10 Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 1 (2005)
2.3.1 Providing unobtrusive background information in the text instead of the footnotes
Words are sometimes borrowed from the national-language version for use in the translation when there is
no equivalent word in the receptor language. This is often done in the case of proper nouns, that is, for the
names of people and locations. The context usually makes it evident that the foreign word (e.g., “Jesus,”
“Barnabas,” or “Nicodemus”) is the name of a person. In the case of place names, a classifier drawn from
background knowledge can be added in the text. This can usually be done unobtrusively without causing
problems. Often translators add classifiers such as “town,” “region,” and “river.” For instance, Mark 1:9
might be translated “At that time Jesus came from the town of Nazareth in the region of Galilee and was
baptized in the Jordan River.”
When a classifier cannot be added unobtrusively, it is liable to be considered an unacceptable addition.
“The town of Nazareth” may be an acceptable translation of “Nazareth,” but “the town which is called
Nazareth” may be considered an explanation added by the translator. The test is whether or not it seems
plausible to readers that the author would speak of towns in such a manner to people who already knew the
names of the towns in the area.
2.3.2 Providing linguistic information in footnotes instead of the text
Implicit information inherent in the text itself can legitimately be made explicit in the text when doing so
makes the translation meaningful and natural. However, filling out the implied information may sometimes
still be unacceptable to those readers who compare the translation with the national-language version. The
criterion is whether it seems plausible to the reader that the author would make such information explicit. If
it seems implausible, a footnote would be a better means of explaining it. The following are examples of
making implicit information explicit in a translation:
• The phrase “they make their phylacteries wide” (Matt. 23:5, NIV) could be translated with a
descriptive phrase, “they wear very big containers of Scripture on their arms.” If bilingual
readers were to compare this to a national-language version, they probably would agree that
since they have no idea what a phylactery is, this phrase is the best way to translate it in their
own language. However, “big boxes of Scripture called phylacteries” is likely to be perceived as
an addition by the translator. Retaining a loan word when using a descriptive phrase (as in “a big
animal called a camel,” “a drug called myrrh,” and “a festival called Pentecost”) has been
attempted by some, but such a solution is likely to fail the criterion of plausibility—it sounds as
though the author or speaker is explaining to his original audience the meaning of the words he
is using. People in the target language don’t go around explaining the words they are using and it
is not plausible that the original authors did either. In general, a phrase using “called” to explain
a word in the translation is—from the point of view of historicity—a poor solution. However, it
is perfectly acceptable in extratextual helps where it is apparent that the translator is providing
information needed by the contemporary reader.
• The three components of a metaphor are topic, image, and point of similarity. “All who are
under the yoke of slavery” (1 Tim. 6:1, NIV) could be filled out “all you who are forced to work
as slaves, as oxen are forced to work by being yoked to a plow.” “Fan into flame the gift of
God” (2 Tim. 1:6, NIV) could be filled out “As someone fans the glowing coals of a fire so that
it will burn again, so you are to put into practice again the gift that God gave you.” However,
the issue of acceptability may arise if all of the components are made explicit. When the result is
stylistically heavy and the translation loses the beauty of a metaphor, it may be better to drop the
comparison. This has been done in the CEV with its renderings “if you are a slave” and “make
full use of the gift that God gave you.” However some metaphors need to be retained and, in
such a case, footnotes or glossaries may be used to explain them. It is advisable to retain
important titles such as “the lamb of God” and “the Son of God.” Extended metaphors usually
need to be retained also, for example, the image of building in 1 Cor. 3:10–12 and of the
bridegroom and wedding in Matt. 9:15.