|
When translators set out to translate
the Bible, one of the first issues they must face is:
What type of translation do we want to produce, and
what translation philosophy, theory, method, or approach
must we follow in order to achieve the desired results?
This, in turn, raises another question: What types
of Bible translations are there? Bible translators
and linguists speak primarily of two major types of
translations.
Literal Equivalence Translation
The first is referred to variously as
either formal or complete or literal or gloss equivalence.
Here the translator pursues a word-forword rendering
as much as possible. The New American Standard
Bible (NASB) and the New King James Version (NKJV)
are good examples of this approach.
Fortunately, it is frequently possible
to translate literally and still retain contemporary
English idiom and excellent literary style. For example, “In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God” is a straightforward translation
of the Greek text of John 1:1, and it is also good
English. So why change it? In fact, why not follow
this more literal approach everywhere and all the time,
with an absolute minimum of interpretation? Unfortunately,
it is often not possible to translate literally and
retain natural, idiomatic, clear English.
A translation can be so woodenly literal
that the result is a cumbersome, awkward, poorly constructed
English sentence. The TNIV, on the other hand, has
a natural and smooth style without sacrificing accuracy.
Dynamic Equivalence Translation
The second major type of translation
is referred to variously as either dynamic or functional
or idiomatic equivalence. Here the translator attempts
a thought-forthought rendering. The Good News Bible (GNB;
also known as Today's English Version, TEV),
the New Living Translation (NLT), God's
Word, the New Century Version (NCV),
and the Contemporary English Version (CEV)
are some of the examples of this approach to the translation
task. Such versions seek to find the best modern cultural
equivalent that will have the same effect the original
message had in its ancient cultures. Obviously this
approach is a much freer one.
At this point, the reader may be surprised
that the TNIV has not been included as an illustration
of either of these two major types of translations.
The reason is that, in my opinion, it fits neither.
After considerable personal study, and analysis, I
have become totally convinced that in order to do complete
justice to translations like the TNIV, the NIV and
the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), scholars
simply must recognize the validity of a third major
category of translation: the balanced or mediating
type.
Balanced or Mediating Translation
The TNIV Committee on Bible Translation
(CBT) attempted to make the TNIV a balanced, mediating
version—one that would fall about halfway between
the most literal and the most free. But is that, in
fact, where the TNIV fits?
There are many neutral parties who think
it is.
Strictly speaking, then, the TNIV is
not a dynamicequivalence translation. If it were, it
would read “Greet each other in Christian love” (NLT)
instead of“Greet one another with a holy kiss” (Romans
16:16). Similar illustrations could be given to demonstrate
that the TNIV is an idiomatically balanced translation.
How was such a balance achieved? By having
a builtin system of checks and balances. We called
it the A-B-C-D’s of the TNIV, usingcomparison,
those letters as an alphabetic acrostic to represent accuracy,
beauty, clarity, and dignity. We wanted
to be accurate, that is, as faithful to the original
text as possible (see our comments on the rendering
of John 1:1 at the beginning of this article). But
it is also important to be equally faithful to the
target or receptor language—English in this case.
So we did not want to make the mistake—in the
name of accuracy—of creating“translation
English” that would not be beautiful and
natural. Accuracy, then, must be balanced
by beauty of language. CBT attempted to make
the TNIV read and flow the way any great English literature
should. To illustrate, many have praised the TNIV rendering
of 1 Corinthians 13:4-7:“Love is patient, love
is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is
not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking,
it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the
truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes,
always perseveres.”
At the same time we did not want to
make the mistake—in the name of beauty—of
creating lofty, flowery English that would not be clear.
So beauty must be balanced by clarity.
If a translation is to be both accurate and clear (idiomatic),
it cannot be a mechanical exercise; instead, it must
be a highly nuanced process. One of my favorite illustrations
of lack of clarity is the KJV rendering of
1 Corinthians 10:24: “Let no man seek his own,
but every man another’s wealth.” In the
interests of clarity the TNIV reads: “No one
should seek their own good, but the good of others.”
The importance of clarity in
Bible translations is obvious. On the other hand, the
CBT did not want to make the mistake—in the name
of clarity—of stooping to slang, vulgarisms,
street vernacular, and unnecessarily undignified language. Clarity, then,
must be balanced by dignity, particularly
since one of our objectives was to produce a general,
all-church-use Bible. Some of the dynamic-equivalence
versions are at times unnecessarily undignified.
Additional examples could be given. But
the point is that when we produced the TNIV, we wanted accuracy,
but not at the expense of beauty; we wanted beauty,
but not at the expense of clarity; and we
wanted clarity, but not at the expense of dignity.
We wanted all these in balance.
To sum up, there is a need for a new
category in classifying translations—a classification
called mediating position. The chart on the
next page visually demonstrates what I have in mind.
It contains only what I regard as major, standard,
committee-produced translations.
A Good Bible Translation
What, then, makes a good Bible translation?
In my opinion, a good translation will follow a balanced
or mediating translation philosophy. As Donald W. Burdick,
Associate Editor of the NIV Study Bible and one of
the translators of the NIV, put it:
“In conclusion, we have been saying
that a good translation is neither too much nor too
little. It is neither too slavish a reproduction of
the Greek [and Hebrew], nor is it too free in its handling
of the original. It is neither too modern and casual,
nor is it too stilted and formal. It is not too much
like the KJV, nor does it depart too far from the time-honored
beauty and dignity of that seventeenthcentury classic.
In short, the best translation is one that has avoided
the extremes and has achieved instead the balance that
will appeal to the most people for the longest period
of time.”
Bruce M. Metzger, Collard Professor
Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature,
Princeton Theological Seminary, and Chairperson of
the NRSV Bible Committee, provides an appropriate conclusion
to this article:
“Translating the Bible is a never-ending
task. As long as English remains a living language
it will continue to change, and therefore new renderings
of the Scriptures will be needed. Furthermore, as other,
and perhaps still more ancient manuscripts come to
light, scholars will need to evaluate the history of
the scribal transmission of the original texts. And,
let it be said finally, alongside such developments
in translating the Bible there always remains the duty
of all believers to translate the teaching of Holy
Writ into their personal lives.”
Dr.
Barker serves on the Committee
on Bible Translation and
was one of the original translators of the NIV.
|
