This is part 6 of a nine-part series on divine authority in Bible translation. The full series can be accessed here:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9
In Part 4 of this series, we emphasized the importance of meaning in translation, and noted ways in which an overly literal translation can obscure meaning that is clear in the original languages. On the other hand, Part 5 emphasized that while clarity in translation is often a good thing, many examples from Scripture show us that God expects us to dig into Scripture for meaning, and we should not expect readers to understand everything correctly without any background knowledge or careful thinking. This part will attempt to synthesize these insights, and lay out a unifying principle to guide us toward translating in ways that are neither overly literal nor overly interpretive.
What is “Meaning-Based” Translation?
For decades, the dominant paradigm of Bible translation has gone under the name of “meaning-based translation.”1This is now changing: a new approach to translation known as “functionalism” has now become more and more prominent in Bible translation circles. Functionalism has brought some helpful and necessary critiques of “meaning-based translation” as practiced in organizations like Wycliffe, SIL, and UBS. But in its basest form, functionalism essentially argues that translators should give readers whatever they want. Needless to say, this approach is not based on a biblical understanding of God’s authority over his Word. This theme is explored in greater depth in Vitrano-Wilson, “Functionalism: Why the New Dominant Paradigm of Bible Translation Makes Syncretism Inevitable.” Journal of Biblical Missiology (May 17, 2021). As discussed in Part 5, translators using this theory have redefined “meaning” to be based on readers’ comprehension—especially readers with little to no background knowledge of the Bible who are reading the text for the first time—rather than the meaning present in the text, including the layers of meaning that can be appreciated when a given passage is read in light of the entire Bible. This redefinition of “meaning” has led to a high degree of reworking of the text in order to make it more immediately accessible to new students of the Bible.
There is some benefit to this approach. It can help beginning readers make basic sense of some complex ideas in Scripture, and certain aspects of the meaning of the biblical text can at times be easier to access under this approach. Many people have been blessed by reading such works.
However, as we have seen, this approach also loses important meaning, and adds meaning that is not present in the text. If God’s injunctions in Revelation 22:18-19 or Proverbs 30:5-6 mean anything, they should give us great fear of adding meaning to God’s Word or removing meaning from it while still presenting the result as Scripture. When we make a translation clearer than the original, deciding what something “really means” when the text is unclear and disputed by faithful scholars, and there are perfectly workable ways of maintaining this ambiguity in translation, we are adding meaning to God’s Word. We might even be right about our interpretation, but we are nonetheless adding what God chose not to add. Similarly, when we take what is clear in Scripture and obfuscate it by failing to recognize the use of idioms, differences between the grammar of the original languages and the language of translation, or other ways in which an overly literal translation obscures or loses meaning, we are not honoring God who breathed out the meaning of the text.
We cannot simply say that we should translate literally “whenever possible”; it’s always possible to translate more literally, but it is not always advisable or helpful in maintaining meaning. Instead, we must have an overarching goal in mind when translating that will help us determine when we should be more “literal” and when we should be more “dynamic.” That overarching goal should be to match the meaning of the original texts.
But what is “meaning”? One important aspect of meaning is found in the truth that readers can draw from the text, or what we might call “interpretive potential.” Translators seeking to preserve the meaning of God’s Word should translate in such a way that the interpretive potential of the translation matches as closely as possible the interpretive potential of the original language text being translated. In other words, the reader of a truly “meaning-based” translation could ideally draw the same possible conclusions as the reader of the original texts—no more and no less.
