Bible Translation
BIBLE TRANSLATION
Raymond L. Elliott
Translation is the process of beginning with something (written or oral) in one language (the source language) and expressing it in another language (the receptor language).
The goals of translation may be summed up under four headings: accuracy, appropriateness, naturalness, and form.
For “accuracy,” the message or content which the author intended to communicate in the source document must be transmitted so that the reader of the translation receives the same message.
“Appropriateness” refers to expressing that message in a style which reflects the attitude and intention of the author.
“Naturalness” means translating so that the reader feels his language has been used as he would use it, in a way that allows him to read for meaning, instead of being faced with a series of confusing vocabulary or grammatical puzzles.
The “form” in which the original was written should be reflected in the translation if it can be done without distorting the accuracy, appropriateness, and naturalness of the translation. (See “Artistic Use of Language” later in this chapter.)
All translation, including Bible translation, involves at least two languages. For convenience, we will refer to the language in which the document already exists as the source language. The language into which the translation is being made will be called the receptor language.
The problems that arise in the process of translating have their basis in the similarities and differences between languages, as well as in the specific nature of the documents being translated. The principles of translation have been developed over the years in the process of dealing with the problems.
The first major section of this article deals with factors of language structure that affect any and all kinds of translation. The other major section will deal with problems related specifically to the documents that make up the Bible. Following this, there will be brief mention of the way in which translation relates to other subjects such as inspiration, interpretation, revision, dialect differences, paraphrases, versions, gender, and styles intended for special audiences.
LANGUAGE FACTORS IN TRANSLATION
Today, there are more versions of the Bible in English than in any other language. Most Bible translation now being done in the world, however, is destined for other languages.
The language factors mentioned below are pertinent to all languages, but they will be illustrated by examples from only a few languages.
Sounds
The human vocal mechanism is capable of producing hundreds of different sounds. At birth every person is capable of learning to use all of them. In the process of growing up, most people learn only the sounds and structures of their own language, quite unaware of the structures of other languages.
In this article we are dealing with translation from written sources, not from spoken sources, so we are concerned only with reading the source documents and not with speaking the languages in which those documents were written. So usually, in Bible translation, we are not concerned with the sounds of the source language.
With the receptor language, however, the situation may be quite different. If a translation is to be made for a language that has previously had no written form, the sound system of the receptor language must be mastered as a basis for devising an alphabet for writing it.
The need for analysis of the receptor language sound system is often the first major translation problem to be faced. The principle involved in solving it is that the sounds of the receptor language must be analyzed in terms of that language’s own structure, in order to avoid imposing a structure from some other language. Fortunately, excellent training courses are available to prepare translators for language analysis.
Words and Word Parts
Sounds combine with elements of meaning to produce words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and even larger units of discourse.
Words are the basic building blocks for language structure. They simultaneously form two different kinds of units: (a) grammatical, that is, the way words combine with each other, and (b) semantic, that is, the kinds of meaning patterns which result.
All of us easily recognize word parts if we focus on them (build-ing, part-s, pro-duce, relation-ship, re-present), yet we are usually unaware that we put these parts together in very rigidly defined ways. Present-ship, pro-build, s-relation are examples of things we “cannot” do in English.
Every language has its own inventory of word parts of many different shapes and sizes, and each language has its own rules about the ways these parts can or cannot be put together to form words.
The author of the source document has already put the word parts together in the way he wanted to use them. It is possible, of course, for the translator to misuse the analysis of word parts in the source document and arrive at shades of meaning the author never intended.
The situation with the receptor language may be quite different, especially if it has previously had no written form. Keeping track of word parts and taking note of the kinds of combinations they are allowed to form is a crucial part of learning the language and gaining creative fluency.
One problem may be a temptation to “invent” new words by combining word parts to fill up supposed gaps in the receptor language where needed words seem to be missing. An important principle is to resist that temptation, since such invented words often are meaningless to the local people, or carry a wrong meaning entirely. Natural local ways of expressing most concepts are already a part of the language, and it is well worth the patient effort required to find them.
In some other regards, however, careful attention to word parts in the source language is both necessary and crucial. For example, one of the important but complex features of Greek, the source language of the New Testament, is a case system affecting the use of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and the article “the.” This case system consists of word endings that supply information that may or not be carried by nouns in other languages. A Greek noun ending may indicate (a) whether the word is singular or plural, (b) whether its gender is masculine, feminine, or neuter, (c) something about the grammatical function of the word within its sentence, and (d) information about semantic categories that may be implicit in the word.
The Greek case system also requires that any article, pronoun, or adjective used along with or referring to a noun must in turn use endings that either convey the same information as that carried by the noun’s case ending, or that at least do not conflict with it. One illustration of this occurs in 2 Peter 3:1, where the word “letter” has an ending that identifies it as singular number, feminine gender, and accusative case. It functions as the object of the verb “write.” In the same noun phrase with “letter” are two other words, “this” and “second,” both of which have endings showing that they too are singular, feminine, and accusative.
There are many other languages that have case endings in nouns, and many that do not. Even among those languages having features similar to those of Greek, their features may not be used for exactly the same functions as in Greek. While Greek structure includes word endings representing five different cases, Spanish and English have only a few vestiges of case endings (most of which involve only pronouns), while the Finnish language is said by some analysts to have thirty-one cases.
Another illustration of the importance of source language word parts is found in Greek verbs whose parts may represent not only their basic “dictionary meaning” but also such things as (a) who is performing the action, (b) whether just one person or more than one is doing it, (c) when it is done, (d) whether it is a single event or a process, (e) whether it is an actual happening, a command, or something wished for, or (f) whether the subject of the verb is an active or a passive participant in the activity.
