Every faithful translation of the Bible is the word of God.
In this respect, Christianity is very different from Islam, which
considers the Arabic version of the Qur’an exclusively holy. It
is true that only the original versions of the biblical books, which
were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, were verbally inspired,
and this means that individual translations, like copies, can contain
errors. Translations also necessarily involve some degree of
interpretation. However, all language is created by God, and in the
incarnation the Word became fully human as well as fully divine. In
God’s hands, every human language is as capable as any other of
expressing his truth.
Since
Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been at work to reverse the effect of
human sin at Babel (Gen. 11:9), not by reducing all languages to one,
but by redeeming the diversity and richness of the world’s
languages so that all can hear God speak to them in their own tongue
(Acts 2:1–11). Indeed, translations of Scripture themselves
transform the languages and cultures in which they are written,
endowing them with new or revised concepts of God, humanity, sin, and
the means of salvation.
The
History of Translation
Bible
translation began long before the Bible as we know it was complete.
In the fifth century BC the Israelites who returned from exile spoke
Aramaic. Thus, they needed the Levites to translate the Hebrew law
for them (Neh. 8:8). This Levitical teaching was probably an early
example of a Targum, a translation into Aramaic with interpretation
and expansion. We do not know exactly when the Targumim began to be
written down, but some of the earliest fragments that have been found
are among the DSS.
By
about the third century BC the dominant languages of Palestine were
Greek and Aramaic. Many NT quotations from the OT use an established
Greek translation of the OT. This was known as the Septuagint (LXX),
after the legend that it was translated by seventy-two men, six from
each tribe of Israel, on the orders of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt
(285–247 BC). The NT was written in similar “common”
(koinē) Greek, but in some places the Gospels and Acts translate
words that Jesus and Paul originally spoke in Aramaic (Mark 5:41;
15:34; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; see also John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20;
20:16).
Until
Pentecost, God’s revelation was translated only into the
languages spoken by the Jewish people in their everyday life. At
Pentecost, however, the coming of the Holy Spirit was marked by a
display of miraculous linguistic gifts, and a new era of Bible
translation had begun (Acts 2). As Christians obeyed Christ’s
command to take the word of God into all the world, they began to
translate it into all the languages used by the growing church.
Within
three centuries, Scripture was translated from the original Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek into Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. The earliest
translations into these languages were then revised and improved in
the subsequent centuries until some, such as Jerome’s Latin
Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta, emerged as acknowledged standards.
Other early translations included Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and
Old Slavonic. Many of these languages were already written, but as
missionaries ventured further, they sometimes had to start by
reducing spoken languages to writing. Ulfilas, missionary to the
Goths, was the first to do this.
All
of the thirty-three translations prior to the Reformation had to be
copied out by hand, and almost all were “secondary
translations” made from the Latin. Moreover, despite the
efforts of early reformers such as John Wycliffe (AD 1330–84),
the Catholic Church continued to use the Latin text itself, which was
accessible only to the educated. In the sixteenth century, however,
the printing press was invented, Renaissance scholars rediscovered
the value of consulting texts in the original Hebrew and Greek, and
Protestantism realized that believers need the Bible in their mother
tongue.
The
most influential sixteenth-century translator into English was
William Tyndale (1494–1536). His work on the NT and parts of
the OT was gradually expanded and revised by other scholars,
culminating in the 1611 King James Version, which is still widely
used. Meanwhile, other European translations were produced in German
(by Martin Luther), Spanish, Hungarian, Portuguese, and French.
The
Reformation also gave new momentum to mission outside Europe, and by
the end of the eighteenth century the number of languages having the
Bible had roughly doubled. A much greater global achievement,
however, began in the nineteenth century, when the newly formed Bible
societies, with other mission agencies, were instrumental in the
translation and publication of portions of Scripture in over four
hundred languages. Famous translators from this century include
William Carey in India, John Robert Morrison in China, Henry Martyn
in Persia, and Adoniram Judson in Burma. About five hundred more
translations were added in the first half of the twentieth century.
Progress was, nevertheless, slow. Many languages were difficult to
analyze, and it was particularly hard to produce translations that
read smoothly, using the genres and idioms that a native speaker
would use.
Since
the 1950s, linguistic science has revolutionized the way that
translation is carried out, and organizations such as Wycliffe Bible
Translators have set themselves the task of giving every person in
the world the Scriptures in their everyday language. Increasingly,
translation is carried out by linguistically trained native speakers
of the target languages, working wherever possible from the original
Hebrew and Greek. Translators understand better than before how
extended discourses are constructed at levels above the sentence, and
how social and pragmatic factors affect meaning. The combination of
linguistics and technology has also greatly increased the speed with
which translations can be produced; sometimes a first draft in a new
language can be generated from a closely related language using a
computer program.
Types
of Translation
All
translators aim for both accuracy and acceptability, but the work of
translation constantly involves compromise between these two factors.
There are, broadly speaking, two types of translation: formal
correspondence and functional equivalence.
In
a formal correspondence translation (also called “literal”),
the translator, as far as possible, preserves the word order and
structure of the original text and translates each word the same way
every time it occurs, even if the result is slightly wooden. This is
helpful for word studies, and it preserves patterns of repetition
that give structure to the text. There is always a danger, however,
that the closest formal match to the original actually conveys a
meaning different from the original in a particular context.
