Biblical Translation Theory and Exegesis

The following is my essay I just completed for my Linguistics class. I thought it might be of interest to some of you so here you go:

The field of textual translation is a contentious one, and it has kept many linguists employed for many years. The simple yet aggravating problem is that it is impossible to make a perfect translation from one language to another. Each language is unique, having its own grammatical and syntactical style, and despite many similarities, no two languages are structured exactly the same. To compound the problem, each culture has its own set of euphemisms, slang and metaphors that may not be transferable to another culture while maintaining their meaning. Therefore, a finished translation of a text will be influenced by three primary factors. First, the translator’s depth of understanding of the language of the text, and of the language it is being translated into, second, the translator’s interpretation of the text, and finally, the method by which the translator conveys that interpretation through the translation.

One of the most difficult texts to translate is the Bible. Not only do the previously mentioned issues apply, but also more difficulties are added because many of the translators of the Bible believe it to be the literally inspired and infallible words of God. Many also believe in a plenary (word for word) inspiration of the Bible. This creates the need for careful and serious attention paid during the translation process.

There are two major theories of Biblical translation in the modern era. Traditionally, a literal, word for word, or “direct equivalence” (DE) method has been used. This was the method of the King James translators. However, in the past century, a new theory known as “dynamic” or “functional equivalence” (FE) has gained many supporters. This theory was developed by Professor Eugene Nida. He is considered by many to be the world’s most influential Bible translator. Whereas DE strives to maintain as literal a correspondence to the original Hebrew and Greek as possible, FE strives to maintain the meaning of the text in simple understandable language. Although in recent years FE translations have made the bible easier to understand for those who have little or no understanding of the original languages, some biblical scholars argue that this method undermines the intention of the original words.

In the past decade, the question has been repeatedly raised: “Should we use DE translations, FE translations, or a combination of the two?” Although there are many scholars that argue for one specific theory of Bible translation, the best answer is to combine these theories for maximum understanding of the text.

In order to translate effectively, the translator must be completely fluent in the biblical language that they are working with, as well as in the language that they are translating the text into. For hundreds of years, most translators worldwide have been native English speakers. These translators have had to learn at least two second languages (L2) in order to accomplish their work. Different teaching methods are needed in order to train people in the languages they need to learn. For the ancient Hebrew and Greek, the Grammar / Translation method is used, since these languages are no longer readily spoken in their biblical forms. This method is also ideal for this because translators are not required to speak the Hebrew and Greek but to understand them.

However, the Grammar / Translation method is not completely successful for the translators when it comes to learning the language of the translation. In order to create an articulate, accurate and readable living language translation the translator is required to understand, and speak the language in question. Translator Eugene Nada says, “More of the problems [with translation] involve cultural anthropology than they do problems of theology.” (Nada, interviewed by Neff, 49) Translators must understand not only how to speak the words of the languages they use, but they also must be familiar with the cultural context of both the Biblical narrative and of the people they are ministering to. Without this understanding mistranslation will occur. Therefore, it is not enough for the translator to merely understand the words of a language, but they must also understand the culture and be able to accurately interpret the text based on socio-linguistic principles.

The primary facet of Biblical translation, after language fluency, is interpretation and exegesis of the Hebrew and Greek texts. It is impossible to translate without interpretation (Arnold, 31). When making a translation there are certain things that must be taken into account, including: word order and syntax, and different grammatical forms. (Arnold, 31) The translator must take these things into account if their translation is to make any sense. Also, the translator may need to supply words that are not in the original text but implied by the context (Arnold, 31). It becomes the translator’s duty to “bridge the language gap” in their interpretation (Van Leeuween, 34).

Some Greek and Hebrew words are notoriously difficult to translate. In Hebrew, there are no vowels, and each word must be discerned by its context. Another example is the Greek word logos which has over 70 different meanings. Only by the context can the meaning be discerned. (Nada, 48) Eugene Nada insists that exegesis of the text occur before and after initial translation, in order to avoid as many translation errors as possible Nada, 49). Nada insists that the phrase, rather than the words themselves, carries the most meaning to communication (Nada, 48). He insists that his translation teams look not at individual words but at the context as a whole. Of course, the depth and amount of personal interpretation and exegesis on the part of the translator is entirely dependant on the translation theory they are using.

