Tuesday, March 4, 2008
IDEA: Good translations are the basic tools of Bible study.
PURPOSE: To help people understand how different translations function.
If you took the tunnel from Great Britain to France, would that be the same thing as taking the tunnel under the Hudson River from New Jersey to New York? What do you face on the other side?
I. When you think of biblical translations, you're looking at a bridge or a tunnel between two languages and two cultures.
The problem of the translator lies in that picture: How far will you go to bridge the gap between the two languages?
For example, "Greet one another with a holy kiss." Phillips translates this as "Greet one another with a hearty handshake." Is that an accurate translation?
Suppose you were translating that holy kiss into a culture in which public kissing or any sort is offensive? Which would be preferable?
II. That illustration of a tunnel or bridge points to three basic theories of communication:
The literal translation tries to stay as close as possible to the original languages. So it keeps the historical distance intact at all points.
Example: If we took very literal translations, we'd have something like "coals of fire," but we would not say that in English. We'd perhaps say "burning coals" which is really what it means. The literal translation has difficulties because in trying to be faithful to the Hebrew and Greek, it may be faithful to it in the wrong place. Then it makes the English ambiguous, whereas it was perfectly clear to the Greek or Hebrew reader.
The free translation attempts to translate the ideas from one language to another.
It doesn't have the concern for the exact words of the original text. It's sometimes called a paraphrase. It attempts to eliminate the historical distance as much as possible. The free translation tends to be done by one translator. Unless the person is particularly skilled in the languages, he may overlook the options.
The dynamic equivalent tries to translate words, idioms, and grammatical constructions of the original language into precise equivalents in the receiving language. This keeps historical distance in matters of history or fact, but it attempts to close the gap in matters of language, grammar, and style.
II. Major translations of the whole Bible can be placed in a general way on that scale.
Very literal translations include the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible. One step over is the Revised Standard Version.
One more step takes us to the New Revised Standard Version and the New King James Bible.
The dynamic equivalence includes the New International Version, the New English Bible, and the Jerusalem Bible. The free translation includes Phillips.
Further still is the Living Bible.
III. All of these provide benefits.
For general reading, dynamic equivalent translations may be the best. For more specific study, more literal translations can help you. A free translation can be helpful in stimulating your thinking. No translation can do it all.
IV. You ought to have a translation that organizes the biblical text by paragraphs rather than verses.
The basic unit of thought is a paragraph, not a verse or a sentence. Translations that separate the verses may lead you to think that the Bible is made up of five thousand and one little thoughts.