Any Bible translation that claims the authority of sola scriptura—in other words, any translation that is presented as “the Bible” or “God’s Word” to a group of people, and seeks to fulfill the crucial function of representing the infallible authority of God’s Word in their lives—must strive, as Ernst-August Gutt says, to “interpretively resemble the original completely.”2Gutt, Relevance Theory (Dallas: SIL and UBS, 1992), 66. Gutt has many valuable insights into translation theory, but I should note that Relevance Theory is not being adopted wholescale in this series. Or, as Leland Ryken puts it: “A good translation preserves the full exegetical or interpretive potential of the original biblical text.”3Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002), 140. It should also be said that a translation can be good for things other than maintaining divine authority, such as being easy to read for beginning readers or capturing the feel of biblical poetry with less regard to the exact meaning, but a translation that is good for functioning as a bearer of sola scriptura authority for believers should match the interpretive potential of the original as much as possible. Harriet Hill and colleagues call this “aim[ing] at high meaning resemblance,” and describe the goal as “offering the audience the possibility of understanding as much of the original intended meaning as possible, given the differences between the original and receptor languages.”4Harriet Hill, Ernst-August Gutt, Margaret Hill, Christoph Unger, and Rick Floyd, Bible Translation Basics (Dallas: SIL International, 2011), 125. Note the difference between the goal of Nida and other proponents of “dynamic equivalence” or “meaning-based translation” of making reader comprehension as certain as possible—with an inevitable focus on what the translators believe to be the most important aspects of meaning that readers must comprehend—and the contrasting goal that Hill and colleagues describe of “offering the audience the possibility of understanding as much of the original intended meaning as possible” (emphasis added). While a highly interpretive style distorts some aspects of the meaning in order to increase the likelihood of readers comprehending what translators believe to be the main points, a translation suitable for fulfilling the sola scriptura function instead seeks to present all of the meaning present in the original language texts as much as possible.
Aiming for complete interpretive resemblance is key to maintaining the authority of Scripture. This, of course, does not mean that a translation will ever fully succeed in this goal. But if we do not even strive to reach this goal, but instead make other goals paramount, we should not claim that our translation carries the same authoritative weight as translations that do strive to reach this goal.
All Translation Involves Some Level of Interpretation
But first, it’s important to note that there are times when language differences make some minor loss of interpretive resemblance inevitable. For example, some languages like Thai don’t have a single word for “brother,” but instead have one word for an older sibling and another word for a younger sibling. If we’re talking about Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery, we know from context that they are his older brothers, and there is no loss in interpretive resemblance. But in Galatians 1:19, is James Jesus’ older brother or younger brother? The word used in Greek could accommodate either him being Joseph’s son by a previous marriage (as Catholics typically claim), or Mary and Joseph’s son after Jesus was born (as Protestant usually argue). This can be a sticky question denominationally—yet in Thai and some other languages, the choice is unavoidable. A footnote could tell the reader that either interpretation is linguistically possible, but the translators must choose one word or the other to put in the actual text. This is an example of unavoidable loss in interpretive resemblance, at least when reading directly from the text and skipping footnotes. In other words, the fact that a loss of interpretive resemblance has occurred (in the text at least) is not necessarily an indication that translators made a mistake, although they should avoid such losses when possible and tell readers when it is not.
At an even more basic level, translators must decide what words mean, and what function different grammatical features play in a language. This level of interpretation is completely unavoidable, and yet there are times when it is not entirely straightforward. For example, was the top covering of the tabernacle made of “badgers’ skins” (KJV), “manatee skins” (HCSB), “goatskins” (ESV), or “porpoise skins” (NASB)? Or, should we simply give up, as the NIV does, and say that they were “another type of durable leather”? (See Exodus 25:5, translating the Hebrew word תְּחָשִׁ֖ים təḥashim.)
Even words whose meaning we think we know very well may not be as interpretation-free as we might like. For example, is the core meaning of the Greek word ekklesia best translated as “church,” as the Catholic hierarchy insisted and as King James mandated for his version, or “congregation,” as William Tyndale claimed—a claim that played a major role in his being murdered as a “heretic”? Or, does “assembly” capture its most basic meaning in today’s English?5See Vitrano-Wilson, “Tyndale’s Unfinished Revolution,” Journal of Biblical Missiology (February 27, 2023).(“Assembly” is how most English translations translate ekklesia in Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:12, where it refers to the ekklesia of the Israelites.) Interpretation at the word level is simply unavoidable in translation, yet this involves some key translation decisions.
