first method. Things that sound like they came from the Bible may not sound natural to them, but they certainly sound appropriate. New Christians or the unchurched, on the other hand, will often find that such a translation sounds so unnatural that it is hard to understand, and certainly difficult to read with any fluency.
The more specialized the audience, the more difficult it will be to translate formally or literally. Children’s Bibles, for example, will generally be done by the second method. (I’ll discuss these methods and provide names for them in chapter 3.)
The Translators
Who will make our translation for us? We’re going to need a variety of people to do the work, from those who translate to those who print and package the resulting work. These include:
Experts in the Biblical languages
Experts on Biblical exegesis, history and archeology
Experts in the receptor or target language
Experts on the target group
Literary experts
Editors and proofreaders
Managers and Coordinators
We’re going to ask a few questions of each of these people. For example, what theological viewpoints do we want to represent? Different translations have answered these questions in different ways. The New International Version (NIV) and the New Living Translation (NLT) emphasize that their translators are evangelical. Other translations, such as the Revised English Bible (REB) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) emphasize the variety on their translation committees, including interfaith participation.
Issues as diverse as basic skill, theological position, and sexual orientation have resulted in controversy about Bible translations.
Details of Style and Method
Even once we have decided on our method of translation there will be a number of details to work out. For example:
Do we convert weights and measures into modern terms or use the ancient terms?
If we don’t convert them, do we include footnotes indicating their approximate values?
Do we capitalize pronouns referring to God?
Do we capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus, and do we do so even in Old Testament prophecies?
Do we use gender neutral terminology, such as “brothers and sisters” when a Biblical writer refers to a mixed group?
This scenario has given us a very brief introduction to the types of questions that translators must deal with in order to produce a version of the Bible ready for your use. In the following chapters, we’ll deal with these issues in more detail one at a time.
Each of the following chapters will start with a brief introduction to the key concepts. Examples and additional information will be included next. At the end of each chapter there will be reference charts to help you with studying the material contained in that chapter further. You can choose how deeply you want to delve into the topic by deciding how deeply you read into each chapter.
Some Examples
Here are some examples of the differences in Bible versions that can result from the kinds of issues we have discussed in this chapter. I will quote only a few translations of each text so as to indicate the issue, and then briefly discuss what causes the difference.
In each example, I will include a very literal interlinear translation of the Greek or Hebrew source text. Do not make the mistake of regarding this very literal translation as more accurate; it is more raw and unprocessed, not more accurate. One might even get a completely incorrect idea of the meaning of the text by working with this raw material. I present it so you can see the path the translators take in producing their translation.
John the Immerser?
Consider the following clause, first in my excessively literal translation, then in three Bible versions:
| Matthew 3:11 |
| EGO MEN hUMAS BAPTIZÔ EN hUDATI I on the one hand you [baptize] in/with water EIS METANOIAN into/for repentance. |
| It’s true that I am immersing you in water so that you might turn from sin. (CJB) |
| I baptize you with water for repentance (NRSV) |
| I baptize you with water so that you will give up your sins. (CEV) |
The primary issue here is the use of the church term “baptize” versus the use of the term “immerse.” Many people believe that the term “immerse” is a better translation because it reflects more accurately the meaning of the Greek word BAPTIZO as used in this passage. Thus, rather than use a neutral term such as “baptize” which has come to mean different things to different people, they would suggest that the most accurate way to translate this passage would be with the word “immerse.”
But it’s not quite so simple as that. This is one of those places where we can let our theological preconceptions determine how we will translate, rather than simply seeking the most accurate translation, and then doing our theological study afterward. While it is quite likely that much of the baptism in the New Testament, included that of John, involved immersion, the word BAPTIZÔ itself doesn’t force this meaning.
Let’s look at an interesting example, from the Didache, an early Christian teaching tract probably written around 100 CE.
“Now concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have gone over all these things [the teachings presented earlier in the document] baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [living usually means naturally running]. But if you don’t have living water, baptize in other water, and if you don’t have cold water, use warm. But if you don’t have either one, pour water on the person’s head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” -- Didache 7:1-3, Author’s translation
So here the method of baptism need not be by immersion, though it appears that a method other than pouring was to be preferred if it was possible.
How Large was Nineveh?
| Jonah 3:3 |
| We - NINeWEH HAYeTHAH ;IYR GeDOLAH And Nineveh was city big MAHaLĒK SHeLOSHETH YAMIYM (of) traveling three days |
| Now Nineveh was an exceedingly large city, a three days’ walk across. (NRSV) |
| Now Nineveh was a very important city—a visit required three days. (NIV [1984]) |
| Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go all through it. (NIV [1978]) |
