“Translating God’s Word”
Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtaine, that we may looke into the most Holy place; that remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered. Indeede without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a bucket or some thing to draw with.[1]
This quotation comes from the introduction to the original 1611 version of the King James Bible. It demonstrates the need to have Bible translations that people are able to understand. Just like the editors of the KJV, many other translators have seen the need to continue producing English Bible translations in a form of English that makes sense to modern-day people. Now, so many Bible translations are available that we are left asking: What Bible translation should we use? Which translation is the best? These are common questions Christians ask when considering which translation would be best for them in their particular context.
The Bible, or at least the Old Testament, has been often translated since the second century BC when 70 scribes took on the task of translating the Pentateuch. This Greek translation, along with Greek translations of other books of the Old Testament, came to be known as the Septuagint, the very first “version” of the Bible.[2] These scribes used a variety of translation techniques throughout the Septuagint, just as translators use different approaches to Bible translations today. In one way or another, each translation aims to represent the original language. Some translators attempt to match the original text formally, meaning that they attempt to reflect the same word-order, grammatical forms, and word-for-word equivalents in their vocabulary. Other translators were not as concerned with preserving the original in this way but were more interested in creating a translation that best captured the meaning of the text.
Today, in the same way, some people prefer translations that follow the original text in word-for-word fashion, or at least in the most literal way possible. On the other hand, others prefer a translation that reads more like a contemporary English letter or book. This issue of translation methods has divided many churches and stirred up much controversy as some have adamantly argued that there is only one authorized version that everyone should use. Unfortunately, though, settling on a single translation is not that simple.
Problems with Terminology
The most common way a translation is judged is based on its literality, but there are many issues with using the terms literal and free to describe a translation. If one uses these terms, he must specify to what aspect of the translation he is referring. In what way is a translation literal or free?
Most of the time, when one discusses the literality of a translation, he is referring to how closely it follows the original languages in terms of quantitative equivalence. In other words, the term literal describes a translation that follows the source text in a word-for-word manner. For every Hebrew or Greek word in a text, the translators use one English word, most of the time following the same word order.[3] Conversely, the term free describes a translation that translates in a thought-for-thought manner, or perhaps phrase-by-phrase. This approach gives the translators more flexibility to make sense of the source text in the target language. It allows them to use common terminology, syntax, and grammar to convey the meaning of the original text.
The problem with describing a translation as literal or free is that the terminology is very ambiguous. Translations can be, and often are, both literal and free in different respects. For example, a so-called literal translation may literally represent the word order of the original text, but in doing so, it is not as precise in conveying the meaning as a free translation. So, in a sense, a translation can be literal in terms of word order but free with respect to meaning. At the same time, a free translation, while accurately conveying the general meaning of the text, may miss out on various points of emphasis in the original passage.[4] Furthermore, a translation can be free regarding the word order but still convey the literal meaning of the text.
Because of these issues, one should not judge the quality of a translation solely on its literality. The process of translation is complicated, and the ambiguous terms literal and free are not helpful when assessing the accuracy of a translation.[5]
The Challenge of Translation
The abundance of English translations evidences the fact that producing a quality translation is challenging, primarily because of semantics. Semantics deals with the study of meaning in languages, and this complicates finding a simple English equivalent for a Hebrew or Greek word. A single word in an original language may take on a variety of meanings in different contexts, and a single English word may be a correct translation of the original in one context but wrong in another.
Mark Strauss, an editor for the NIV translation, illustrates this problem of semantics well with the word key. In the English language, key can refer to a number of things: an unlocking device, a solution to a puzzle, a main point, a musical note, the buttons on the keyboard, a location on a basketball court, and perhaps others. So, if someone were translating the word key into another language, he probably would not find a single word that can convey its entire semantic range.[6]
This same problem occurs with translating the Hebrew and Greek Bible into English. Therefore, producing a truly literal translation is actually impossible; there is simply no such thing.
Conclusion
So which translation should we use, and which approach is best? The main thing we need to remember is that translations are simply that: translations. Not only that, but they are also translations produced by imperfect humans. Translations all across the spectrum, from the most formal equivalent to the most dynamic equivalent, provide value in some way. At the same time, however, flaws are apparent with each method. The important thing is to know what type of translation you are using and to understand its purpose. Formally equivalent translations leave less room for subjective interpretation but sometimes result in clunky English. Translations that tend more toward dynamic equivalency may be easier to read, but one must remember that the translators took some liberties by deviating from the original syntax and word order to produce a smoother translation.
Learning about the translation philosophy behind different versions of the Bible is not as complicated as it might seem. At first, it might seem daunting to learn about how the translation committee approached the text in the original languages, but this is a fairly simple exercise. Many Bibles include an introduction in which the committee explains their translation philosophy and provide information about the exact Hebrew and Greek versions from which they were translating. A great example of this is found in the introduction to the 1611 KJV quoted at the beginning of this article. The introduction, as a whole, is a lengthy explanation of the translators’ reasons for producing another English translation. It gives even a brief history of Bible translations up to that point and stresses the need for a translation that people could properly understand.
If your Bible does not have an introduction, readers may easily find information about translations on the official website for any particular version. The webpage for the ESV translation philosophy starts out by saying, “The ESV is an ‘essentially literal’ translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer.”[7] By taking the time to research the translation philosophy behind the ESV, one will immediately know that the translators’ intention was to produce an English translation that accurately captures the essence of the original languages, attempting to produce a word-for-word translation, while also paying close attention to using understandable English. On the other hand, the NIV website makes clear that their intention was to produce a translation that focused more on the meaning of the original rather than the precise words. Their approach is said to “balance transparency to the original with clarity of meaning.”[8]
Even with their flaws, translations are a gift for which we should be thankful. Not everyone has such easy access to the Scriptures in their language as English speakers do. Rather than allowing the many translation options to overwhelm us, we can take advantage of the unique benefits each translation method has to offer. We have been blessed with an abundance of translations, and we would do well to show that we do not take that for granted by reading them.
____________________
Biography: Zach Vickery lives with his wife, Emily, in Cambridge, UK, where he is studying the Greek Old Testament at the University of Cambridge. He also holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Welch College in Gallatin, TN. When he isn’t studying, Zach enjoys spending time outdoors and reading.
____________________
[1]One can find the original introduction to the King James Bible online at https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php.
[2]One should note that the word “Septuagint” was originally used to refer to the first translation of the Pentateuch. Today, scholars refer generally to the Greek Old Testament as the Septuagint even though it is not precise.
[3]As much as some would like to produce an English translation that matches the original word order exactly, it would be nearly impossible to understand in English if the translators did not give themselves at least some flexibility.
[4]For example, biblical authors would sometimes place a noun or verb at the beginning of the sentence to emphasize the subject or the action. “Free” translations often miss out on these aspects of the original.
[5]Because of the ambiguity in the terms literal and free, many have resorted to using the terms formal equivalence to refer to translations that closely bind themselves to the original text, and dynamic equivalence to describe translations that are more like a paraphrase.
[6]Mark Strauss, “Bible Translation Philosophies,” NIV: https://www.thenivbible.com/bible-translation-philosophies/; accessed April 28, 2018; Internet.
[7]“Preface to the English Standard Version,” ESV: https://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy/; accessed April 28, 2018; Internet.
[8]“Translation Philosophy,” NIV: https://www.thenivbible.com/about-the-niv/niv-translation-philosophy/; accessed April 28, 2018; Internet.
Recent Comments