First, let me point you to the stuff I’ve been hearing. Two of the podcasts I listen to regularly recently discussed the phenomenon of Google’s translator: On The Media’s story “Bridging the Online Language Barrier” and a story from The World in Words podcast. The former story brings an interesting discussion on the history of automatic translators that’s worth sharing here:

PROFESSOR DAVID BELLOS: After the war, just as computers were being invented, the bright idea came that maybe you could use these wonderful new machines to do code cracking and that maybe languages could be looked at as if they were in code, as if the real meaning of the thing was actually the English and the Russian was just, you know, one of these complicated ways of masking what the real meaning was.

MARK PHILLIPS: First you teach the computer vocabulary, apple equals yablaka, and then you teach it all the rules and grammar, do it for every language and, boom, you’ve got a Star Trek-style universal translator.

PROFESSOR DAVID BELLOS: It didn’t produce the results they wanted.

MARK PHILLIPS: David Bellos:

PROFESSOR DAVID BELLOS: The reason it didn’t was that it was based on not a very sophisticated idea of what language actually is. What I am saying isn’t in code for something else, it is what I’m saying. So there are really very strict limits on what you can do with machine translation, based on the idea of code. By the early 1960s, they’d pretty much given up.

MARK PHILLIPS: This rules-based machine translation was a failure, but there was still another method called statistical translation. Think of it as a behavioral approach. The underlying grammar and syntax don’t matter, but repeated exposure to language, as it’s actually used, does. It’s like how babies learn. You don’t diagram sentences for them. They just hear you say stuff and copy you.

The catch is to teach the machine, you have to load huge amounts of text into the computer. Back in the 1960s, they didn’t have enough data to make a statistical machine translation work. Now we do, says Michael Galvez, a project manager at Google Translate.

MICHAEL GALVEZ: What we do is we actually use hundreds of billions of words that Google infrastructure has access to.

MARK PHILLIPS: It’s a two-step process. First, Google’s computers pull it all in, recognize the language and create what they call a language model. There’s one for each of the 52 languages currently on the service. As they get more data for a particular language, the computers get a better feel for it. It knows from a statistical standpoint that in English, the sentence “The boy are sad” is very rare, just as a five-year-old knows that sounds weird.

But the language model only teaches the computer how to speak each language by itself. The next step is to learn how to go between multiple languages. Google’s Michael Galvez says, for that:

MICHAEL GALVEZ: We also build what’s called a translation model, using previous human translation that we have access to, documents from the EU, the United Nations, very high-quality translation corpora.

MARK PHILLIPS: Everything spoken or written at the United Nations is automatically translated into six languages.

[U.N. HUBBUB/MANY LANGUAGES AT ONCE]]

Google uses U.N. and European Union transcripts, along with tons of other professional high-quality translations, to build this translation model, which allows their computers to take a sentence and predict what it would be in another language. Michael Galvez:

MICHAEL GALVEZ: We take the language model and the translation model and we put these two models together, and we basically create the machine translation system out of this.

MARK PHILLIPS: It produces startlingly accurate results. Plug in an article from a Spanish-language newspaper and it reads like an English article that just needs a trip to the copy editor.

So, what if we took Google Translate and plugged in all the hundreds of ancient texts in ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc., along with the best translations of those texts available? Imagine what it might be able to do for previously untranslated ancient texts! Of course, as the reporter notes, it would still “need a trip to the copy editor” or the scholar of ancient texts, in this case. One feature that would be nice would be for Google to offer a few options, so that you could choose the translation that seems to make the most sense in this particular context. This could be amazing for epigraphy: as new inscriptions are found, they can be run through the ancient translator and then just fixed up a bit.

Scholarship has become highly specialized. Imagine the possibilities that might be available if these sorts of resources could be made available to people in different fields. Maybe New Testament scholars would finally start paying attention to inscriptions. I know that a lot of scholars would cry foul about this sort of thing and how you still need human translators. Well, of course we do, but why not enhance accessibility for a greater number of scholars? Or even for our students for that matter? As one person interviewed for the story noted: “The solution isn’t machine translation just getting better or human translators just getting more pervasive. The solution is some combination of the two.”

Now all we need is for Google to get on those ancient texts with their translator. How about it Google? Do you want to take over the ancient world as well?

Yet many in church history could not conceive of a woman apostle and thus they gave her a “sex change operation” (as my advisor Bartchy likes to say). Instead of Junia, they called her “Junias,” and assumed her to be a man. Junia is actually a common female name in antiquity, while Junias is not. The explanation for this was that it is a shortened form of the common male name, Junianus. What was Occam’s Razor again? Oh yes: “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” So, either this name is the common female name, Junia, or a strangely shortened form of Junianus. If there were no theological concern here to make sure Paul is not calling a woman an apostle, the argument about a shortened form of Junianus would never be suggested. It is illogical.