Nevertheless, the reality that interpretation is often unavoidable does not in any way negate the fact that translators can still choose to engage in greater or lesser degrees of interpretation. There is no linguistic difference between Greek and English that forced the Good News translators to have Jesus claim, “I am descended from the family of David,” rather than a more straightforward translation like, “I am the Root and the Offspring of David” (Revelation 22:16, as translated identically in the NIV, KJV, BSB, and HCSB among others; see Part 5). Dave Brunn, in his insightful and helpful book One Bible, Many Versions, gives examples of languages that force translators to make certain interpretations, and rightly argues that this indicates that God is not inherently opposed to translators making some interpretive choices. However, Brunn fails to note that translators need not make a virtue of a necessity. Just because, for example, a language in Papua New Guinea lacks a particular linguistic feature that forces translators to make difficult interpretive decisions, this does not mean that English Bible translators—or, for that matter, Thai, Arabic, or Western Bukidnon Manobo translators—need to make the same interpretations if their languages are perfectly capable of leaving the matter more open.
In short, God knows that translators must make certain decisions in order to translate at all. He is pleased when we do so prayerfully and as faithfully as we can, rather than shying away from translation out of fear of making interpretive decisions of any kind, and instead insisting that people simply read the Bible in the original languages. But these interpretive decisions are a necessary challenge, not an open door to all manner of unforced interpretative decisions. When we maintain the goal of matching the interpretive potential of the original language texts as closely as possible, we avoid unnecessary interpretation, while allowing for that level of interpretation which comes unavoidably with the God-authorized task of translation.
Interpretive Resemblance as a Helpful Guide
Let us now look at how interpretive resemblance can act as a unifying principle that shows us why both overly literal and overly interpretive translations fail to fulfill the sola scriptura function of Scripture. Some of our examples from Part 4 will be helpful here.
The ESV translation of Psalm 1:1, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners,” adds an erroneous possible interpretation into the English that is not present in the Hebrew, namely, that a man who doesn’t try to stop sinners from sinning is blessed. Likewise, translating γύναι in John 2:4 starkly as “woman” shifts the interpretive ground from “Jesus spoke respectfully to his mother” (the natural and proper interpretation of the Greek text) to “Jesus spoke disrespectfully to his mother” (the natural interpretation of the use of “woman” alone as a term of address in English). These overly literal translations are problematic for a sola scriptura translation because they fail to interpretively resemble the original text as well as they could.
On the other hand, translations that resolve ambiguity to a higher degree than the original God-breathed text, or give answers and clarity that the text itself does not actually give, also fail to interpretively resemble the original texts as well as they could. The question is not merely, “What will a beginning reader understand after reading this text once?” Rather, the question is, “What meaning is present in the text?” So, for example, when we give our specific interpretation of what it means that the teacher of the law wanted to “justify himself” in Luke 10:29, we are foreclosing legitimate interpretations of the Greek text by choosing to only give one particular interpretation to readers. Likewise, if we think we know so well what it means that Jesus is the “Root” of David that we remove the image entirely and replace it with a bland description of Jesus as being “descended from the family of David” (Revelation 22:16, GNT), we not only fail to allow readers of the translation to have the same exegetical options as readers of the original text. Even worse, we run the risk of actually blocking the possibility that readers of our translation will ever be able to access the true, beautiful, powerful meaning present in the original text—at least, not until they pick up a better translation (if there is one in their language!) or learn how to read the original language text themselves.
