Translation Travails

One of the inevitable discussions, which can often lead to discord in local churches, is the issue of Bible translations. What are we to make of all of these versions, and their famous acronyms!? There's the New American Standard (NASB) and the ESV (English Standard Version). There's the most widely distributed version in the world, the New International Version (NIV) with its recently folded, newer version called the Today's New International Version (TNIV). The King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) represent, with reference to translations, an antiquated and frankly intellectually stunted part of the literary discussion. Yet, somehow the "debate" with these infamous translations seem to habitually resurface in vociferous discussions that, sadly, lack a contemporary understanding of textual criticism or linguistical intellect. Lastly, a translation such as the New Living Translation (NLT) which desires to render more of a vernacular version. Together, (though many more translations can enter the discussion), the diversity of translations has often muddied the waters of discussions for many who desire clarity in viewing their Bible. They can even demean those who desire a more readable translation, such as choosing the NLT over the ESV.

Because of the ruckus surrounding translations, one of our favorite questions to ponder is, "What is the best translation?" Or for the seemingly more linguistically astute, "Which translation better reflects the Greek?" To these questions I will give reference yet will certainly not exhaust the energy or the words sufficient to cover all angles. In the same way, I do not desire to open a can of worms, so to speak, but desire wholeheartedly to bring more clarity to the discussion. (At this point, I should mention that I won't be discussing the KJV but will perform a "handoff" to D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate if further discussion of the topic is desirable.) First, let's ask, "What do these translations desire to do?" The ESV and the NASB desire to reflect more accurately what the Greek grammar is doing with regard to syntax or structure of the sentence. The NASB especially desires to render a more "word for word" translation from the Greek. The ESV also renders a more wooden translation from the Greek yet sometimes waffles in its desire and sometimes moves more toward a "readable" approach, or so some would like to assert. Yet, it still keeps one foot in the "wooden translation" door. Having a slight background in linguistics from studying Spanish at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, and as I have further pondered this translation hoopla, I have been struck by the fact that often we are simply asking the wrong questions. When I translate from Spanish to English I do not ask, "How can I accurately reflect what Spanish is doing (syntax-wise), but do this in English words." First, I understand what Spanish is doing in a sentence, and then I ask, "How do we do that in English." Do you catch the difference? Let me give an example1 Take the Spanish sentence "Tengo frio en las manos." If I were to ask the question, "What is the Spanish doing and how can we do that in English," I would translate that Spanish sentence, I have (tengo) cold (frio) in (en) the hands (las manos). To a native English speaker, this would be very awkward sounding, if not all-together incorrect. But, when I ask the question, "What is Spanish doing and how can I do this in English," my translation is rendered "My hands are cold." Though using a more word for word translation has its place in word studies, for the beginning language student in class, or when desiring to see the syntax of the sentences, this very specific purpose is one for which most readers do not use these translations. Thus, my word-for-word translation of the Spanish is not "more Spanish" in the same way that it is not "more Greek" to render a more word-for-word Greek translation. When we ask the question, "Which translation is more Greek?" we ask the wrong question and often come to the wrong conclusion of which translation would better serve our needs.

The NIV, it appears to me, desires to answer the question, "What is the Greek doing and how can I do that in English," yet keeps its linguistic mind in the original languages--thus performing a sort of hybrid translation. It is very faithful to the original intention yet very cognizant of linguistics. Similarly, the NLT would lean more toward reflecting the vernacular, desiring to render a more understandable translation without as much care for the syntax of the original languages.

The native Spanish speaker does not hear, "I have cold in the hands," but hears "My hands are cold." In the same way, the native Koine Greek speaker would not hear a wooden translation but one that would more accurately be reflected in the vernacular. Therefore, a more "literal" translation is not tantamount to a more accurate one. Finally, it is my assertion that a translation should be chosen based on the purpose of the translation and not on the basis of a fallacious desire for a more "spiritual" translation that is somehow "more Greek."

1. Spanish example first brought to my mind by Ronaldo Ghenov, MDiv.

2. Many of these thoughts were spurred on by lectures from Dana Harris, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.