Nevertheless, as recently as the publication of the New International Version (NIV) in 1973, translators were using this faulty logic: “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” But notice that this “Junias” is indeed “outstanding among the apostles.”

More recently, it has become more and more difficult to defend the idea that female Junia was actually the male Junias. Even conservative scholars with a traditional understanding of female subordination to men are cautious about making such an argument nowadays. So, what’s the traditionalist to do? They can’t have a female apostle in the early church! The up and coming favorite translation of conservative evangelicals these days, the English Standard Version (ESV – published in 2001), reflects another angle on Junia: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.”

Notice the difference between the NIV (the old conservative standard translation) and the ESV (the new conservative standard translation). In the NIV, Junia is a man (”Junias”) and is an outstanding apostle. In the ESV, Junia is indeed a woman, but she is no longer an outstanding apostle. Rather, she is simply “well known” to the apostles. I might mention that the ESV was originally published first by Crossway publishers, who are also the favored publishers of the conservative Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). In fact, the CBMW boasts on their blog that many of their team contributed to the ESV Study Bible.

This jump from NIV to ESV is what I noticed while we were discussing the issue in Bartchy seminar on sexuality yesterday. It is probably wise to save the arguments for the second change for a future post, but I will share a passage I found in one outstanding book today. For anyone interested in this topic, I highly recommend Eldon Jay Epp’s treatment in Junia: The First Woman Apostle. I will leave him with the last word here:

I note the juxtaposition of these two interpretations, though I would not presume to judge the motives, but it is interesting to observe that, over time, the male “Junias” and the female “Junia” each has his or her alternating “dance partners”–first one, then the other: first and for centuries, Junia with “prominent apostle”; then Junias with “prominent apostle.” Then for a time Junia disappears from the scene, hoping upon her return to team up once again with “prominent apostle,” only to encounter “known to the apostles” cutting in during this latest “dance.” [72]

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming,
“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God
and the authority of his Messiah,^b
for the accuser of our comrades^c has been thrown down,
who accuses them day and night before our God.”

^b Gk Christ
^c Gk brothers

They do the same thing in Rev 19:10 and 22:9. I can understand when they go with “kindred” or “people” or even “beloved,” but “comrades”? It feels a little too “cold war” for me. The interesting thing is that they only use this translation in Revelation. I suppose it’s appropriate (although Americans might not like that the “comrades” are the good guys here).

Doing the translation in the 80s, they must have known how “comrades” would sound to readers. Why would they go with it?

English:

“It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let everyone who hears say, “Come.” And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift. I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. The one who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.

Translated into French:

le “It est I, Jésus, qui vous a envoyé mon ange avec ce témoignage pour les églises. Je suis la racine et le descendant de David, le matin lumineux tiennent le premier rôle ; L’esprit et la jeune mariée indiquent, “Come.” ; Et laissez chacun qui entend la parole, “Come.” ; Et laissez chacun qui a soif venu. Laissé n’importe qui qui souhaite à prise l’eau de la vie comme cadeau. J’avertis chacun qui entend les mots de la prophétie de ce livre : si n’importe qui ajoute à eux, Dieu ajoutera à cette personne que les pestes ont décrite en ce livre ; si n’importe qui emporte des mots du
livre de cette prophétie, Dieu emportera la part de cette personne dans l’arbre de la vie et dans la ville sainte, qui est décrite en ce livre. Celui qui témoigne à ces choses indique, “Surely je suis prochain soon.” ; Amen. Venez, Seigneur Jésus ! La grace du
seigneur Jésus soit avec tous les saints. Amen.

Back to English:

the “It is I, Jesus, who sent to you my angel with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the luminous morning holds the first role; The spirit and the bride indicate, “Come.” And leave each one which hears the word,
“Come.” And leave each one which is thirsty come. Left no matter whom who wishes with catch brandy like gift. I informed each one which hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if no matter who adds to them, God will add to this person that the plagues described in this book; if no matter who carries words of the book of this prophecy, God will carry the share of this person in the tree of the life and the Holy City, which is described in this book. That which testifies with these things indicates, “Surely I am next soon.” Amen. Come, Seigneur Jesus! The grace of the Jesus lord is with all the saints. Amen.

