Talking Translations

“I need a toilet.”

This was the sentence my year of Mongolian language studies had prepared me to utter! I garnered my intellectual resources, sorted through my collection of Mongolian words, chose the exact ones I needed, and then strung them together into this well-structured sentence: “I… toilet… with need.” (That’s the most literal translation I can give. It sounds better in Mongolian.) As I ran down the stairs headed for the street, I practiced articulating the words: “Bi jorlang xherigtei.”

The bowl on our teammate’s toilet had cracked, and I was headed to the market to buy a replacement. I reached the street and hailed a taxi. It pulled over, and I jumped into the back seat and said the line, “Bi jorlang xherigtei!” The driver studied me for a moment and then, with a nod of understanding, tapped the meter and pulled into traffic.

A few moments later, we parked outside a large office building. The driver jumped out, opened my door and pulled me out. He took my by the elbow and rushed me into the building. We raced down a hallway, and onto an elevator. He pushed a button, and we waited as the lift rose. (Nope, no music.) And then the doors opened and he rushed me down another hallway.

At the end of this hallway, he stopped and flung open a door, revealing a… wait for it… a bathroom! He gave me a big smile, a thumbs-up, and told me to take my time.

Hmmm. Translation issues. Lots of fun.

Instead of saying “I need a toilet,” I should have said “I need to buy a toilet.” This small addition would have helped the driver understand my needs, and it would have prevented my face-saving faking of a gastrointestinal emergency.

This small incident shows the difficulty of accurately translating one’s thoughts.

I am often asked which translation of the Bible I think is best, and that is a difficult question to answer. It begs another question: “best for what?”

Translation from one language to another always occurs along a spectrum. That spectrum ranges from the paraphrase on one end to the semi-literal on the other end. And every translation is dependent upon the skills of the translator.

Let me see if I can use my experience above to illustrate. The literal translation of the sentence was “I toilet with need.” This translation is accurate to the Mongolian sentence, but it is not presented in good English. It is missing an indefinite article and it uses a prepositional phrase in place of a verb. If I fix those issues and restate the sentence in better English, it reads, “I need a toilet.” And that would be an accurate semi-literal translation of the phrase.

But, as you can see, I failed to communicate with my Mongolian sentence my actual need. I did not need to use a toilet. I needed to buy a toilet. Thus, if I had take the context into consideration, a more accurate translation of the meaning of my Mongolian sentence would be, “I need to buy a toilet.”

A better example of the differences here might be illustrated using the following imperatival sentence, “Keep your eyes peeled!”

Imagine, on the one hand, trying to translate that sentence with a literal translation: “Maintain your eyes in a sliced-open position!” Well, that might be appropriate if you are undergoing a cataract surgery, but otherwise, it might prompt some gory actions. But if, on the other hand, we translated the more likely intended meaning behind this idiomatic expression, we might express it this way: “Watch what is happening around you!” And that would make more sense, wouldn’t it?

Now, if you pause and ask yourself which translation in this case is better, you would probably say the latter, though it is hardly a literal translation. And if you came to that conclusion, you would be saying that, in some cases, a paraphrase is a more accurate translation of the meaning of a phrase than a literal translation. (Incidentally, this is an example of what is sometimes referred to as an ‘idiomatic’ translation.)

These illustrations highlight only one of the many challenges that face translators. There are many more. In the case of Bible translation, translators are also confronted with a multiplicity of texts. Imagine that my story about the toilet was copied hundreds of times by hand over hundreds of years. Then, imagine that all the remaining copies were collected and compared. Some read, “I toilet with need.” Others read, “I toilet with need to buy.” And still others read, “I toilet to buy.” How would you determine which sentence to translate? And, would you use a paraphrase, a dynamic equivalent or idiomatic translation, or a semi-literal approach? This sort of conundrum is routinely faced by Bible translators.

Okay, it is not my goal to undermine your confidence in your copy of God’s Word. The remarkable thing about the Bible is that, despite the existence of thousands of manuscripts and fragments written over hundreds and hundreds of years, the variations are minimal. We can have great confidence in the text we have. But, still, it is good to realize that variants exist.

Most importantly, it is important to recognize the complexity of translating and effectively communicating the truths contained in the Scriptures.

That said, what, then, are we to make of all the different translations? Which one is best?

My suggestion is that there is no one “best” translation. There are many excellent translations and paraphrases, and they all have their use.

Let’s get specific for a moment. I will list a few of the available versions and briefly discuss their merits.

Semi-Literal Translations. I would include here: The King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), and the English Standard Version (ESV). Each of these attempts to mirror the text as closely as possible. One benefit of these translations is that they often leave syntactical decisions to the reader. Participles, for instance, are often (though not always) left as participles, permitting the reader to determine for himself or herself the relationship it has with the main verb. One possible drawback of these translations (when compared to others) is that their methodology may increase one’s need for well-developed critical thinking skills, for a knowledge of the texts’ far and near contexts, and for a higher-grade-level reading ability.

Dynamic Equivalence Translations. The main example of this sort of translation would be The New International Version (NIV). The translators of this version seek to translate by meaning as well as by terms. One benefit of this is that it may aid readers in comprehension. Many syntactical decisions are made by the translators, and the reading grade-level is lower. One possible drawback of these translations is that the translators’ theological biases are more likely to slip into the translation. (And we all have biases. No one is neutral). I have a friend who believed the NIV was unfairly biased in favor a those with evangelical theologies!

Paraphrases. The two examples of these which come to mind are The Message and The Living Bible (not to be confused with the New Living Bible). These paraphrases seek to ‘say again’ the meaning of the text in the culturally relevant forms of one’s environment. One benefit of this is that such paraphrases are generally very readable. They often read more like a modern storybook than as an ancient text. In addition, this may make complicated ideas more accessible. One possible drawback of paraphrases, however, is that they may wander too far from the intended meaning of the text and abandon the true meaning of the text.

Those are just a few examples. There are many other noteworthy translations out there, such as the Holman Bible and the New Living Translation.

So, having looked at the various types of translations, which ones should you use for your Bible reading? And is it better to use one than another?

My suggestion is that you use them all. Just use them wisely. The most important things to know about a translation is what sort of translation it is, whether those who translated it were qualified to produce a trustworthy translation, and whether the translators had adequate access to the manuscripts and fragments. All these can be learned by reading the introduction included in your Bible.

For myself, I utilize the semi-literal translations when seeking the most accurate wording of the text, comparing them to see where they agree and differ on wording. This helps me recognize where texts vary. (I also use the texts in the original languages, but you can have great confidence in your English resources. The translations you have are extremely accurate, and you can determine the textual nuances with great precision by comparing the various translations.)

I utilize the dynamic equivalence translations to gain an overall flow of the text. I find this particularly helpful in the Old Testament, particularly in the poetic books. The NIV seems to capture the spirit of Hebrew poetry exceptionally well. I also find the NIV helpful as a resource to see how the translators evaluated and understood syntactical relationships, such as how a particular participle should be understood.

I utilize paraphrases the same way I do commentaries. They help me to see how other Christians understand the text. Sometimes they help me to see things in ways I hadn’t seen them before.

Generally, I think of reading the Bible in differing translations as being a bit like fine-tuning a radio signal. In the old days, our car radio had a push button that brought to the general location of a radio station. Then, we would use the knob to fine-tune our reception of the signal. A little to the left, a little to the right, until we could hear clearly. As I read differing translations, the Holy Spirit enables the Word of God to become clearer and clearer to me, informing my understanding, convicting my heart and seeking wholehearted submission.

So, there it is. A few thoughts on Bible translations. Which translations do you use when you read the Bible?