Best Bible Translation - Part II

Last week, I wrote about translation theory. That can be a boring and somewhat tedious subject, but I felt it was necessary background before talking about Bible translation. After all, we can’t really talk about a “best” translation unless we have some idea of what the goals of the translation are.

Recall, that there is a spectrum of translation methods. On one end of the spectrum is the “formal equivalence” translation method, a stilted, mechanical rendering of the source language into the target language, but gives the audience a good sense of how the original was spoken. On the other end of the spectrum is the “free” translation method, a smooth, conversational rendering of the source language, but remotely distances the audience from the original style.

Before Bible translators begin the process of translating Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English, they need to decide how they will do it. Will their version be more formal, more free, or somewhere in-between? Here’s a chart of where several modern English Bible versions fit on the scale of translation method:

There is a common misunderstanding regarding the nature of the formal equivalent and free translation methods. These are often mislabeled as “word-for-word” and “thought-for-thought,” respectively. But, this doesn’t adequately describe the process. In fact, both methods are “thought-for-thought,” since words only have their meaning in a context.

Let’s look at two examples.

The Hebrew text of Prov 7:2 literally reads, “Keep my commandments and live, and my law like the little man in your eyes.” Both the formal equivalent translations and the dynamic equivalent translations recognize that the phrase “the little man in your eyes” is a Hebrew idiom that is equivalent to the English “apple of your eye,” which in itself requires some interpretation. Rather than leave the Hebrew idiom intact, even the formal equivalent translators decided that “little man in your eyes” was too foreign for an English audience. By contrast, translators on the right end of the spectrum determined that “apple of your eye” was, itself, too idiomatic and would leave some readers in the dark, so they translate it with the idea that the command in the second half of the verse is to guard the law with “your own eyes” (e.g. NLT, NCV).

Another example helps illustrate the various positions on gender-inclusive language. In John 3:19, the Greek says “men loved darkness.” The NASB, which is the most formal of the modern English translations, translates it exactly that way. However, most other translations, including the ESV, NIV, CEB, and NLT, recognizes that John not only meant the male population, but all of humanity, so it translates anthropoi (men) as “people.” These translations are not adapting “the truth of the Bible to man’s fickle and sinful ways,” as I’ve heard some say about gender-inclusive language. Rather, they are accommodating the intent of the text with the appropriate English translation.

While discussing his own translation of Hebrew into German, Martin Luther said, "What is the point of needlessly adhering so stiffly and stubbornly to the [Hebrew] words, so that we can't understand it at all?...Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows" (Luther’s Works 35:213–14).

Or, more recently, Douglas Moo (Wheaton College) echoed these sentiments, saying, "The principle that meaning resides in larger clusters of words means that we should no longer talk in terms of ‘word-for-word’ as a translation value. To suggest in our discussion of translations among a general audience that ‘word-for-word’ is a virtue is to mislead people about the nature of language and translation." [Douglas Moo, We Still Don’t Get It: Evangelicals and Bible Translation Fifty Years After James Barr (Zondervan, 2014), p. 10].

In short, for Luther and Moo, the best Bible translations would be anything to the right of formal equivalent on the spectrum. However, for students who want to dig more into the original languages or the history and culture of the ancient world, formal translation might be preferred as they can “see” or “feel” the original language behind the translation and it gives them the freedom to ask questions and draw their own conclusions based on their own study.

Addendum:
I should add, that no translation is perfect. The late-18th century/ early-nineteenth century Jewish poet Hayyim Nachman Bialik wrote, "He who reads the Bible in translation is like a man who kisses his bride through a veil." Of course, few people have the time, energy and resources for the years-long investment of learning a biblical language, let alone three! So, the next best option is to read from many Bible translations. Don't just pick the one that you like or has the same theological bent as you. Mix it up. Compare translations and ask why version X goes in one direction, while version Y goes another. Let the different translations inform you of the complexities of the biblical world. Let their languages expand your vocabulary. Let their theological diversity allow you to appreciate the Bible's theological nuances. In other words, let the word of God speak to you, rather than the other way around.