The translation of a single Greek word may thus often require a phrase or even a sentence or more in another language. For example, the single word “enter” in Mark 6:10 tells us (1) that those who are performing the action are the people Jesus is speaking to, (2) that there are more than one of them, (3) that the action is viewed as a single event, but also (4) that it is viewed as something which is yet to happen. Since all this information is carried in the Greek form of the single word “enter,” all these factors must be taken into consideration in the course of translating the passage in which it is used.
Words
Each language has its own inventory of words, as well as its own characteristic ways of classifying them, and its own rules for the kinds of combinations they form, the functions they perform, and the kinds of meanings they express. As with word parts, there are the same possibilities and problems involved in attempting to match the words used in one language with equivalent words in another.
Greek has a class of “verbal” words called participles that function either as if they were nouns or as if they were adjectives. Yet, because of the basically verblike meanings of their stems, they frequently have to be translated as if they were verbs whose subjects and objects, among other elements, may have to be deduced from the contexts in which they occur. A Greek participle can seldom be adequately translated by a single word in another language.
For example, in 2 Timothy 2:15 a participle “straight-cutting” is masculine accusative singular, referring both to the previous pronoun “yourself” and to the previous noun “worker.” The type of action expressed is “continuing” or “habitual,” and its grammatical object is the “word of truth.” The meaning of the word has to do with cutting a straight path toward a goal, as, for example, cutting a road through the woods. In this reference it can be interpreted with the “word of truth” either functioning as the grammatical goal object or as the means of reaching that goal. Depending upon the interpretation chosen, the phrase will mean either “cutting straight through to the word of truth” or “using the word of truth to cut straight through” to the minds and hearts of the people for whom Timothy is responsible. Again, the single Greek word carries much more information than can be represented by a single English word.
Words in Relation to the “Real World”
No one language ever quite matches any other language in the way its vocabulary relates to objects and events and concepts. For example, some languages classify relatives very carefully depending on whether they are related on the father’s side of the family or on the mother’s. English, while it has the word “cousin,” does not have a single word, as some languages do, to indicate “daughter of mother’s sister,” nor does it distinguish that relationship as distinct from “daughter of father’s sister.”
In some cultures the vocabulary for kinship carefully distinguishes between relatives “born before I was” and those “born after I was.” In some languages it is important to use one term for a man’s mother-in-law and a different term for a woman’s mother-in-law. And in languages where kin terms are also used to signify social roles and ranking of greater versus lesser degrees of respect, the choice of the correct term to represent a “simple” relationship may be a complex matter.
Chapters 1 and 2 of Luke indicate that John the Baptist was born before Jesus. Therefore, in some cultures it is to be expected that Jesus will reflect this fact by the way he speaks to or speaks about John, as in Matthew 3:15. But John clearly states, in 3:11, that Jesus deserves greater status than John. Within some cultures, it may also be assumed that the person who does the baptizing has higher rank than the person being baptized. These considerations may affect the forms chosen in some languages to represent the way John and Jesus spoke to or about each other, as well as the way the followers of John would quote him in speaking to Jesus, as in Matthew 11:3.
If respect is automatically or exclusively accorded to anyone born before another, the choice of terms may have to be different from that made in a cultural situation where civil, religious, economic, or political status can outrank chronological age. Relationships and terminology that governed the choice of terms in Hebrew and Greek, then, may not coincide with those required by the receptor language.
A similar statement can be made about other types of vocabulary categories. For example, in a culture that has only five basic color terms (black, white, red, green, and brown), it may not be easy to find a way to say “purple.” And if the color purple does not represent the concept of royalty, then simply saying that the soldiers put purple robes on Jesus (John 19:2) might not communicate the mockery involved.
When Jesus called Herod a fox (Luke 13:32), we understand that he was describing him as deceitful. That would not be understood in the same way in a culture where the fox is an omen of disaster.
In translating for people to whom “hardness of heart” means “bravery” (i.e., a hard heart being one which fear cannot enter), it is confusing, as well as inaccurate, to state that Jesus scolded his disciples for their “hardness of heart” (Mark 16:14).
The translation principle in focus here is that the vocabulary of a language reflects categories and relationships relevant to the culture of the people who speak it, and these are different with each culture and each language.
Two Simple Words: “of” and “the”
The word “of” is very common in English, and it is used to represent a wide variety of relationships between words. In only the first chapter of the Gospel of Mark, nine different English translations use the word “of” between eighteen and thirty-one times. The word represents such relationships as possession, kinship, location, names of geographical places and features, the material from which something is made, political jurisdictions, the doer of an action, and so on. But there is no word “of” in Greek at all! Greek has other ways of expressing those relationships that are translated by “of” in English.
Spanish has a word for “of” (de), but it is used for some purposes where it would not sound right in English. The Nebaj Ixil language of Guatemala does not have a word “of,” but the ways it expresses the equivalent of English “of” and Spanish de are different from the corresponding devices used in Greek.
Another common English word is “the.” The article in English is much simpler than in Spanish, which has four forms: el, los, la, las. These distinguish between singular and plural as well as between masculine and feminine.
In Ixil the article is similar to English “the” with two exceptions: (1) To specify plural, Ixil can add a suffix to the word for “the.” (2) Ixil uses “the” in a number of constructions for which English does not use it, and vice versa.
In Greek the article “the” is spelled seventeen different ways and performs twenty-four different grammatical functions. Some of the forms are used to distinguish singular from plural, others distinguish between masculine, feminine, or neuter gender, and some show grammatical functions such as subject of sentence, object, possessor, or location.
