Upcoming Events
27 May (Sun) 06:00 pm -
07:00 pm
Singing
17 Jun (Sun) 08:00 pm -
10:00 pm
Monthly College Class
24 Jun (Sun) 06:00 pm -
07:00 pm
Singing
15 Jul (Sun) 08:00 pm -
10:00 pm
Monthly College Class
29 Jul (Sun) 06:00 pm -
07:00 pm
Singing
Audio Sermons
Members Login...
Who's Online
We have 5 guests online
Search
|
Article 5: Which Version?
Written by Allen Dvorak
Saturday, 06 June 2009 15:44
|
|
|
Series: The Transmission of the Bible
Article 5: Which Version?
By Allen Dvorak
The steps involved in getting the Scriptures from God to man are each important. Through the process of inspiration, God revealed His word directly to individuals of the first century who taught the gospel message and recorded it in written form without error (e.g., John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13). In the second step, canonization, the early Christians distinguished such inspired literature from many other religious writings which were not, in fact, produced through the miraculous divine guidance known as inspiration. The incredible transmission record of the Scriptures, through the means of human copying, clearly shows the fingerprint of divine providence.
The final step of the transmission process, translation, is made necessary by the fact that the New Testament was written in the Greek language and is made possible by the work of textual critics who determine the Greek text to be translated. The manuscript copies of the New Testament documents, used to confirm the text of the autograph copies, were copied primarily in Greek and Latin. Since relatively few of us who wish to read the Scriptures are fluent in Greek or Hebrew (the primary original language of the Old Testament), reading the Scriptures in our native language necessitates a translation of the Greek text into another language.
As we began this series of articles, it was noted that religious bookstores sell many different English translations of the Bible. The striking differences between some of these translations suggest that not all of these versions convey the Word of God. How can we know which "Bible" to buy? Which version is an accurate translation of the original documents which make up the books of the New Testament?
There are two factors which greatly influence the quality of any version of the Scriptures. One is the quality of the Greek text used for the translation and the second is the translation philosophy of the translators.
The fourth article in this series discussed the major Greek texts which are used for the translation of English versions. We will not repeat that discussion here. Although there are some differences in these texts, the differences are relatively minor and are not the primary reason for the sometimes striking differences in versions of the Bible.
Although a translation can be no better than the text from which it is translated, an accurate Greek text does not guarantee a good translation. The translation philosophy adopted by the translators has a great deal of influence on the integrity of a translation to the original message.
We could perhaps describe such translation philosophies by three words: concordant, equivalence (also known as "dynamic equivalence") and paraphrastic. There are two primary concerns in translation, accuracy and understandability (readability), and these three philosophies vary as to the relative importance they place on each of these concerns.
Translators who subscribe to the "concordant" philosophy are meticulously careful about verbal accuracy and literal translation, approximating a "word-for-word" translation. Although most languages share certain syntax and grammatical characteristics, there are significant differences between English and Greek. The more literal the translation from one language to another, the more difficult the translation can be to understand. Or in other words, some things in one language do not neatly translate word-for-word into another language. The "concordant" philosophy tilts toward accuracy, but sometimes sacrifices readability to some degree. The King James, New King James, American Standard and New American Standard Versions could probably be described as having been translated by this philosophy.
On the other end of the "translation philosophy" spectrum is the paraphrastic method. The translators of The Living Bible followed this philosophy and they explain the consequences as well as anyone in the preface to that version:
"To paraphrase is to say something in different words than the author used. It is a restatement of an author's thoughts, using different words than he did. This book is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments. Its purpose is to say as exactly as possible what the writers of the Scriptures meant, and to say it simply, expanding where necessary for a clear understanding by the modern reader...There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author's exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say. This is because a paraphrase is guided not only by the translator's skill in simplifying but also by the clarity of his understanding of what the author meant and by his theology. For when the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide, along with his sense of logic, unless perchance the translation is allowed to stand without any clear meaning at all. The theological lodestar in this book has been a rigid evangelical position."
As the translators of The Living Bible acknowledge, there is danger in using a paraphrase of the Holy Scriptures. Serious Bible students prefer to have a translation that may be more difficult to understand, but is faithful to the actual words written by the inspired authors. A paraphrase allows the translator(s) to intrude between the inspired writer and the Bible student.
Somewhere between the two ends of the translation spectrum is the "equivalence" philosophy of translation. Translators who embrace this method try to balance understandability and accuracy in a more even way. The New International Version is an example of the dynamic equivalence method of translating. The translators' preface to the NIV includes this paragraph:
"The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighted the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words."
Again, serious Bible students need a literal translation from which to determine for themselves "the thought of the biblical writers." I believe that a translator technically should convey the meaning of the "words" of the writers of the Bible, not "the meaning of the writers of the Bible." As with the paraphrastic method, translators who are determined to convey the "thought of the biblical writers" may very well not understand those thoughts correctly!
The translators' preface to the NIV continues:
"A sensitive feeling for style does not always accompany scholarship. Accordingly the Committee on Bible Translation submitted the developing version to a number of stylistic consultants...Concern for clear and natural English - that the New International Version should be idiomatic but not idiosyncratic, contemporary but not dated - motivated the translators and consultants. At the same time, they tried to reflect the differing styles of the biblical writers."
As an aside, the number of translators and their experience should also be considered. Some versions have as their strength the large number of translators who worked on the version. However, many translators working together, but using the paraphrastic method, will probably not produce a good version. On the other hand, a version produced by a single translator, even following the concordant philosophy, will probably suffer from the absence of "peer review."
Finally, it should be observed that no translation of the Bible is faultless. Nevertheless, all of the hard work of textual critics to determine the original text is largely pointless if we then choose a translation which sacrifices accuracy for the sake of easy reading. Some translations that lean toward understandability may be helpful for comparison purposes (suggesting possible meanings in obscure or cryptic texts), but for a primary study Bible, I would prefer accuracy with a text that is harder to understand than an understandable text which is inaccurate and even teaches error!
Reprinted by permission.
|
| Last Updated ( Friday, 03 July 2009 10:47 ) |