Literalness is not the same as accuracy. Pushed to its extreme,
formal correspondence produces the kind of semitranslation found in
interlinear texts (where the English is reproduced word for word
below a line of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek); it is not grammatically
acceptable, cannot be used on its own for public or private reading,
and loses many of the nuances of the original. However, formal
correspondence translations that avoid such extremes are important
for detailed Bible study.
In
a functional equivalence translation (also called “dynamic,”
“idiomatic equivalence,” or “meaning-based”),
the translator aims to produce the same response in a modern reader
as the original text would have done in an ancient reader. To achieve
this, the syntactic structures and figures of speech of Greek and
Hebrew are replaced by their equivalents in the target language. A
word may be translated many different ways in different contexts,
even when it has a single basic meaning in the original. While this
preserves some nuances, it loses others, obscuring structure and the
deliberate echo of one verse in another. In this case there is always
a danger that the translator has misunderstood the original meaning
and the response that it would have produced. Pushed to its extreme,
this type shades into paraphrase, and it may be overly subjective or
jeopardize the historical particularity of the text. However, dynamic
equivalence translations that avoid such pitfalls are valuable for
evangelism, new readers, and public and devotional reading.
In
practice most translations sit somewhere on the spectrum between
these two extremes. Some intermediate translations are a deliberate
compromise, aiming to keep as close as possible to the original while
communicating its meaning clearly in a common language that is
accessible to all. The NIV is a widely used example. One problem in
using such a translation is knowing when form has been preserved at
the expense of meaning, and when meaning has been preserved at the
expense of form. For serious study, therefore, it is useful to
compare intermediate translations with translations of the other two
types, and to learn from the introductory material what translation
principles have been used.
To
illustrate the differences between the types of translation, consider
how Rom. 3:21 is rendered by the NASB (formal correspondence), the
NIV (intermediate), and the NLT (functional equivalence):
But
now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested,
being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. (NASB)
But
now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (NIV)
But
now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping
the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses
and the prophets long ago. (NLT)
Further
Choices in Translation
Within
this spectrum translators have further detailed decisions to make.
First,
what are the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as
determined by the discipline of textual criticism?
Second,
what style should be used? An elevated or archaic style is sometimes
preferred in order to convey the dignity of the word; others use a
deliberately colloquial style in order to maximize accessibility.
Different books of the Bible themselves have different styles and
genres, ranging from vivid stories and evocative poems to precise
doctrinal formulations, and a translation may attempt to reflect this
diversity. At the same time, the style and range of vocabulary chosen
will depend to some extent on the needs of the target audience.
Third,
should the translation contain complexity and ambiguity when the
original does, or should it clarify and simplify? Some parts of
Scripture were never easy reading even in the original (see 2 Pet.
3:15–16). However, it is sometimes necessary to disambiguate in
order to produce grammatically acceptable text in the target
language. In modern books it is also normal to divide text into
paragraphs and chapters, often with subheadings. Ancient texts,
however, were written without any such breaks, so this too is an
interpretation of the text for the sake of clarity.
Fourth,
what should the translator do when there is no equivalent word or
phrase in the target language? Many people groups have never seen a
sheep! Sometimes a choice must be made between coining a new word and
refocusing the meaning of an existing word. This is particularly
difficult when deciding how to refer to God in a pagan culture.
Translating gesture can also be challenging. For example, in Jer.
31:19 the Hebrew is literally “I slapped my thigh,” which
is an indication of distress; but in Western culture slapping one’s
thigh would probably mean enjoying a good joke, so the NIV translates
the Hebrew as “beat my breast.” Footnotes may be
necessary to ensure that the meaning is fully understood.
Finally,
in cultures that have possessed the Bible for many generations
tradition plays a role. A previous translation of a particular verse
may be so well known that, unless it is seriously wrong, it is
preferable to let it stand than to “modernize” it.
Conversely, tradition may so change the meaning of “biblical”
words (such as “saint”) that verses containing them need
to be retranslated.
As
a result of all these decisions, there is scope for many different
translations even in a single language. Where several translations
exist, serious study should always include comparison between
translations along with the use of commentaries. Where available
resources as yet permit only one translation in a language, the type
of translation to be produced must be chosen with great care. In
either case, new translations will always be needed. On the one hand,
although God’s word never changes, scholars can improve our
textual, linguistic, and exegetical understanding of the Hebrew and
Greek originals. On the other hand, the human languages into which
the Bible is translated are in a process of constant change.
Gender-Neutral
Translations
Recent
English-language translations have grappled in particular with the
question of gender neutrality. All languages differ in the way they
denote gender. Until recently, the masculine gender in English was
also the inclusive gender; hence, “man” could simply mean
“person” or “humanity.” In many cases, the
biblical languages work the same way, so that the older dynamic
translations could, like formal correspondence translations, mirror
the original. Feminist concerns, however, have changed English usage.
It is increasingly unacceptable to use the masculine gender
inclusively, and everyday language now substitutes plurals (“person,”
or “they” with singular meaning) or expansions (“man
or woman,” “he or she”). This introduces a
divergence between formal correspondence translations, which preserve
the gender usage of the original, and functional equivalence
translations, which prefer inclusive forms to masculine forms if the
meaning of the original is entirely inclusive. To complicate matters
further, many careful readers of Scripture disagree on where
masculine nuances exist and how important they are, in each specific
instance, to the meaning of the text.