However, Chuj, a Mayan language spoken in Guatemala, divides all nouns into fourteen different categories such as male, female, baby, wooden, metal, round, animal, and so on. It has a different form of the word “the” for each of these categories! Once a noun has been introduced in speaking or writing, the noun does not have to be mentioned again in the same paragraph: the correct form of “the” serves as a pronoun in referring to it again.
Thus, even such simple words as “the” and “of” differ remarkably from one language to another in the complex interplay between grammar and meaning. Nothing about the source documents can be taken for granted in the translation process, and the normal structures of the receptor languages must be employed with care to insure accurate, appropriate, and natural translation.
The problem for the translator is to find, in the receptor language, those forms that will appropriately represent the structures of the source language—first as to meaning, style, and naturalness, then as much as possible as to form.
Larger Grammatical Units
We realize that neither the sounds nor the words of one language can be translated into another language on a one-to-one basis. But we may be tempted to assume that the order of words in phrases, sentences, or paragraphs can be transferred into the receptor language in order to “retain the form of the original” or to “stay as close to the original as possible.”
We are aware that there are times when this is not possible, but we often treat such times as if they were only occasional exceptions to a goal that was usually desirable or attainable. In reality, it is rare to find two unrelated languages whose larger grammatical structures can routinely be equated with each other.
Naturally, the more closely related two languages are, the more nearly alike their grammars will be. But even closely related languages may exhibit surprising differences in the structure or meaning of the “same” language features.
The examples below represent the general facts of life with which the translator is constantly at work, rather than just the rare exceptions. Therefore, the problems of equivalence and the principles to be followed in solving them apply with equal force to each level of language structure.
Phrases
One result of the Greek noun case system noted above is the relative flexibility of word order allowed by Greek on the phrase level. The noun phrase in 2 Peter 3:1 “this second letter” (mentioned above) actually occurs as the first, fourth and seventh words in that Greek sentence. This word order (“This now beloved second to-you I-write letter”) is perfectly natural and easily understood in Greek. English requires changing the word order to something like, “Beloved, I now write this second letter to you.”
In terms of linguistic family relationships, Greek and English and Spanish are distant cousins. Where English usually puts an adjective before a noun, Spanish usually puts the noun first with the adjective following.
In Nebaj Ixil, a Mayan language of Guatemala which is not related to English, Spanish, or Greek, there are many hundreds of adjectives, but most of them are not allowed to occur in a noun phrase at all! They are usually used in separate clauses, so that where English can use a phrase to say “the tall cedars,” and use a sentence such as “I cut down the tall cedars of Lebanon” (Isa. 37:24), Ixil would require a series of separate clauses such as “Lebanon has cedars; they are tall; I cut them down.”
Clauses
Each of the following clauses communicates the age of Noah (Gen. 5:32), yet each uses a different clause structure and each reflects a somewhat different cultural attitude toward age:
In English the years are one of Noah’s characteristics, in Spanish they are his possession, in Hebrew Noah is their product, and the Ixil expression simply states their existence.
In an English transitive clause the most usual phrase pattern in the clause is Subject-Verb-Object, but for Spanish and Ixil the expected order is Verb-Subject-Object. For Greek the case system allows much variation in word and phrase order.
Many other examples could be listed to illustrate that even at the clause level it may be futile and misleading to try to duplicate in one language the patterns of another.
Sentences
Ephesians 1:3-14 is often cited as an example of the long sentences that Greek sentence structure allows. This sentence is one main independent clause (which does not contain a verb) linked to a series of dependent clauses by a normal series of appositional phrases, participial phrases, prepositional phrases, relative pronouns, and adverbial conjunctions—all of which combine to urge ascribing praise to God and mention some of the reasons why it is appropriate to do so!
The first verse of Matthew consists entirely of eight nouns in Greek. The first word is in the nominative case, indicating that it is the principal word of the sentence. The other seven words are all in the genitive case. The second verse clearly begins a new sentence. In structure, verse one has a kind of stair-step arrangement of relationships:
Book
ancestry
Jesus = Christ
son
David
son
Abraham
Because this verse does not contain a verb, some commentators conclude that it must be a kind of title, even though it is not adequate as a title for the entire book and the ancestry occupies only the first seventeen verses of chapter one. In fact, verse one is a perfectly good Greek sentence just as it stands. Most other languages will require the addition of other words to express the relationships already signaled by the Greek nouns.
At the sentence level also, the translator desires not so much to duplicate the structure as to communicate the content of the original by linguistic devices which are natural to the receptor language.
Paragraphs and Other Structuring Devices
A paragraph may be composed of only one long sentence as Ephesians 1:3-14, of a single short sentence, or even of a phrase or word. More common is a paragraph in which a series of sentences develop a short episode, theme, or relationship.
Greek is a language that uses many conjunctions. Mark begins many paragraphs with the conjunction “and,” at times when such usage would not be natural to English. Two of the most commonly used sentence-joining conjunctions in the New Testament cannot occur as the first word in a Greek sentence. Here again, other languages often do not use conjunctions in the way that Greek does.
Paragraph structure varies, even within the same language, with different types of content. The introductory paragraphs to both Luke and Acts are different from those of Paul’s letters. John begins his Gospel and first letter in a way distinct from Matthew and Mark or the letters of Peter.
Paul’s prayers, as in Ephesians 1:17-21 and 3:16-19, and praise or benediction, as in Ephesians 3:20-21 or Romans 16:25-27, are extremely concise. They could rarely be adequately expressed as tersely in other languages, or by the same linguistic devices as those employed in Greek.