How Adding Implicit Information Can Distort Meaning
One particular way that translations can be overly interpretive is by adding “implicit information” into the translation. “Implicit information” is background information that readers of the original language texts would likely have known, but which is not actually present in the text itself. For example, in the Western Bukidnon Manobo translation (WBM), when Jesus tells his listeners the parable of the Good Samaritan, he describes the Levite and the Samaritan in this way:
And it was the same way with the next person who came along; he was also a Jew, a descendant of Levi, whose work was to help the priests in the church, the house of God…It wasn’t long before there arrived there also, a person who was not a Jew because he was from Samaria. (back-translation into English)
These explanations were found to be very helpful to WBM readers to understand one of the main points of the passage, namely, that it was the Samaritan, and not the Levite who Jesus’ listeners would have expected to help his fellow Jew, who actually helped the man in need. Within a commentary or explanatory paraphrase, this addition of implicit information is perfectly justifiable. However, as translator Steve Doty notes, adding this implicit information distorts the meaning of the actual text:
[T]he amount of explication assumes two things—that the audience would not understand the meaning of such words as “Levite,” and that the audience would not notice that Jesus was explicating such words to his original audience. In fact, Jesus did not explicate such words, and thus the meaning-based translation distorted the meaning of the original.6Doty, 111. Harriet Hill and colleagues agree, noting “making things explicit in the translation that are implicit in the original changes the meaning resemblance,” and therefore should be “avoided as much as possible” when translators are aiming for a high meaning resemblance (125).
By explaining more than the original language text does, the WBM translation gives the false impression that Jesus’ listeners were just as much outsiders to the world of Levites and Samaritans as the WBM readers themselves were. On the other hand, a translation that leaves this implicit information aside—for example, by using footnotes, glossaries, or other side materials, or by marking this text in some way as not being present in the original text—will accurately represent the exchange between Jesus and his listeners in their own time and context. As Doty later states while summarizing the writing of Ernst-August Gutt:
There is important “context” or background information which is required to understand a translation of the Bible, and there needs to be supplementary material to accompany the translation to convey this information. There is simply too much background information to incorporate into the actual text, and to do so would not be a real translation anyway, but an adaptation in which significant distortion of meaning occurs.7Doty, 129–30.
In summary, both overly literal and overly interpretive translations fail to fulfill the sola scriptura function of translation because they fail to match the interpretive potential of the original language texts. Having a single unifying principle able to guard against both extremes of translation is very helpful and important. It also gives us a further tool to examine renderings that might not normally be called either “overly literal” or “overly interpretive,” but nonetheless fail in different ways to match the interpretive potential of the original language texts.
Connections in Scripture
One such aspect of translation that does not fall easily into the categories of “overly literal” or “overly interpretive” is the need to maintain key connections or allusions between different parts of Scripture. For example, when the Pharisees and Herodians try to trap Jesus by asking him about paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus has them bring out a coin and asks:
“Whose picture and title are stamped on it?” (NLT)
“Whose image and inscription is this?” (CSB)
Τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν αὕτη καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή
By using the Greek word εἰκὼν “image”, Jesus can be interpreted as alluding to humans being made in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:68The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament used in Jesus’ time) uses the same word that Jesus does (εἰκὼν) in all of these verses, as a translation of the Hebrew word צֶלֶם tselem.), and therefore belonging to God. “Give the money to Caesar, but yourselves to God,” we might say. Translations that do not translate this verse with the same word as they use in Genesis (such as the NLT, which uses “image” rather than “picture” in Genesis) make this interpretation more obscure than it would have been for the original readers or listeners.
Another example is the translation of 1 Peter 2:3, in which Peter quotes from Psalm 34:8. The psalm reads (in English, the original Hebrew, and the Septuagint Greek translation below):
Taste and see that the LORD is good
טַעֲמ֣וּ וּ֭רְאוּ כִּי־טֹ֣וב יְהוָ֑ה
γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος
Peter, meanwhile, quotes the Greek Septuagint translation of this verse in 1 Peter 2:3:
if you have tasted that the Lord is good
εἰ ἐγεύσασθε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος
Peter is clearly quoting this verse, using the phrase “that the Lord is good” (ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος) directly from the Septuagint, along with a form of the verb “to taste.” Significantly, while the Hebrew refers to YHWH (“the LORD” traditionally in English, ὁ κύριος in the Septuagint), Peter applies this to Jesus, as the following verse makes clear.
