Different Ways of Translating the Bible
some thoughts on Bible translations
I’ll be publishing a series of short essays that I put together for a friend as he is studying for his comprehensive exam for his Master’s. They include one on the Septuagint, an article on the preface to the KJV, an examination of different translation philosophies, and a short history of the English Bible before the KJV. Just a heads up: writing style will be a little different because of the nature of the work. I hope you Enjoy!
One would think that translation would be a fairly easy process, but “the process of translating is more complicated than it appears.”1 It is more than defining words and stringing together all of the individual word meanings. This process assumes that the source language and the receptor language are exactly alike. It also assumes similarities in culture and worldview that, in all actuality, may not translate so easily.
D. A. Carson offered a few observations concerning the differences between languages and the difficulty of translation. These are preserved in Duvall’s work previously cited: (1) no two words are alike, (2) the vocabulary of any two languages will vary in size, (3) there are preset structural differences between any two languages (syntax), and (4) languages have different stylistic preferences. This means that word order, word selection, and patterns in poetry do not translate as neatly as one might think.
So, how does a scholar take a passage of scripture and translate it faithfully while keeping it readable and conveying the intended meaning of the text? Some might assume that literal automatically means accurate, but a simple perusal of an interlinear Bible will show that a one to one translation is hardly readable. In fact, when trying to preserve form while also maintaining meaning, not sacrificing the latter for the former, translators have to sometimes choose between two equally good, but different ways of saying something.
Thus, there are two major approaches towards translation: (1) the “formal” approach (also called “literal” or “word-for-word”) and (2) the “functional” approach (also called “idiomatic” or “thought-for-thought”). These two labels, however, represent more of a spectrum because no single translation is entirely formal or entirely functional due to the differences in source and receptor languages. The more formal approach tries to stay as close as possible to the structure and words of the source language while the more functional approach tries to express the meaning of the original text in today’s language. Another alternative to these two main forms of translation is paraphrase, but a paraphrase is not technically a translation. Rather than translating the original texts, paraphrasing of scripture present a commentary of the text. These are helpful in study, but they probably shouldn’t function as a primary Bible.
Use this chart to see where your translation falls! I like to use one from each zone in my study. Lately I’ve been using the NRSVue, but I like to consult the NASB95 and a few others!
Duvall, J. Scott. Grasping God’s Word. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic (2012). p. 33. Note: all paragraphs in this article contain excerpts, quotations, or paraphrases of his work.