Reporting conversation differs from language to language. Some languages customarily use indirect quotations, as in Mark 6:8, “And He instructed them that they should take nothing . . .” and only rarely use direct quotations, as in Mark 6:9, “And do not put on two tunics” (NASB).
In some other languages the usual pattern is to use direct quotation almost exclusively. In some languages, either the choice is a matter of personal preference or it is determined by the type of conversation being reported or by the nature of the audience. If the speaker knows his listeners have not heard the story before, for example, he may insert signals which help keep the cast of characters straight. Such signals might not be thought necessary for hearers already familiar with the story.
Interestingly, some quotations in the Gospels such as “He cried out, saying . . .” are not typical of Greek at all. They reflect common usage among Hebrew speakers who have retained in Greek some patterns of their own language.
Romans 12:1 is a good example of the use of Greek “therefore” to draw a forceful conclusion from reasons which have already been stated. Romans 1:16-20 contains a series of statements introduced by six occurrences of “for” in which each supports the statement which has just preceded it.
In my personal experience, I had once worked long and hard to unravel one of the passages where Paul developed a theme on the basis of logical reasoning and deduction. But the response of the Christian leaders, when they heard my translation, was devastating: “What is he talking about?” I then began the paragraph by having Paul say: “Now I want to talk to you about . . . ,” and I filled in the subject which was the theme of the passage. With the addition of this one feature of expected receptor language structure, the paragraph communicated beautifully.
Thus, on the paragraph level as well as at every other level, the translator must employ the normally expected forms of the receptor language if they are to reflect the content and development of the source document in a natural, accurate, and adequate way.
Discourse Structure
At the discourse level the translator attempts to “get inside” the heart and mind of the author in order to understand (1) what he intends to say and (2) how he develops the presentation of the way he says it. The author has already used those discourse devices of the source that will accomplish his purpose; now the translator must choose appropriate devices in the receptor language to express the corresponding attitudes and relationships.
Discourse types include narrative, argument, instruction, emotional appeal, and persuasion, among others. It is of vital importance to the translator to understand how each discourse type works in the source language as well as in the receptor language. A few examples will make clear the crucial nature of many small details.
A friend of ours was aware that, in the language in which he was translating, there were more than a dozen ways of reporting “he said,” either in introducing or in closing a quotation. When speakers of the language were questioned about the meanings of the various forms, the response was, “They’re all the same; they all mean ‘he said.’ “ Analysis of discourse structures, however, revealed that each of the various options performed a specific function in the development of the story and in the roles played by the characters in relation to each other. For example, one type of closing quotation formula implied that the speaker will not appear further in the story. When that formula was mistakenly used for Jesus’ closing words in Mark 5, and then Jesus was quoted again in Mark 6, the obvious implication was that a different person named Jesus was being introduced in Mark 6.
In another language, there were four different ways of saying “and” in tying sentences and paragraphs together. Analysis eventually showed that one word for “and” was used only to indicate that “we are continuing with the same characters in the same relationship to each other and the author’s point of view has not shifted yet.” Another “and” meant “This person is now in focus, and not that person—but the main character remains unchanged.” Still another “and” signaled “Now we are going back to pick up the main thread of the story.”
In some languages, this type of control is handled by the choice of pronouns rather than by conjunctions. In one language, for example, one word meaning “he” refers only to the main character while other words for “he” show how the other characters relate to him. Or the manipulation of active versus passive verbs may serve to keep the main character as the grammatical subject of all the main verbs, even when he is not the one performing the action.
Verb tense may show the author’s attitude. In one language, a story is told in the past tense until the climax, which shifts to present tense. Or, a shift of tense may signal “This is the moral of my story.”
The Nebaj Ixil language has a series of one-syllable particles that indicate the author’s attitude or the response he wishes from his reader or hearer. One such particle indicates sympathy with an action or character, while another particle signals disdain. One adds emphasis, another limits the scope of the action, and yet another casts doubt upon a statement another person has made.
If the author’s intention is to report information, it will govern his choice of the small, seemingly meaningless bits and syllables. If he wants to persuade, or to deceive, his choices will be governed by that.
Since the devices available and the functions they serve are different in every language, there is no substitute for understanding the devices the receptor language has available and using them in ways that are natural to the receptor language for the type of content being translated.
These considerations are crucial for the translation of every passage of Scripture. Mastery of both the source and receptor languages, as well as of the content of what is being translated, is vital if the reader is to understand clearly the author’s message.
Grammar and Meaning
Words in grammatical arrangements communicate meaning. Certain combinations of words can communicate special or restricted meanings that are different from the meaning that might be arrived at by merely adding up the meanings of the individual words. To say “He really bit my head off,” for example, indicates a severe scolding, not decapitation.
The significance of a passage often involves considerations that are not literally present in the text at all. In 2 Peter 3:1 following the noun phrase “This second letter” (“letter” here is feminine singular) are the words “in which.” “Which” obviously refers to “letter”—but “which” is plural! So the following statement in the verse refers both to “This second letter” and also to the first one. The plural form of “which” is the only clue to that fact in the passage.
In Matthew 21:28-32 Jesus tells a story of a man who told his sons to work in a vineyard. One son replied, “I, sir!” but did not go. His answer has universally been treated as affirmative even though he only said “I” (not “aye”) in addition to “sir.”
Mark 6:39 says that Jesus told the apostles to have the crowd sit in party-groups “on the green grass.” “Grass” is a generalization that conveyed information as specific as Mark needed. It was not necessary to specify the number or condition of the blades of grass. Yet languages differ from each other in the types of generalizations they normally employ.
