Version Question

Q: What kind of versions would you feel comfortable using?
A: When we consider the kinds of versions available today, beyond the manuscript debates, the issue typically comes down to a translation philosophy. The simplified way of stating the issue would be to say that there are literal kinds of translations and dynamic equivalent types.
-
A literal approach would be to translate each Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word with it’s language equivalent (English). The dynamic equivalency approach would be to translate the idea, rather than the actual words. We must understand that among the translations available, there is a wide range into which they fall upon this spectrum of literal to loose dynamic equivalence.
-
For example, I have on my shelf The Interlinear Greek- English New Testament. It is essentially a reference tool that has the Greek words of the New Testament written out with the English equivalent for each of those words directly below it, and the KJV written in the margin to the side for comparison. To understand how literal this version really is, consider how John 3:16 is translated. “For so loved God the world that his Son the only begotten he gave, that everyone who believes on him may not perish, but may have life eternal.” This version is so literal, that the word order is unnatural to our way of speaking.
-
On the other end of the spectrum we have paraphrases which try to capture the idea of the passage, but have little concern for the actual words. This provides a problem because each word of scripture has meaning, and the change of a single word can change the meaning of a whole passage. When an overview of an idea is given, it could be argued that they are just relating a concept rather than actually translating a passage. The Message, and the Living Bible would fall into this extreme category.
-
The danger of using such these paraphrases should not be overlooked. In their attempt to relay an easy to understand concept, the actual meaning has been changed. I find no comfort in these versions and fear they are leading many astray.
-
Although I am much more comfortable on the literal end of the spectrum, I must express a note of caution there as well. Because our language is so different than the original languages, the challenge of translating goes far beyond just restating the words to their equivalents. The challenge comes in both preserving the very words as well as not losing the concepts- the very ideas that the original languages were teaching. A good translation must take all of these things into consideration.
-
I believe the translation that has done the best job at this great challenge for the English language is the King James Version. I appreciate how when the translators added certain words that were not found in the original languages, they put them in italics. This was one way in which they went beyond being rigidly literal in order to preserve the meaning, while still letting the reader understand that these words had been added for clarification. Further, they arranged the word order in a way that was natural for the language that they were translating into (Note the difference between John 3:16 in the KJV and the Interlinear translation).
-
As I study, I will consult with Young’s Literal Translation, one that is even more literal than the KJV. I consult it basically to look at how a particular word in a verse happened to be translated. It often helps in coming up with descriptive synonyms for words as I preach. At the same time, I would not be comfortable in using that version for my reading or for my primary study.
-
I would as well like to address the NIV because it is quite popular today. I believe that this version has gone too far in the dynamic equivalent direction, and that much of the original intent of the words has been lost in the translation process. I am therefore not comfortable consulting that version. Though I am not totally comfortable with the NASB, I would consider it to be a much higher quality translation than the NIV, based on its more literal equivalency approach.
-
As we consider this issue, it is easy for us in the United States to become preoccupied with our English translations. May we not forget that there are many people in this world who do not yet have a translation in their own language. Baptist Mid Missions is one organization that has taken up that burden through Bibles International. As they translate, they attempt to balance the literal words with the intended meaning in a similar way that the KJV translators did. Not all Bible translation societies have this same philosophy. Many just throw together versions quickly and haphazardly. When supporting translation work, these issues must be taken into consideration as well.