I grew up in a strict King James Only kind of church as a child. By high school I was at a church that said, “The King James isn’t the only acceptable translation, but it’s the only one we use around here.” The implication was that there are other translations, but none as correct or trustworthy as the KJV. Right off the tee let me say that this isn’t a King James Version debate article. That argument provides a great deal of heat but not much light, so we’re going to leave it where it needs to be…elsewhere. The purpose of the article is to lay some groundwork for the choosing of a translation. In my pastoral career, I’ve had to field the question of which translation to choose repeatedly; so, it’s a viable topic. Because there are literally hundreds of different English translations of the Bible, the choice of a translation is, for many people, totally confusing. They just don't know which Bible to choose. I hope to provide a bit of helpful light in this arena.
Translational Theory
Believe it or not, every Christian in the market for a Bible must wrestle with the issue of translational theory. What is translational theory? Translational theory is the underlying theory translators follow when translating any document from one language to another. There are two general theories of translation from original/parent language to receptor/daughter language. The first, known as formal equivalence, attempts to render each word of the parent language into the daughter language; preserving the original word order and sentence structure. The second, known as functional equivalence, seeks to produce in the daughter language the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the parent language both in meaning and style. The desire of functional equivalence is to use sound exegetical tools and interpretive methods so that the meaning and intent of the author of the original text is faithfully reproduced in modern English. Functional equivalence seeks to render idiomatic expressions and figures of speech present in the parent language as faithfully as possible by using appropriate English idioms and figures of speech, without attempting to rigidly reproduce the parent language’s sentence and grammatical structures. There are benefits and problems to both approaches.
The benefit of formal equivalence is that the modern reader gets a good handle on the meaning of the words, structure, and grammar of the parent language. The problem of formal equivalence is evidenced in the often-stilted sentence structure and grammatical nuance when the translator seeks to preserve that structure in the daughter language. English does not have the same sentence structure and grammatical nuance that ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek do. When the translator seeks to preserve these structures, the resultant English translation can become difficult to read and garbled. Take, for example, Romans 12:1, Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν· My personal, and very literal, translation of this verse reads, “I am urging you therefore, brothers, through the mercies of God to present your bodies a sacrifice one that is living, holy, well-pleasing to God, your reasonable service.” This seems fine, but isn’t necessarily the best way to translate the verse. Let’s compare two English translations to see the difference. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates the verse as, “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.” {This is pretty literal, but not without some functional equivalence.} A translation that is much more functional but still captures the authorial intent is the New International Version (NIV), “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your true and proper worship.” An even more functional, yet still accurate, translation is the Common English Bible (CEB), “So, brothers and sisters, because of God's mercies, I encourage you to present your bodies as a living sacrifice that is holy and pleasing to God. This is your appropriate priestly service.” Each of these translations has done a good and faithful job of rendering the Greek into English. You can see how the NASB is much more structurally and grammatically literal then either the NIV or CEB.
Let’s turn now to functional equivalence. The main problem with functional equivalence is that not every word of every sentence is always directly translated into English. Rather, the translators will phrase and structure the daughter language so that it best represents the original author’s intent and meaning in a smooth and easy to read English rendering. Which, by the way, is the greatest benefit of this theory. Functional equivalence, when done accurately, best represents idiomatic expressions, grammatical nuance, and authorial intent without being stilted by ancient sentence structures and archaic forms unfamiliar to modern English readers.
Before an argument ensues, let me say a few things that I believe are pertinent at this point. First, it is absolutely impossible to translate any parent language into a daughter language literally. This maxim holds especially true for ancient languages such as those used by the biblical authors. Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek had idiomatic expressions that simply do not translate well into English and to render them literally would leave modern English readers wondering what the original author meant. Let me reiterate, a completely literal English translation is impossible. Second, no English translation ever produced, or available on the market today (regardless of when or by whom), has succeeded in being a completely formally equivalent / literal translation; nor has any translation team sought to do so. Not even the venerable KJV was intended to be a formally equivalent [a.k.a. literal] translation in its day. Look at the Preface to the Readers of the KJV and you’ll their desire to translate the Scriptures using a functional equivalence theory.
Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty.