Figures of Speech
Each language differs from every other language in the way it groups things together, specifies certain ones out of a group, describes, compares, suggests, and generalizes. Many of these categories of thought are expressed by figures of speech. Biblical examples of several types follow.
Simile: a comparison, such as “I can see people, but they look like trees, walking” (Mark 8:24, NRSV).
Metaphor: a direct comparison of characteristics, as when Jesus called his disciples “little flock” in Luke 12:32.
Metonymy: to rename something, as Jesus did when he referred to Herod as “that fox” in Luke 13:32.
Synecdoche: this is the mention of only a part of something, when the whole is actually meant, as in Acts 11:30 when famine relief was sent by the “hand” of Barnabas and Saul. It can also refer to the whole when only a part is meant, as in John 1:19 where “the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites.” “Jews” here did not refer to the entire nation but only its leaders.
Euphemism: speaking about a delicate, unpleasant, or forbidden subject in a way that sounds better or is more socially acceptable. A Hebrew custom of referring to sexual intercourse under the guise of “knowing” a person (Gen. 4:1, KJV) is reflected also in Matthew 1:25. Death is referred to as being “asleep” (1 Thess. 4:13).
The Bible is rich in figures of speech. Some are composed very deliberately, while some had already become part of everyday speech. Either way, the translator must know not only what is said but also what is meant.
Figures of speech in other languages may contain the same elements but use those elements to communicate different meanings. Likewise, expressions that sound quite different may communicate the same meaning. The most natural way for Ixil people to express “My anger will be aroused” (Exod. 22:24) is to say “My head will come.” Instead of “Phinehas . . . has turned my anger away” (Num. 25:11), they would say “My head has lowered because of Phinehas.”
It is a happy exception to the rule when “the same” figure of speech can be used in the receptor language as was used in the source language. More often the result of “borrowing” a figure produces a different meaning or no meaning at all.
When the same figure cannot be used, (1) a different figure may be found to communicate both the content and the effect of the figure in the source language, or (2) the significance of the figure may be translated literally into the receptor language with no attempt to retain the figure itself. If Peter were speaking in some languages, he would not be able to urge people to “gird up the loins of your mind” (1 Pet. 1:13, KJV). He might have to say, “Be mentally alert and prepared to respond to the Lord’s direction.”
Artistic Use of Language
Literary forms that are carefully designed to bring about artistic effects may employ sounds as in rhyming and alliteration, or timing as in cadence and meter, or meaning as in using different grammatical forms of the same word in a passage, or combinations of these or other features.
Art forms that are valued, or even possible, within a given culture vary greatly from one language to another. Language features at every level may be involved. Word-parts such as noun and verb endings affect rhyming, for example. The number of syllables in a word affects meter and cadence, and some languages tend to have longer words than others. Inversion of normal grammatical order in poetry may not be allowed in some receptor languages.
Greek and Hebrew occasionally indulge in punning, but it is usually impossible to transfer the same puns into other languages.
Parallelism is a common form of Hebrew poetry. A statement is made, then followed by another that amplifies it or points out its opposite. This requires a highly developed synonymy and a degree of balance in meter. This is one artistic form that is natural to the Ixil language, for example; it is often used in prayers.
The art forms in Scripture are used to communicate style as well as the message and are not just “art for the sake of art.” The Bible translator determines the meaning first, but he is not free from the impact of artistic use of form, and he attempts to reproduce it where possible. But it is usually not possible, for example, in the case of an acrostic, such as Psalm 119. This Psalm has twenty-two sections, and each section has eight lines. Each line of the first section begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, aleph. Each line of the second section begins with the second letter, beth, and so on through the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The total effect of this Hebrew acrostic is bound to be missed in any other language.
Due to the virtual impossibility of duplicating in another language these art forms that are dependent upon a combination of factors such as meaning, rhyming, meter, or homonymy, every translation of passages that employs the artistic use of language features represents some degree of compromise. But the translation should still reflect some attempt by the translator to convey some representation of the artistic devices used by the author.
BIBLE TRANSLATION IN PARTICULAR
Historical, Geographical, and Cultural Settings
Isaac, Shechem, circumcision, phylacteries, fishing nets, sheep, sand, north—these are only a few of the terms or concepts that are not familiar to one or another group of people today.
Eskimos may not know of sand and sheep. Landlocked mountain people may be unfamiliar with fishing. Many cultures are not aware of Jewish religious terms and historical figures. “Where the sun rises” may be the only term for “east” in some areas of the world.
Sometimes the missing vocabulary can be replaced by a descriptive phrase. But to translate “sheep,” for example, as “a four-footed animal whose hair is used in making cloth” both ignores the role of the sheep in the Jewish sacrificial system and creates awkward problems for the natural flow of the translation.
The role of sheep in Jewish sacrifices might be captured by “a four-footed animal used by the Jews as a sin offering,” but this is not particularly pertinent in Psalm 23, where the emphasis is on caring for rather than sacrificing the sheep. Where some such problems may not be resolved in the translation itself, there may be no alternative to using supplementary materials such as footnotes or a dictionary. Or it may be necessary to rely entirely on teaching.
Other possible solutions, each with its own restrictions, include: (1) borrowing a term from a neighboring language, (2) using a local word for a similar item or function, (3) using a phrase to describe the concept, or (4) transliterating a source-language word in the same way, for example, that “phylacteries” and “baptism” and “mystery” have been carried over into English.
Money
The terms shekel, drachma, or farthing do not give us, today, a clear idea of their buying power in ancient times. Dollars and cents differ from the British pounds, shillings, and pence. And all monetary units are constantly changing in relative value.
