by Tom Wacaster
One of the most astonishing traits of our God is that He choses to communicate with man. Created in the image of God, mankind has proven himself to be a great disappointment to the Creator. Yet in spite of our stubbornness, “ the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12). Observe from this passage that the grace of God “instructs” us. It teaches us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). This “communication” from God has existed since the “beginning” of time (Matt. 19:4; Romans 1:20). Each dispensation wherein God has communicated with man has had its peculiar means of achieving that task. This is clearly taught in Hebrews 1:1-2. The process by which the Lord communicates with us today is through His Son (Heb. 1:2), and more specifically, through divine revelation revealed in the New Testament. In a previous article we traced the process of that divine communication. It originated with God, was revealed to man, secured in its accuracy by inspiration, and transmitted to the written page, “combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:!3). Today we benefit from what was originally written in Hebrew and Greek through the process of translation. A lack of understanding on any of these vital points has led to a disrespect for the word of God in general, and a virtual explosion in modern translations and/or versions that leave the average person confused and bewildered. Does it really matter what version I use as a study Bible? What should I look for when trying to determine what version is “good,” “bad,” or even “dangerous”? In this article, and the one for next week, I want to pursue this thought under the headings of Process, Proliferation, and Preferences.
Process
One point that begs consideration has to do with the difference between a translation and a version. A translation is exactly what the word suggests: a translation from an original language to a target language. A version, on the other hand, is a particular publication of the translation process based upon what the body of scholars doing the translation considers a proper rendering of the original language. Sometimes a version is an attempt to improve a previous translation. Hence such names a “Revised Standard,” “New English,” “New American Standard,” etc. But a “version” is still a “translation,” so we turn our attention to the process of translation. Webster says that translation means “to hear or change from one place, condition to another; to turn into one’s own language.” When I travel abroad I have to use a “translator” to preach the gospel. The translator takes what I say in English and renders it to the audience in Hindi, Telagu, Russian, et al. There are several factors that affect the quality of translation, whether written or oral.
First, there is the ability of the translator in both the original and target language. Lack of proper knowledge of either the original language, the target language, or both will not produce an accurate translation. If a person is not skilled in the original Hebrew or Greek, it is impossible to properly translate the Bible into another language.
Second, a proper understanding of the “mechanics” of translation. How do you address nouns, verbs, adjectives in each language. I have learned from experience that occasionally an entire sentence has to be spoken before the translator can provide to the audience a proper rendering. This is because nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. do not always appear at the same place in the construction of the sentence. Mechanics of translation also involves an appreciation for terms such as “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence” when it comes to the translation process. Sometimes in an effort to smooth out a sentence in the target language, the intended meaning of the original is not properly conveyed. “Formal equivalence” is an attempt to translate the words and nuances of the original as literally as possible. This was the aim of the King James and American Standard Versions. The ASV translators stated that their aim was to bring the “plain reader more closely into contact with the exact thought of the sacred scriptures.” F.F. Bruce conceded that the ASV is the most meticulously accurate version in the English language. Therein is the strength of the “formal equivalence” approach to translation. But if a translation is too literal, it may be overly difficult to read. In an effort to avoid being too literal, a body of translators may adopt what is called the “dynamic equivalence” approach. This method attempts to convey the meaning of the text in free and idiomatic English without much regard for the exact wording of the original. Whenever a translator uses this method of translation, and feels that a literal rendering of the original is too obscure or difficult, he will proceed by choosing his own words to tell the reader what he thinks the passage means. Admittedly word for word translation is not always possible, but the further one moves toward the “dynamic equivalence” method, the greater the danger of mistranslation. In view of the divine nature of the word of God it seems that the honest seeker of truth would desire something as close to the original as humanly possible rather than a mere equivalent of what the translator thinks the passage means.
Third, loyalty to and respect for the reverence of the Bible as God’s word will most certainly affect the translating process. Disrespect for the divine inspiration of the word of God may influence someone to render a passage according to some theological error which he might imbibe. The body of so-called “scholars” who produced the New International Version leaned heavily upon the “dynamic equivalence” approach and they were heavily influenced by their Calvinistic dogma. I’ll have more to say on that later.
Proliferation
There has been a virtual “explosion” of English versions of the Bible over the past fifty years. In order to give you a “feel” for what has been produced, I provide here a list of what I have found: (1) New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witness, 1950); (2) The Authentic Version (Brotherhood Authentic Bible Society, 1951); (3) The Amplified New Testament (Lockman Foundation, 1958); (4) The NT in Modern English (J. B. Phillips, 1952); (5) The New English Bible (1961, 1964); (6) The Living Bible Paraphrased (1962, 1971); (7) Beck’s Translation in the Language of Today (1963-1964); (8) The Anchor Bible (William Albright, David Freedman, 1964); (9) Good News For Modern Man (1966); (10) The Jerusalem Bible (1966); (11) William Barclay’s NT (1969); (12) The New American Standard (Lockman Foundation, 1963, 1970); (13) The New American Bible (1971); (14) King James II (J.P. Green, 1971); (15) The Bible in Living English (Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1972); (16) The New International Version (1973); (17) Easy-To-Read Version (1978); (18) English Version For The Deaf (1978); (19) The Everyday Bible, New Century Version (1987); (20) The Youth Bible, New Century Version (1987); (21) Serendipity New Testament (1987); (22) McCord’s New Testament Translation (1st Edition, 1988); (23) The New King James Version (1989); (24) The English Standard Version (2001). Extreme versions include: (1) Olive Pell Bible; (2) Reader’s Digest Bible; (3) The Satanic Bible; (4) The Cotton Patch Version of Luke and Acts; (5) the X-Rated Bible; (6) The Original African Heritage Study Bible; (7) The Queen James Bible, dubbed “the gay Bible; (8) The Gender Neutral Bible.
This massive proliferation of English Bibles is the fruit of an attitude that seems to permeate our modern age: “Whatever your age or religious leaning, there probably is a Bible tailored to your interest”; “To jazz up the 2,000 year old message from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, some Bibles have added a few words by Brooke, Jodi, Kara, Rick and Julio”; “American publishing would soon bring forth a version of the Bible trimmed and shorn…Simon and Schuster has labored and brought forth a Bible…Leviticus was down from 45 pages in the KJV to two and a half.” And the beat goes on…. [to be continued]
~~~~~