Hundie Jo [Dot] Com

Point; Counterpoint: Biblical Translation

Henry Imler July 1st, 2008

This week’s "Point; Counterpoint" comes from Jim West and Richard A. Rhodes on Bible translation. West makes the contention that translations should be "woody" and goes so far as to say, "[they] are better because they maintain the proper distance between ourselves and the Biblical authors." Rhodes strongly disagrees with this sentiment in his reaction against West’s position. He maintains that:

"The stuff of the Bible that is of interest are those things about human nature. The differences in the worlds and worldviews is irrelevant, beyond the fact that knowing something about them helps us to better understand the motivations and reactions of the people."

I encourage you to check out both articles. I can sympathize with West’s sentiment. He is correct that the totality of the "biblical" experience is far removed from us and that it takes a lot of work in order to approach that world. However, I think this can be done and modern translations can be filtered through this necessary legwork to produce a meaningful translation for people who aren’t biblical scholars. 

For me it all boils down to a simple question: What question am I asking of the text?  If I am trying to figure out historical circumstances or do a detailed grammatical analysis of the relation of two clauses, I’ll go to the Greek and supplement that with a very literal translation like the NASB or the NRSV.  If I am seeking to teach laypersons about a saying of Jesus in Sunday school for instance, I’ll go with a translation that tries to place the text into terms and syntax that is the most understandable, thus I’ll probably use the NLV or the ESV.  Not everyone asks the same questions of a text and due to this, we should not expect for there to be one “best” translation for all situations everywhere.  Each and every translation is an interpretation, whether one likes it or not. 

Further reading:

Scholarly Legends by Rhodes

Why Modern Translations of the Bible Bungle It by West

4 Responses to “Point; Counterpoint: Biblical Translation”

  1. #     Dannyon 01 Jul 2008 at 11:41 am

    I think the text should only be read in the original language.

  2. #     Henry Imleron 01 Jul 2008 at 11:43 am

    Why is that?  What are you trying to get out of the text when you do so?

  3. #     Dannyon 01 Jul 2008 at 12:59 pm

    I’m just joking.  Growing up, I used the New King James translation.  I thought I was pretty modern since most people in my church stuck with KJV.  Later on I used NIV.  If I read the Bible now, which I rarely do, I use NIV mostly because it’s familiar.  I think it strikes a fairly good balance between literal accuracy and readibility.  I also havea Greek New Testament, but I’m sure my Greek is very rusty.

  4. #     Henry Imleron 01 Jul 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Gotcha.  That makes sense.  I’d recomend upgrading to the TNIV if you prefer the NIV as an english translation however.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply