Translation Choice: Literal Versus Idiomatic in a Poetic Line
A student must translate a poetic couplet containing the phrase כִּי־עָז בָּא וְלִבּוֹ כַּאֲבָנִים. The student writes: 'For strong he came and his heart like stones.' A classmate offers: 'For he came on strong, and his heart was like stone.' The teacher points out that עָז is a noun or adjective of strength, that the prefixed כִּי here is likely asseverative rather than causal, that the singular אֶבֶן would be more natural than the plural, and that Hebrew poetry tolerates compressed verbless clauses. The classmate's version adds 'was', which is absent from the Hebrew.
1. Which translation better serves an examination answer, and what must the student justify?
Read the worked answer
The classmate's version is closer to good practice, but it must be justified rather than asserted.
What the Hebrew actually says: The clause is verbless after the initial verb: 'his heart [is] like stone(s)'. English requires a copula ('was' or 'is'), so adding 'was' is not invention - it is obligatory English grammar. The student's 'his heart like stones' is not English.
כִּי: The student assumes causal ('for/because'). In poetry כִּי is often asseverative ('indeed, surely'). The examiner wants the student to state which is chosen and why - here, asseverative fits the emphatic tone.
עָז: 'Strong' as an adjective is defensible, but the compressed 'he came on strong' imports an English idiom not in the text. Safer: 'he came in strength' or 'he came mighty'.
Number: Hebrew poetry uses singular and plural fluidly; 'like stone' is idiomatic English and need not mirror the Hebrew number.
Judgement: The classmate's rendering is more natural, but the student should avoid over-idiomatising. A defensible answer: 'For he came in strength, and his heart was like stone.' The student must annotate the choices: asseverative כִּי, supplied copula, and the handling of עָז.
2. A marker penalises 'he came on strong' as unfaithful. Is that fair? Explain the principle at stake.
Read the worked answer
Yes, the penalty is fair, and it illustrates a core translation principle.
The principle: Translation may adjust grammar to fit the target language (adding a copula, reordering clauses) but should not replace the source's image or register with an unrelated target-language idiom.
Application: 'Came on strong' is an English colloquialism meaning to act forcefully or assertively. It introduces connotations of social assertiveness that the Hebrew עָז (strength, might) does not carry. The Hebrew is poetic and elevated; the English idiom is informal. The register shifts, and the metaphor changes.
Faithful alternatives: 'he came in strength', 'he came mightily', 'he advanced with strength'. These keep the semantic field of עָז and the elevated tone.
Nuance: Idiomatic English is not forbidden. Supplying 'was' is required. But where an idiom replaces the source image rather than expressing it, the translator has crossed from translation into paraphrase. The marker is right to flag it, and a strong answer explains the distinction rather than defending the colloquialism.