig leaves on their loins was viewed as some form of primitive armor.

By: Mike Sangrey

Mike Sangrey — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:37:00 +0000

Thinking about this a bit more...

The pun sets a strong textual link between the fact that the serpent was cunning and the result that Adam and Eve experienced. This connection suggests that woven into the text is the meaning of the cunning of the serpent resulted in the understanding by nakedness of Adam and Eve.

I think it's somewhat easy to develop that out of the text. However, with the pun, it's obvious that the original author intended the connection. In other words, I'm more comfortable believing the more finely tuned exegesis.

So, IMO, it is better to understand the meaning of the text to be: the serpent, by maneuvering past protective defenses, caused Adam and Eve to be and to see they were unprotected.

That ends up being a rather substantive point within the text. And that point is conveyed by the pun. So, yes, the original pun adds significantly to the understanding of the text.

By: Mike Sangrey

Mike Sangrey — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:19:00 +0000

Charles Dog asked:
Does the pun add anything to the understanding of these verses?

Perhaps it wasn't the pun that helped me understand. Perhaps it was my new understanding that 'smoothness' was at the root of the word. I had always assumed that nudity was at the root. And nudity is not the point.

In any case, the fact of a pun in the original doesn't mean we have to come up with a pun in English. The goal is to bring over the meaning from the original and into the English.

However, it is best if--at the same time--we can present the meaning in an enjoyable fashion. That's probably part of the reason the pun is there in the original. It also aids in memory.

Perhaps another way of coming at it is to translate 3:1 with the idea that "the serpent could worm his way past protective defenses better than any other creature in the Garden." And then, in verses 7 and 11, refer to how Adam and Eve understood they were unprotected.

By: Charles Dog

Charles Dog — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:05:00 +0000

Does the pun add anything to the understanding of these verses?

Is it a real stretch to get this pun to work for the sake of making a pun that isn't all that good?

Smooth skin is smooth skin, naked or not.

There is also the tendency to contrast smooth skin as opposed to what? rough skin?

I guess the bottom (ha) line (ha) for me is that this just doesn't make a "Better Bible"

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:03:00 +0000

Thanks for the link, Mike. I like where you're going with this, exploring the angle of exposure and protection. I might edit my suggested wording of 3:7 to be something more along the lines of:

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that their smooth skin was exposed and unprotected; so they stitched fig-leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

It's possible too that opening up the linguistic range of options in that verse could identify some other English wordplay options for v3:1. I'll have to think about that.