In some Scripture passages the time involved in earning the money can make the terms meaningful. For example, a denarius in one of Jesus’ parables (Matt. 20:2) represents a day’s wage for a laborer. In the incident of the feeding of the five thousand, Philip’s statement (John 6:7) becomes significant: “Eight months’ wages would not buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!” (NIV).
A talent was worth perhaps fifteen years’ wages. In Matthew 18:24, the same man who asked to be excused from a debt of ten thousand talents (the tragi-comically unimaginable sum of the wages that might be earned in over 164,000 years—“be patient with me and I will pay back everything!”) refused to forgive the man who owed him the value of one hundred denarii—the wages of approximately three months.
In any passage dealing with money, the translator must communicate not only the relative value of the amounts but also a feeling for what those amounts meant to the people described in the Bible.
Problem Passages
Some words or combinations of words have formerly been unknown outside the Scriptures, so that even translators themselves had no clue to their meanings. There are fewer such words now, mainly because archeological evidence has filled in so many gaps. When the meaning of a passage is not known, usually an educated guess is made in the translation, and a marginal note indicates the nature of the problem.
Sometimes the meaning of each of the words is known, and the grammar may be clear, but the specific sequence of words does not make sense to us. One such passage is Mark 9:49, “Everyone will be salted with fire.”
In a different category are phrases that mean nothing to us in our culture but were clear to readers long ago. Modern readers stumble at the combination of images in 1 Peter 1:13 (KJV), which has been translated into English as a command: “Gird up the loins of your mind!” Yet this was easily understood in its original setting: men engaged in active work had to take off their long flowing robes or tie them up around their waists so they could work unimpeded by them. Adding the words “of your mind” to “gird up your loins” indicates that a mental attitude is in focus. The thought might be translated, “Be mentally ready for the work facing you!”
Affirmation of Truth
For some cultures, translation of Paul’s series of statements in Romans 9:1, “I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit,” will convince readers that Paul is lying, since only a person who is lying would use such a series of claims to be telling the truth. Faithfully preserving the source-language form of these statements would thus communicate a meaning just the opposite of what Paul intends.
One solution might be a simple affirmation: “I am telling the truth.” The following statements are then more likely to be accepted as true. What Paul meant would be translated, but the way he said it would not. Another possible solution is to retain the form of the original with a footnote or marginal reference explaining Paul’s intent. Still another suggestion is to trust the Holy Spirit to interpret the truth to the reader. The Holy Spirit is able to do this, and sometimes does. But the many differences of opinion on matters both small and great among Christians indicate that he does not always do so.
To translate in such a way that the readers are quite likely to misunderstand the message is to translate in an irresponsible way. This principle applies to all translation problems and potential solutions—not only to Romans 9:1.
Translation and Interpretation
“One should merely translate, and not interpret.” Statements such as this are still heard from time to time. The work of the translator would be easier if that were possible. But the differences in languages are such that a one-to-one string of word equivalences does not constitute a translation.
There is a quite restricted sense, however, in which it is necessary to “translate without interpreting.” The book of Revelation, some say, is the easiest book to translate but the hardest to interpret. The language and style of Revelation is relatively simple. For example, it may be quite easy to say in the receptor language, “I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads” (13:1). But if the translator attempts to include the significance of the beast, the horns, and the heads, then he is interpreting beyond the intentions of the author. Even so, in some cultures, “horns” are associated only with evil, so that in a passage such as Revelation 5:6 where a “good” character is represented as having “horns,” an apparent clash of values results from a literal translation. Careful teaching may be the only answer to such a problem in such a cultural setting.
In some of the parables, also, what is stated is easily grasped, but how the extended figure is to be understood in its context is a matter of interpretation, not specifically of translation.
Decisions about interpretation and application will hinge on the translator’s conception of the extent to which the symbolism is intended to reveal or to conceal the purpose and meaning of the author.
Translation and Paraphrase
“Paraphrase” has been both misused and greatly criticized in recent times. Dictionaries define “paraphrase” as a rewording for the purpose of clarification. A paraphrase, then, is assumed to be in the same language as the source it is restating, and to reflect the same content, if not the same form, as that original source.
Two translations made from the same source may differ, but the results are not paraphrases of each other. Rather they are simply separate, and possibly divergent, translations from the same source.
From the considerations presented earlier in this article, it is easy to understand how translations may differ in legitimate ways. They can be equally valid expressions of what the translators understood about the author’s intentions.
A paraphrase, however, is properly so called only when it expresses, in different words, the content of something already in the language. If the meaning of the paraphrase is not the same as the meaning of the document being paraphrased, then it is not a paraphrase at all!
It is thus erroneous to apply the word “paraphrase” to a translation for the purpose of implying that it has changed the meaning of the original.
Another problem with such misuse of the word “paraphrase” is that it encourages the question: “How does translation A compare or contrast with translation B?” The proper question is rather: “How successfully does either translation A or translation B express the content and the intent of the source document in the receptor language?” This is the vital concern, not how one translation differs from another.
Dialect Differences
Americans are generally aware that people in Brooklyn, Boston, and Birmingham (Alabama) do not speak English in precisely the same way. They may also be aware that the same is true of English speakers in New York, London, and Brisbane.
Opinions differ as to whether separate translations are needed for Boston and Birmingham, but most informed people will agree that the differences between New York and London are sufficient reason for separate versions.
In many areas of the world, the dialect problem is much more severe than these examples of national or international difference might suggest.