The Greek word χρηστὸς chrestos can be translated as “good” or “kind,” depending on the context. However, in this context it is clearly a translation of the Hebrew טֹ֣וב tob “good,” so the translation of this word in Psalm 34:8 and 1 Peter 2:3 should match, in order to help readers recognize the quote. This also helps readers see that Peter is using a quote of a verse with YHWH in Hebrew and applying it to Jesus, which has important theological implications on the identity and nature of Jesus. While many translations translate Psalm 34:8 and 1 Peter 2:3 in a way that Peter’s quote of the psalm is clear, some do not. The NASB, for example, reads, “if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord” in 1 Peter, but “taste and see that the LORD is good” in Psalm 34. Similarly, the NLT has “now that you have had a taste of the Lord’s kindness” in 1 Peter, but “Taste and see that the LORD is good” in the psalm. Both translations—coming from opposite sides of the “literal/dynamic” spectrum—make Peter’s quotation of the psalm harder to see, which in turn obscures the important meaning carried in his use of “Lord” to refer to both Jesus and YHWH.9There are, however, times when New Testament authors are not directly quoting from the Old Testament, but instead are paraphrasing or otherwise adding commentary to an Old Testament passage. In such cases, translators should not try to match the OT passage in translation. However, in cases such as this, where the word chrestos can legitimately be translated “good” in many contexts, there is no reason to use words like “kind” or “kindness” that do not match the translation of the Hebrew tob “good” in Psalm 34:8.
Interpretive resemblance as a helpful guide to word choice
As stated above, the question of word choice in translation is unavoidable in any translation philosophy. Here, too, interpretive resemblance can give us helpful insights. To return to our example of ekklesia (traditionally translated “church”), let us consider the claim: “Moses was in the church in the desert.” Or the claim, “David said, ‘I will praise you in the church.’” To most modern English speakers, these claims are strange and anachronistic. A “church” in modern English is a Christian building or a Christian congregation. Moses and David were ancient men of Israel who lived before Jesus’ time, so they could not have worshiped in a “church,” however faithfully they worshiped the one true God.
However, if these claims were to be made in New Testament Greek, with ekklesia replacing “church,” the answer to both claims would be an emphatic “yes.” Paul, Luke, and other writers of the New Testament chose to describe the congregations of believers in Jesus with the same word that the Septuagint Greek used dozens of times to refer to the “assembly” or “congregation” of Israel in Moses and David’s time, and which the inspired New Testament authors themselves used for the same purpose (see Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:12). All else being equal, a translation that makes clear the connection between the ekklesia of Israel and the ekklesia of believers in Christ maintains interpretive resemblance better than one that does not.
Striving is Different from Achieving
When considering the question of a translation matching the interpretive potential of the original language texts, it is important to note that it is quite possible for translators to strive to achieve as high a level of interpretive resemblance with the original language texts as possible without actually achieving a high level. Translators can eagerly adopt a philosophy that will lead them in the right direction for creating a translation that can fulfill the sola scriptura function, but it is important that they seek guidance and wisdom from God and from faithful scholarship. In order to create translations that serve the sola scriptura function as faithfully as possible, translators need both the right goal (namely, maximizing the interpretive resemblance between the translation and the original God-breathed texts), as well as blessing and skill in achieving that goal, in conjunction with all those whose skills may be brought to bear in the task.
In light of this, we should “bear with one another in love,” recognizing that there may be sincere hearts and diligent minds that come to different conclusions about precisely how to best maximize the interpretive resemblance of a translation, yet we all need each other as a body to achieve this crucial goal.
This is part 6 of a series on divine authority in Bible translation. Part 7 will refute a common argument among Bible translators, namely, that the New Testament authors’ use of the Old Testament justifies a highly dynamic translation style. The full series can be found here:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9
0 Comments