Bible Translations and Hermeneutics, Worship Workshop

Following are the notes from the most recent "Worship Workshop."

Bible Translations and Hermeneutics
Februay, 2009
Early English Translations
A complete translation of the Bible in English did not appear until the fourteenth century. The Latin Vulgate was the principle Bible used in the English church. John Wycliffe along with two associates produced an English version of the Bible which was based on the Latin.

During the sixteenth century there was an explosion of Bible translations. There are several factors that led to this proliferation of translations:
(1) The Renaissance with its recovery of classical learning (especially Greek).

(2) The fall of Constantinople and the westward movement of Greek scholars.

(3) The Hebrew renaissance (Hebrew editions of the Bible by 1448).

(4) The development of Gutenberg’s printing press (ca. 1540).

(5) The Protestant reformation with its emphasis on vernacular versions and theological emphasis upon Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), provided a catalyst for new translations.

William Tyndale (1484-1536) stands above all the rest concerning English translations in the sixteenth century. His New Testament translation was based on the Greek text established by Erasmus in 1516. He never finished the complete Bible. He was strangled and burned because of his work in 1536.

The first complete English Bible was produced in 1535 by Miles Coverdale. This work utilized Tyndale’s NT and completed the OT in consultation with German and Latin sources. Coverdale’s Bible was the first to remove the apocryphal books (that were in the Vulgate).

The Authorized Version or King James Bible capped the series of translations begun by Tyndale (1611). Produced by a team of 54 scholars, the KJV became the Bible for English-speaking peoples for generations and a monument of the English language.

Why Is There a Need for Fresh Translations?
(1) Advancements in textual criticism.
Today we have many more early manuscripts that were simply not available before. For example, Codex Sinaiticus, early Greek papyri of NT documents, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.

(2) Our knowledge of biblical languages has increased.

(3) The English language is continually changing. Updating translations to reflect contemporary usage of any language makes it easier to understand the Bible’s timeless message.

Modern English Versions Fall into Two Categories
(1) Revisions – based on a previous version.

(2) Translations – preserve the best of an earlier version while improving the work in light of new insight. They attempt to translate the original languages anew.

Another Consideration:
Some English translations are the work of a single person. For example, J.B. Phillip’s New Testament in Modern English and Eugene Peterson’s The Message.

Evaluating Translations
Criteria for Evaluation of a Translation
1. The Identity and Qualification of the Translators.
A committee offers a higher concentration of skills than one person.

2. The Underlying Textual Basis of the Translation.
Most modern translations opt for what is called a critical Greek text, reflecting an eclectic approach to textual questions. Usually this means some translations differ on the point of variations that are found in a text. A good translation will explain some of these variants.

3. The Theory of Translation Used by the Translators.
There is a “hermeneutic” to translation. The act of translation means that translator will make judgements based on his or her understanding of the original languages, the receptor language, culture, etc. Translators must overcome all these barriers while remaining faithful to the message of the original text.

Our English Bibles are translations from the original biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Among the things that a translator must be concerned with are what is known as “historical distance” and the “receptor language” in our case English

Historical Distance has to do with the differences that exist between the original language and the receptor language both in words, grammar, and idioms (or expressions) as well as in matters of culture and history.

Theory of Translation Each translator or team of translators must make a choice concerning how they will bridge the gap (the historical distance) between the two languages. It is usually a question of “degrees.” For example, should “lamp” be translated “flashlight” or “torch” in cultures where these serve the purpose that a lamp once did?

Three Theories of translation have been generally followed in bridging the gap between the original languages and the receptor language.

Literal or Formal Equivalency (“Word Correspondence”). The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words (Word Correspondence) and phrasing in the original language, yet still make sense in the receptor language. A formal equivalent translation will keep the historical distance intact at all points. This makes for a sometimes disjointed sounding and awkward translation as any interlinear Bible will show. The ASV and the NASB best represent this theory of translation.

Dynamic Equivalency (“Functional”). The attempt to translate words, idioms, and grammatical constructions of the original language into precise equivalents in the receptive language. A thought-for-thought translation. Such a translation keeps historical distance on all historical and most factual matters, but “updates” matters of language, grammar, and style. Meaning takes precedence over matters of structure and style. The question is, “how far can the translator go to achieve the equivalent effect yet still remain faithful to the text? The NIV and NLT are examples of this theory of translation.

Free (Paraphrases). The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another, with less concern about using the exact words of the original. A free translation, sometimes also called a paraphrase, tries to eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible. Paraphrases are not translations and should not be treated as such. The Living Bible and The Message are representative of paraphrases.

What are some of the dangers of a paraphrase?
(1) May be taken as a translation by the person who does not know the difference.

(2) May reflect the theology of the person who did the paraphrase.
In evaluating modern translations know the theological perspective of the translators. Usually, it is best to use a translation from a team rather than an individual. Of course, it goes without saying that the Bible text is inspired not someone’s commentary about the text!

(3) Is not tied to the text. Goes back to our view of the text. If we are people who have a high view of the Bible and believe that God has revealed His will in His Word, then we want to know exactly what he said, not just a paraphrase of what he might have said.

Examples of Modern Translations and their Theory of Translation
Literal/Formal
KJV RSV NRSV
NASB HCSB
NKJV ASV

Dynamic Equivalent
NIV GNB
NAB JB
NEB NLT

Free
Phillips LB
The Message

Note: HCSB is called an “Optimal Equivalent: Seeks to combine the best elements of both formal and dynamic equivalence.

Tensions to Keep in Mind
Note: The following words are simply illustrative of each theory of translation. For example, because I have used the word "Commentary" to describe a paraphrase does not mean that it has no value as "Text." The two words are used to show that the farther one moves from a "Formal Equivalent" to a "Free" translation, the more one allows interpretation to color the translation.

"Dynamic" translations attempt to strike a balance between faithfulness to the biblical text on the one hand, while at the same time updating words into modern language.
Literal/Formal Equivalent
Divine
Objective
Timeless
Archaic
Investigation
Wooden
Text

Free
Human
Subjective
Temporal
Relevant
Interpretation
Fluid
Commentary

Practical Considerations
For Study, use several well-chosen translations. A good formal equivalency Bible is a must but supplement with a modern translation like the NIV. Use translations that differ for the same reason that you use commentaries that may differ from what you are used to.

For Daily Use and study you would do well to have a good literal or formal equivalent or dynamic translation with notes in the margin that reflect modern scholarship.

In Preaching and Teaching
(1) use one primary translation. Which one?
i. Personal preference

ii. Congregational expectations

(2) You may use different translations for different groups of people and for different occasions. If you provide an outline, print versions that are particularly useful.

For His Glory!
Pastor Joe