A Passion for Participles

“Let them not drag me into court

if the text does not agree with the original word for word,

for, try as you may, it cannot be done.”

Erasmus, Apologia 170:20-1

  

Translating accurately from one language to another is not easy. Translation is both science and art, and it always occurs within 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. This is what makes Bible translations such a difficult (and prickly) topic. But just so we get a picture of how tough translation can be…

  

Imagine that you happen to be fluent in both English and Icelandic, and, today, you are working as a translator for an English speaking guide and a group of Icelandic tourists. Your group is hiking in the woods. You round a corner and suddenly the guide stops and turns to you. “There are bears around here,” he whispers. “Tell them” – he waves at the group of Icelanders – “to keep their eyes peeled!”

Ok. You turn to the group and start to translate his comment. “There are bears around here, be sure you…” Oh, oh. Now what? You are faced with a dilemma. Should you choose a ‘literal’ word-for-word translation (“Maintain your eyes in a sliced-open, outer-layer pulled back position!”) or an ‘idiomatic’ translation (“Watch what is happening around you!”)?

Well, this may seem like a silly question. You’ll choose the latter, of course. But if you do, you have affirmed that, in some cases, a paraphrase is a more helpful and accurate translation than a literal translation. Hmm.

This illustration highlights only one of the many challenges that translators face. There are many more. In the case of Bible translation, translators are also confronted with a multiplicity of manuscripts some with slight variations in their texts.  How should they determine which is the original text? And, then, when they have determined the most likely text, should they use a paraphrase, an idiomatic translation, or a semi-literal approach?

Bottom line? Accurately translating and effectively communicating the truths contained in the Scriptures is a complex task.

That said, what, then, are we to make of all the different translations? And 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.

But let’s get specific. Let’s 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 Bible (NASB), 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 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 Translation). 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 translations out there, such as the Holman Standard Christian Bible (HSCB) and the New Living Translation (NLT).

http://www.christianuniversitiesonline.org/the-bible/

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 use 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 use 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.

And I use 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 calling for wholehearted submission.

Finally, let me say why I entitled these thoughts “A Passion for Participles.” I like participles, and I like them to be left as participles when they are translated. Doing so permits me to determine for myself the relationship that participle has with the rest of the sentence.

Let me briefly explain. Here’s a sample sentence: “Running, he arrived at school.” There are many possible ways to understand the nuances of this sentence. It may mean, “Although he ran, he arrived at school.” (That’s a concessive usage.) Or it may mean, “He ran to school.” (That would be an instrumental use, thus stressing the means by which he arrived at the school.) Or it may mean, “While he ran, he arrived at the school.” (That would be a temporal usage, stressing the fact that his arrival at school occurred during the act of running.) And there are many other possibilities. You can see that the original sentence can be interpreted and then translated in many different ways.

My problem with this sort of thing is that a translator who changes a participle into a verb or adjective has taken a step away from translation toward interpretation.

But I can hear what you’re saying. Doesn’t the example given at the beginning of this discussion demonstrate that all translation involves interpretation? Well, yes, it does. Good point.

The question isn’t whether translation efforts require interpretation. All translations do. The question is one of extent. I, personally, prefer those translations that leave as much interpretation as possible with the reader. And that means keeping the participles in the text. And, generally, for me, that means sticking with the semi-literal versions.

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

 “So they read distinctly from the book,

 in the Law of God; and they gave the sense,

and helped them to understand the reading.”

Nehemiah 8:8