Every translator, regardless of when or whom, must employ functional equivalence in many places or their translations would be simply unintelligible at times. Genesis 30:2 is a good illustration of what I mean here. Every major English translation says that Jacob became (very) angry (NIV, NRS, CEB), Jacob’s anger was kindled (ESV, KJV), Jacob became furious (NLT), Jacob’s anger burned (NASB), and Jacob’s anger was aroused (NKJ). The Hebrew in this text is וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֥ף יַעֲקֹ֖ב and it literally reads “Jacob’s face/nose burned”. You see, the word translated anger by the English translations means face or nose. However, because it is used idiomatically to refer to one becoming angry (nose or face burning), the word assumed the meaning of angry in the contexts where it was intended to refer to anger. A literal translation of the Hebrew here would not convey the meaning the author intended when he wrote the words. When Moses wrote the words, he meant to say that Jacob got angry. Every English translation in situations like this employs a functional equivalence and completely avoids a literal translation. Lastly, every translation, English included, which seeks to be faithful to the original languages is an exercise of faith. The overwhelming majority of Bible readers around the globe are not able to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek for themselves, and even those of us who can must trust God that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts we’re using are trustworthy representations of the autographs and that the translational aids we employ are accurate and up to date. Therefore, there is a modicum of faith involved in choosing and using a translation.
Translation as Standard
While I don’t want to open the proverbial can of worms here, it must be acknowledged that there are some within Evangelicalism who prefer a particular translation over all others to the point of deprecating any translation other than their preference. Some with this mindset go to the extreme of comparing all other translations to their own to determine viability and faithfulness. Thus, if a translation’s rendering of a text does not match their preferred translation, then the other translation(s) must be in error or corrupt. This is not only dangerous, but ignorant of the doctrine of inspiration and preservation and the art and science of translational theory. No translation has the right claim such superiority. Therefore, it is improper to judge one translation’s value based on another translation.
An Issue of Preference
Where does all of this leave the average Christian who wants to buy a good translation? Christians must determine if the translation they are choosing is designed to be as faithful to the original author’s intent as possible. You should read the translation’s preface to determine the translational theory which underlies it. Is the publisher committed to the inspiration and authority of Scripture? Look at the list of translators. Are they committed to the inspiration and authority of Scripture? Beyond this, the issue of translations really boils down to an issue of preference. This doesn’t mean that every book on the market today claiming to be an English Bible is equally as good as every other. Some are not translations at all, but are paraphrases. How do you know if it’s a paraphrase or a translation? Most English Bibles have an introduction or preface for the readers which will let you know if the translation/production team intended the book you hold to be an accurate translation or a paraphrase. Read the preface or introduction to find out which translational theory they employ and some of the nuances of the particular translation. If it’s intended to be a faithful translation, and not a paraphrase, then there are some preferential factors to consider.
The most important of factor to consider is readability. Can you understand the English you’re reading, or do you need an Elizabethan Era dictionary to try to make sense of it? Most modern American believers aren’t going to gravitate to the older English of the KJV, so, look at the style. When you read the text does it flow for you? Do you understand the sense of the passages without them seeming convoluted or confusing? Of course, we know that not every biblical text is as easy to understand as every other. The point is, generally speaking, are you having to work too hard to just grasp what is written? If so, a different translation might be better for you.
After readability is presentation. Sometimes the same translation can be presented differently. Some are text only. Some have notes within the text. Some have side notes, center notes, or bottom line notes. It’s your preference. What do you like?
My last recommendation is to play the field. Date around, so to speak. Pick up various inexpensive translations and spend time with them. Get to know how they flow, what they’re like, and see if you like it. If money’s an object, download an app or program on your favorite device and dive into the Word. This has two outcomes. It lets you see what translation you prefer, and it gets you into God’s word; which is always beneficial!
Where do you start? Personally, I use several English translations. The one’s I’ve found the best are the New International Version (NIV), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Revised Standard Version (NRS), the Common English Bible (CEB), and the New American Standard (NASB – 1995 update)[1].
A Note on Paraphrases
I think a note on paraphrases is appropriate at this point. Because paraphrases are not intended to render the authorial intent of the original manuscripts, but are only paraphrases, I hesitate to call them Bible translations. They’re paraphrases; nothing more. Don’t discount paraphrases; they have benefit when you want to get a different flavor of a verse or passage. I wouldn’t memorize from them or use them for serious Bible study in any way. Paraphrases really shouldn’t be your “go to” Bible choice. Some of the most popular English paraphrases on the market include The Message, The Living Bible, Good News Bible, Today’s English Version, God’s Word, and the Easy-to-Read Version.
Conclusion
Regardless of which faithful translation you choose, it does you no good if you simply leave it on a shelf to collect dust. Open it. Dive into it. Read it. Let the Holy Spirit take the revealed truth from God and transform you into the image of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for submitting your comment to Renewed Thinking. All comments will be given serious consideration, and no respectfully worded comment will be left unposted. Your comment is currently being reviewed by the Administrator; you should see it soon.