Seventy thousand speakers of the three Ixil languages (those of Nebaj, Chajul and Cotzal) in Guatemala constitute a linguistic “island” surrounded by eight other language areas. Nebaj Ixil itself has three major dialect areas. The word in Nebaj that means “younger brother” means “woman’s child” in Cotzal, just twelve miles away.
A river gorge or a mountain range often constitutes a language boundary or a dialect boundary. In one case, for example, “He did not go” on one side of a mountain river means “Did he go?” on the other side of the river.
A dialect boundary in the Aguacatec language of Guatemala runs through the middle of a small town, with people on each side of the line affirming that the people on the other side do not speak the language correctly.
Apart from such geographical differences of dialect, there are also social or cultural dialect differences. In time such differences come to be identified (sometimes incorrectly) as superior versus inferior, or as educated versus ignorant, or as formal versus informal, or as polite versus impolite, or as cultured versus uncultured, or as standard versus regional.
In one country, for example, the Scriptures had always been published in a specialized literary dialect. Scholars refused to produce a translation in the language of the common people on the grounds that “it could then be understood by just anyone,” and would thus no longer be the exclusive province of the literary class.
In some countries a “Christian” dialect has grown up around nonstandard use of a language by a foreigner (at times a missionary). The result is that only those who have been in contact with the foreigner over a long period of time can understand his special vocabulary.
For a community or language area to which Christianity has only recently been introduced, it may be necessary to be more explicit in some aspects of the translation for new Christians than for people who have had knowledge of Bible history and Bible characters in their culture for a long period of time.
Translation and Revision
Languages are constantly undergoing a process of change. Ideally, every translation should be revised each time any word or structure has changed to the extent that it no longer accurately or adequately reflects the intent or content of the source document. Practically, however, due to the expense involved in editing, setting type, printing, and distribution, it is not common to make changes in a translation until a large number of changes can be made at one time. Emotionally, some people react to any such changes as if they constituted “tampering with God’s Word” rather than representing a prayerful and careful concern that the reader benefit from the most accurate and appropriate expression of God’s Word possible.
God’s Word does not change, but languages and word meanings do. The only way God’s Word can continue to communicate as it should is to update the translation periodically.
In a very real sense the wording of the Scriptures not only stimulates Christian experience but is the product of it. As “babes in Christ” grow to maturity and as a foreign translator grows in mastery of and creativity in the receptor language, it is quite true that the Christians, the translator, and the translation “grow up” together. After a period of some twenty years, better ways of expressing the content of Scripture should be available.
Translation and Gender
In dealing with matters of gender, the perspective of the Bible translator might be quite different from that of others, such as some commentators or critics who might approach this translation issue from the standpoint of a specific social, political, or religious agenda. The translator is concerned, first and foremost, with the meaning of the source document and with how to express that meaning accurately, appropriately, and naturally in the receptor language. In short, the translator treats gender just as he or she treats any other language feature.
Features of language structure that mark gender are usually pronouns, articles, and suffixes. No two languages have the same inventory of such features, nor do any two languages employ those features in just the same ways. In any given language, the pronouns might or might not signal gender. If the language’s pronouns do not signal gender, the translator is dependent upon the context in each instance to understand any gender information that might be present. Then the translator must choose which forms to use in the receptor language—if indeed the forms of the receptor language require specification of gender. In the same way, articles and suffixes might or might not signal gender. In those languages where the gender signals of articles or adjectives must match any gender signals of the nouns they refer to, the translator must exercise care to reduce potential confusion for the reader as much as possible by choosing gender signals appropriate to the receptor language.
In many languages, signals of both gender and number may be indicated by the same word or words. Depending on the structure of the specific language, its gender indications might be singular or plural masculine, singular or plural feminine, or singular or plural neuter (and in some languages, the number category can be singular, dual, and three-or-more). Or words might not indicate number or gender at all (for example, the article the in English). Fortunately, in most contexts, there is little doubt as to the gender and number intended. Unfortunately, in some instances it is difficult to know the intention of the author—and Bible scholars don’t always agree on which instances are the “difficult” ones.
What we have been talking about up to this point is “grammatical gender.” That is, concepts of masculine and feminine are part of the language without indicating that something is actually male or female. For example, in Spanish, “the hand” is grammatically feminine (“la mano”) regardless of whose hand it is. Translating such words is usually quite straightforward. Translation gets more complex, however, when words with grammatical gender refer to people, who are actually either male or female. In some languages, words that are gender-specific are commonly used in an author’s culture to be either gender-specific or gender-inclusive (referring to both males and females). Such gender inclusiveness is a feature of several languages including Hebrew, Greek, and Spanish (for example, Spanish niños can mean either “boys” or “children”). Until recent decades, this was generally true of English as well. How do hearers or readers of these languages understand what the speaker or author means? Where multiple grammatical options exist, readers must decide, using their own judgment and any clues available in the context.
In traditional English, words such as man and men—depending on the context—were commonly understood to refer to people in general, not just males. Modern English style, however, demands avoidance of male-dominated language. Thus, translators to English should do their best to translate Greek nouns and pronouns that are truly gender inclusive with gender-inclusive English nouns and pronouns. For example, anthropos often means “human,” not “man” (i.e., male). A phrase such as “unless a man is born again” (in the traditional English of the KJV) should be rendered as “unless a person is born again.” However, this does not pertain to “God,” who is consistently represented by a masculine pronoun throughout the Bible.
The language feature of gender-inclusiveness presents some interesting challenges for the Bible translator. Some passages of Scripture use nouns to name some groups of people while not mentioning others—or at least seeming to leave them unmentioned. For example, in Psalm 148:12, the author exhorts “young men and maidens, old men and children” to praise the Lord. This list does not mention old women. Does this mean that the author is intentionally excluding them? Because gender-inclusiveness is a well-established feature of Hebrew, the translator could safely assume that the author’s intended meaning was “young men and maidens, old people and children,” and translate the Hebrew to English accordingly.
