Best Bible Translation - Part I: Ich Bin ein Berliner

Once people figure out that I’ve had some Bible learnin’, it’s typically not long before I’m asked, “What’s the best Bible translation?” It seems simple enough, but I’m not always exactly sure what they mean. Does the King James still reign (catch that?)? Is the NIV still reliable post-1985? What about the Message? Without learning Hebrew and Greek (and throw in a little Aramaic, for good measure), what translation will get me closest to what God really said?

If you’ve ever taken piano lessons, or guitar lessons, or voice lessons, your instructor probably tried to get you to learn “music theory.” Sounded boring, right? You just wanted to learn to tickle the ivories like Chopin or Billy Joel, make the guitar gently weep like the George Harrison or riff like Jimi Hendrix. But, your teacher insisted, because if you wanted to create music, not just copy musicians, you needed to know how music is made.

So, let me tell you a little about translation theory…in very general terms.

The language that is being translated is called the “source language,” while the language that something is being translated to is called the “target language.” Take, for example that famous quote by John F. Kennedy during the Cold War, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” The source language is German. The sentence translates easily into English (target language) as “I am a Berliner.”

However, anyone who is bilingual or has ever studied a foreign language knows that sometimes things are “lost in translation.” What do we really mean when we say “ jump on the bandwagon,” “I smell a rat,” or “It jumped the shark.” When translating these idioms, translators have to decide whether they are going keep the idiom as it stands, or reformulate the idiom into a comparable idiom into the target language that captures the meaning of idiom, not the vocabulary of the idiom.

This leads us, then, to the two end of the translation theory spectrum. On one end of the spectrum is a “formal equivalent” method. According to this method, translators try to maintain the same vocabulary, syntax, and style (“form”) of the source language. This method expects the reader/hearer to have some knowledge of the culture and language of the source language, leaving it to the reader/hearer to understand idioms and smooth out syntax and style. The advantage of this method is that it allows the target audience to decide for themselves how to interpret the translation. The disadvantage with this method is that can lead to a stilted, unnatural reading in the target language.

On the other end of the spectrum is the “free” translation method. According to this method, translators have a greater interest in the target language, with little or no expectation for the reader/hearer to comprehend the culture, background and language of the source language. So translators provide as many helps as necessary to get the message across. The advantage with this method is that it makes for smooth and natural reading, but it puts the target audience at the mercy of the translator for interpreting the source language properly.

Formal equivalent: the attempt to replicate the structure and vocabulary of the source

language, leaving idioms intact; translators make few interpretive decisions on behalf of the reader.

Free Translation: the attempt to translate the source language into its equivalent

meaning (structure and form) in the target language; translators make all interpretive decisions on behalf of the reader.

As I said, these are the ends of the spectrum. Translators can “interpret” to varying degrees along this spectrum. We’ll talk about this more next time when we specifically look at Bible translation.

Let’s apply these two methods to JFK’s “Ich bin ein Berliner.” The translation I provided above, “I am a Berliner,” is a formal equivalent translation. It follows the syntax and style of the source language. Ich = I; bin = am; ein = a; Berliner = Berliner. However, this translation makes some assumptions from its target audience. It assumes the audience has general knowledge of European geography, that Berlin is a city in Germany, that “Berliner” means an inhabitant of Berlin, and that JFK was attempting to capture the essence of the Latin civis romanus sum (I am a Roman citizen) to capture the idea of a common humanity. This formal equivalent translation is literal according to vocabulary, but not necessarily literal according to its meaning.

On the other end of the translation theory spectrum is the free translation, that assumes very little from the target audience. In German, the definite article (ein) is not used when a member of a group is stating they belong to the group. So, a Berlin resident would simply say, “Ich bin Berliner.” By adding the definite article, JFK was clarifying that he was not a resident of Berlin, but identifies with West Berlin residents who, unlike their, East German counterparts, were free citizens. So, a “functional equivalent” translation might render “Ich bin ein Berliner” as “As an outsider, I identify with the freedom enjoyed by these residents of Berlin.” In terms of vocabulary and style, this translation is nowhere close to that of the source language. However, it more adequately captures the meaning for an uninformed target audience.

Tune in next time when I show how these translation techniques are applied among the various English translations of the Bible.