4
Chapter Two—The Basic Tool: A Good Translation
1. Most of us will not be able to read the Bible in its original languages of Hebrew (with some Aramaic)
and Greek. The basic tool, then, for each of us to read and study the Bible is a good English
translation, or actually several good English translations.
2. The authors illustrate the challenges of reading the Bible with 1 Corintians 7:36, which is ambiguous
is some translations—which was not Paul’s intent! What should we do?
1.) Use mainly one very good translation for your daily reading. Their choice is the NIV.
2.) Use several well-chosen translations for the study of the Bible. Use translations that you know in
advance will tend to differ in their reading—which will help highlight the exegetical challenges.
3.) Then, you can consult your commentary to help resolve these challenges.
3. The Science of Translation—to procure a really good translation you need to make an intelligent
choice based on knowing something about the science of translation, and about some of the various
English translations. Two kinds of choices are involved here: textual (the actual wording of the
original text) and linguistic (the theory of translation).
1.) The Question of Text. Translators must be certain the Hebrew or Greek text they’re using is as
close to the original wording as possible. The basic concerns are:
(1.) We have no “original” handwritten texts for any biblical work.
(2.) What we do have are thousands of copies produced by hand (“manuscripts”) and copied
repeatedly over 1,400 years (NT) and longer (OT).
(3.) The vast majority of manuscripts are very much alike, but for the NT the later manuscripts
do differ significantly from the earliest copies and translations. They were copied by hand
and no two of them are exactly alike in every detail. Therefore, the translators must sift
through the various texts and account for the variants in these manuscripts—which represents
the original and which are mistakes.
(4.) Translators employ textual criticism, the science of searching to discover the original texts
of ancient documents. Be aware of these factors:
a. Textual criticism is a science that works with careful controls (p. 36). Translators examine
a.) external evidence such as the quality and age of manuscripts that support a given
variant. For the OT the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (LXX) are usual choices.
For the NT manuscripts are designated by geographical background, where translating
was located (Egypt, sectors of the Roman Empire).
b.) internal evidence concerns copyists and authors—a choice between variants usually
yields up evidence of mistakes because of scribal tendencies that can be analyzed and
are well known. Usually the variant that best explains how all others came about is
presumed to be the original.
c.) By studying the vast majority of variants among manuscripts, the best external evidence
combined with the beset internal evidence gives us an extraordinarily high degree of
certainty about the original text (p. 37). [We will discuss some examples]
b. Although textual criticism is a science, it is not an exact science, because it deals with too
many human variables (p. 38-39). At times the best manuscript evidence conflicts with the
best explanation of how the error came about, or the evidence is evenly divided and either
variant can explain how the other came to be. Choices can often be seen as margin or
5
foot notes that offer a different possible wording or an explanation.
c. Note that the authors recommend (p. 40) that you use modern translations instead of the
KJV or NKJV. These are based on later, less reliable manuscripts with minor differences.
2.) The Questions of Language. Translators face the challenge of transferring words and ideas from
one language in another historical and cultural time to another.
(1.) Challenge of language and time: the challenge of translating a document from an original
language (here Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) into a receptor language (for us, English) through
a historical distance—not just years, but also words, grammar, idioms, as well as matters of
culture and history.
(2.) Challenge of “theory of translation”: translators follow either a
a. Formal equivalence—very literal, as close to the original as possible, historical distance at a
maximum at all points.
b. Functional equivalence—keep the meaning of Hebrew or Greek words, but put into what
would be the normal way of saying the same thing in today’s English. A “dynamic
equivalence that keeps historical distance on all historical and factual matters, but updates
matters of language, grammar, and style.
c. Free translation—ideas are translated with less concern for the exact words of the original;
also called a paraphrase. Attempts to eliminate historical distance while staying faithful to
the original text.
(3.) The authors lean toward functional equivalence, with a second source more of a formal
equivalence. They recommend the NIV/TNIV as your primary translation to read.
3.) Some Problem Areas.
(1.) Weights, measures, and money. Hebrew and Greek terms, or modern equivalents / English
units or metric? Here we must understand ephahs, homers, shekels, talents, cubits, etc. in
terms that communicate today.
(2.) Euphemisms. All languages have them, so choose between leaving as they are, or a formal
equivalence that can offend or shock, and a functional equivalence that communicates well.
(3.) Vocabulary. Communicate the word with an English term that is not weighed down with a
range of connotations foreign to the original author, and yet capture the original words range
of meaning that might be different from anything in English.
(4.) Word plays. These abound in most languages, but are usually unique to the language and
cannot be “translated” into the receptor language, especially in OT poetry.
(5.) Grammar and syntax. Each language has its own preferred structures as to how words and
ideas are related to each other in sentences. The authors remind us of two challenges: genitives
in the Greek, which are common and can be confusing to translate. Also, the OT Hebrew tends
to begin most prose sentences with the word “and,” even though it is not following anything.
(6.) Matters of gender. English speakers in North America and England have moved toward
gender inclusiveness, while many statements in the NT are intended to be gender inclusive but
are translated in the masculine.
4.) On Choosing a Translation. Choose one of the best translations, with the NIV being first, and
perhaps adding the NAB, GNB, or NASU. Avoid theologically biased translations such as the
Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation, and do not depend on transliterations for serious study.