In some passages, the translation of words that express gender might hinge on information in the context and on other interpretive principles. For example, in Mark 6:44 the number of people who were fed is specified as five thousand males (masculine plural). In normal Greek usage, this word could specify either males (“men”) or both males and females (“people”). Which translation is correct? The context of Mark 6 does not give the translator sufficient information to decide, but the translator could safely assume from other similar Greek usages that the correct choice is “people.” In another document written by another author, Matthew 14:21 says the number who ate were “about five thousand males, without women and children.” This additional phrase lets us know that either (1) no women or children were present, or (2) women and children were present, but they were not counted among the five thousand. Either way, in Matthew 14:21 the translator can determine that the number five thousand refers to “men” and does not include women and children. Using additional interpretive principles (related to the harmony of Scripture), the translator might then also use “men” in Mark 6:44.
At times, a noun would seem specific enough, but the context gives rise to a question of gender. In John 20:17, Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, “Go instead to my brothers and tell them.” In verse 18, Mary “went to the disciples with the news.” Did Mary comply with Jesus’ directive? The phrase my brothers in verse 17 is masculine plural. If taken literally, this would refer only to the male siblings of Jesus. If we decide from the context that such a limited reference is not acceptable, then do we extend that reference only to a wider group of males? Or is it equally legitimate to take the masculine plural here (as in some other references in the Greek text) to signal both males and females?
The same situation presents itself in Acts 4:4, which literally reads, “the number of males grew.” The Greek word for “male” here is in some contexts also translated “husband;” it is not the more general term for “men” or “people.” Again, were there only males who believed and were counted in “the number,” as a literal translation would suggest? Or is it equally legitimate to understand this to refer to the growing number of all believers, both males and females?
Ephesians 6:1-4 is interesting from the standpoint of gender. Verse 1 says, “Children, obey your genitors in the Lord.” We assume that the reference is to both parents. In verse 2, both “father” and “mother” are specified. In verse 4, then, are we to assume that when reference is made to “the fathers,” only male parents are in the context? If so, one possible implication could be that fathers particularly need to avoid vexing their children. Another possible implication is that it is permissible for mothers to vex their children. Or is it equally legitimate to understand the author to be saying that parents, both fathers and mothers, should not vex their children?
In Philippians 4:21, the believers in Philippi were urged to greet “every saint,” and Paul says that “the brothers with me greet you.” If we take this literally, then only the male believers sent greetings. Yet verse 22 indicates that “all the saints [masculine plural] greet you,” which again if taken literally would convey greetings only from the male believers. Does this imply that female believers did not send greetings, whether or not they were associated with “Caesar’s household?” Or is it equally legitimate to understand Paul to be conveying greetings from both male and female believers?
The scope of this section does not permit an exhaustive listing of the passages where gender is a factor to be dealt with in translation, nor is there space to indicate which are the “problem” passages, even if there were general agreement as to which passages those are. But enough has been mentioned to suggest that, even without the intrusion of other agendas, the translation of gender is not a simple matter.
Translation and Inspiration
Is a Bible translation the inspired Word of God? Yes—to the extent that the translation relays to the reader what God directed the authors to write. No—to the extent that it misses the meaning of what God originally communicated.
Missing the meaning can happen in different ways: one can add to the original or omit something from it; he can translate so that no meaning (i.e., confusion) or the wrong meaning is transmitted. All efforts at translation are in danger of committing errors of each type.
Experience teaches us that even a partially defective translation can still transmit a great deal of the content of what God expressed through the original writings of Scripture. (If that were not so, then readers of an English-language Bible would be in serious trouble indeed!) It also teaches us that neither the translator nor his readers are thereby free from the effects of those elements that were not correctly or adequately transmitted.
Does God through the Holy Spirit help the translator today? The answer is, emphatically, yes! Does this guarantee that the work of the translator will be free from any error or misinformation? Experience says no. Perhaps some translators could be said to be more “inspired” than others to the extent that they are more able to appropriate the guiding impulses of the Holy Spirit. I prefer to say that some translations reflect God’s message more accurately and more adequately than do others. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that any version that is not the original Hebrew or Greek is a translation prepared by one or more human beings!
“Some say that translation is a science; some say it is an art; others say it is impossible.” Each of these statements is partly true.
If we neglect science, we do not know what content and style the source documents intended to express, nor do we know what forms in the receptor language can appropriately be used to express that same content and intent.
If we neglect art, we fail to have insight into the attitudes of the authors and are unable to blend into the translation both the content and the “feel” of a passage in an appropriate way. We might have the “words” and still miss the “music.”
Neither art nor science can substitute for the other, but they make excellent—and crucial—companions!
Translation is impossible—if we mean that even an appreciable proportion of the same sound, grammar, and meaning combinations in any given source language can be duplicated acceptably in any given receptor language.
Translation is quite possible, on the other hand, if we mean by translation that we represent the content of the source document in such a way that the full effect and intent of the author is made available to the reader. This requires that the translator bring to bear upon his task all the resources of both art and science that he can command, trusting the Holy Spirit of God to direct the way they are used.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekman, John, and John Callow. Translating the Word of God, 1974.
De Ward, Jan, and Eugene Nida. From One Language to Another, 1986.
Nida, Eugene. Toward a Science of Translation, 1964.
Nida, Eugene, and Charles Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation, 1974.
Schwarz, W. Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation, 1955.