By their very nature, FE translations require more interpretation by the translator. If the goal is to create a Bible in the most understandable language possible, the translator cannot use the technical words and complex symbolism of the original languages. DE translations do not require this level of interpretation, however interpretation of the text is still needed.

There are pros and cons to both types of translation. DE translations have more word-for-word accuracy, less interpretation, and are better for in depth study. They make it easier to trace word forms and contain important theological terminology. However, they may have awkward wording, and create the need for more reader interpretation, which leaves much room for error. They are also difficult for readers unfamiliar with the bible or its original languages (Arnold, 31). FE translations have less ambiguity, and are much easier to read. They are also the result of in depth exegesis by scholars. However, they have less correspondence to the original text, and are often expansive on it. It is difficult to trace words and not ideal for in depth study because they lack theological terminology (Arnold, 31).

Historically, DE translations, such as the English King James Version and American Standard Version have been the most prevalent. In the past fifty years there has been an explosion of FE translations. This is expected when a new theory is developed, but the near complete monopoly of FE translations is shocking. In the English language, the past twenty years has seen the publishing of over ten new FE translations including popular recent versions such as the New Living Translation and The Message. However, in the past fifty years there have only been three major DE translations made: The New King James Version, The New American Standard Bible, and the English Standard Version, and two of these are updates to previous editions (Van Leeuween, 29; Arnold, 35). The lack of new DE versions is somewhat disturbing. Despite the usefulness of the FE versions, Van Leeuween argues, “its hard to know what the bible means if we don’t know what it says. The problem with FE translations…is that they prevent the reader from inferring biblical meaning because they change what the Bible said” (30, emphasis original). This is a serious criticism given the amount of recent FE translations over the entire world. It is a valid one as well. Van Leeuween gives some specific examples of problems with FE translation: in Colossians 3:9-10, modern English FE versions translate phrases such as “old human nature” and “new human nature” instead of the literal “old man” and “new man.” This can be problematic because Paul’s use of the Greek anthropos is an allusion to Adam, who is referred to as ho anthopos (the man) in the Latin Vulgate version of the Old Testament that the original readers of the letter used (Van Leeuween, 31). Another example, in FE translations of Ephesians 5:2, the literal “walk in love,” is rendered “live a life of love,” obscuring the Biblical metaphors of life being a journey (Van Leeuween, 32). Although these are valid points, they may be seen by some as theological nit picking, and arguably these minor issues do nothing to damage the reading experience of the FE translations’ intended audiences.

Both FE and DE translation methods have some inherent problems, and therefore it is wise to have both. Eugene Nada says that all languages need three types of translation: liturgical (DE), common-language (FE), and specialty versions, like children’s language editions (Nada, 49). DE translations facilitate in depth study and preaching, and FE translations are good for general reading and missions. Both translation types are needed, however FE has become prevalent. However, the recent DE translation, the English Standard Version, has received wide praise by many of the world’s foremost biblical scholars. Van Leeuween summarizes by saying, “The church needs linguists and translators, preachers and teachers, scholars and laity who will help us all hear God's Word clearly and live it rightly, until he comes again.” (37).

The argument over DE and FE translations continues to this day, but many scholars are beginning to recognize the merits of both. Hopefully in the future this argument will cease and translators will work to provide accurate translations of both varieties to “every tongue…and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

Arnold, Clinton E. “It’s all Greek to Me: Clearing up the confusion about Bible Translations.” Discipleship Journal. November / December 2002: 28-36.

Neff, David. “Meaning-Full Translations: An interview with Eugene Nida.” Christianity Today. 7 October 2002: 46-49.

Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “We Really Do Need Another Bible Translation.” Christianity Today 22 October 2001: 28-37.