Translated into German:

das “It ist I, Jesus, der Ihnen meinen Engel mit diesem Zeugnis für die Kirchen schickte. Ich bin die Wurzel und der Folgeprozeß von David, der leuchtende Morgen hält die erste Rolle an; Der Geist und die Braut zeigen, “Come.” an; Und lassen Sie jedes, das das Wort hört, “Come.” Und lassen Sie jedes, das gekommen durstiges ist. Links gleichgültig, das, wer mit Verriegelung Weinbrand wie Geschenk wünscht. Ich informierte jedes, welches die Wörter der Prophezeiung dieses Buches hört: wenn, egal wer ihnen hinzufügt, Gott dieser Person daß die Pest hinzufügt, die in diesem
Buch beschrieben wird; wenn, egal wer Wörter des Buches dieser Prophezeiung trägt, Gott den Anteil dieser Person im Baum der Lebensdauer und der heiligen Stadt trägt, die in diesem Buch beschrieben wird. Das, das mit diesen Sachen bezeugt, zeigt, “Surely ich sind folgendes soon.” an; Amen. Gekommen, Seigneur Jesus! Die Anmut des Jesus Lords ist mit allen Heiligen. Amen.

Back to English:

I, Jesus, which you angels mean with this certification for the churches sent, is “It. I am the root and the discrete event type process of David, the lighting up morning stop the first role; The spirit and the bride show, “Come.” on; And you leave everyone, which hears the word, “Come.” And you leave everyone, which is come thirsty. Left indifferently, that, who requires with interlock weinbrand such as gift. I informed everyone, which hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if, all the same who adds them, God of this person that the plague adds, which is described in this book; if, all the same who carries words of the book of this prophecy, God carries the proportion of this person in the tree of the life span and the holy city, which are described in this book. That, which testifies with these things, shows, “Surely I is the following soon.” on; Amen. Come, Seigneur Jesus! The beauty of the Jesus lord is with all holy ones. Amen.

Translated into Italian:

_ I, jesus, che voi angelo signific con questo certificazione per chiesa trasmett, “It. _ io radice e discreto evento tipo processo david, illuminazione mattina arresto primo ruolo; _ lo spirito e bride mostr, “Come.” sopra; _ e voi lasci tutto, che sent parola, “Come.” _ e voi lasci tutto, che ven assetato. _ parte di sinistra indifferently, quello, che richied con interruttore di sicurezza weinbrand quale regalo. _ io inform tutto, che sent parola prophecy questo libro: _ se, tutto stesso che aggiung loro, dio questo
persona che peste aggiung, che essere descriv in questo libro; _ se, tutto stesso che trasport parola libro questo prophecy, dio trasport percentuale di questo persona albero life durata e santo città, che essere descriv in questo libro. _ quello, che testimoni con questo cosa, esposizione, “Surely i seguente soon.” sopra; _ amen. _ Ven, Seigneur Jesus! _ la bellezza jesus signore con tutto santo quel. _ amen. _

Back to English:

_ I, jesus, than you angel signific with this certification for church trasmett, “It. _ I root and discreet event type process david, lighting system morning arrest first role; _ the spirit and bride mostr, “Come.” over; _ and you lasci all, than sent word, “Come.” _ and you lasci all, than ven made thirsty _ part of left indifferently, that one, than richied with emergency switch weinbrand which gift _ I inform all, than sent word prophecy this book: _ if, all same that aggiung they, God this person who plague aggiung, than to be descriv in this book; _ if, all same that trasport word book this prophecy, God trasport percentage of this person tree life duration and saint city, than to be descriv in this book _ that one, than witnesses with this thing, exposure, “Surely following soon.” over; _ amen _ Ven, Seigneur Jesus! _ the beauty jesus getlteman with all saint those _ amen _

And it just goes downhill from there. One interesting observation is about the “the” error which was introduced into the French rendering from the beginning (the first word of the passage). It was repeated again in English, then in German, but was removed when going from German back into English. Secondly, for whatever reason some of the punctuation just couldn’t make it through into Italian and thus our punctuation in the final English translation is greatly flawed. Finally, there are foreign words that the website could not translate into English: “Seigneur,” “mostr,” “ven,” “getlteman.” These words were
simply used in the English text in the same location as they had been in the previous language.

The end result is obviously massively butchered from the beginning passage. The point of this exercise is not to show that this is exactly what happens in the the scribal or translation process, but it makes me think a little bit about what is involved in the translation and copying of sacred texts. One would assume that an educated human doing the same translations would do better than the computer. But why? If translation were a one-to-one equation, a machine could do it better than humans. All translation is (to some extent) an interpretation. Nothing surprising, but it was fun to experiment.

(Oh, and yes, there is some intended irony in using this particular passage when it comes to translation… Let’s just hope I don’t experience any plagues as a result of this blog posting!)