Getting to know the original...

I sometimes feel like I only use this blog when I wish to comment at some length on something taking place within Christianity/society. That's not bad, though, since college students find themselves inundated with information like this all the time in this digital age.

It's not the first time I've heard of the Conservative Bible Project, but I wanted to put in words what I've been thinking about this (and many other) notions going about Bible translation and the accuracy thereof.

While I applaud any attempt to translate the Bible into the English language more accurately than ever before, this attempt is so fundamentally skewed that I would warn Christians, especially conservative Christians, to avoid the product, whenever it appears.

The first statement that must be made in regard to rendering one text in a new language is this: every translation is an interpretation. Not all translations include the interpretations of the translators to the same degree, but all translation definitely involves interpretation, which makes its way into the new text. It's not only not avoidable; it's practically required. It is not possible to make a translation (except, perhaps, if it's just one word) without having to make choices in syntax, voice, mood, tense, etc. - even definition! Just as in English there are multiple words which look the same but mean different things, the same is true in other languages. Often context plays a role in rendering words into another language. It is desirable for us to make and have a translation that doesn't include the interpretive influence of the translator, but it is not possible.

Second, the most literal method to translate something into another language is to attempt a word-for-word translation. This is the best way to minimize the translator's interpretive influence over the text. Unfortunately, this means of translating tends to sacrifice fluidity and readability (especially out loud) in order to stay as close to the original as possible. Readers and hearers must be taught what certain idiomatic phrases meant in the original language, otherwise they can be confusing. This method is probably best exemplified in the New American Standard Bible - probably the most literal translation available - and King James / New King James Versions. NASB requires a grade 12 reading level, and NKJV requires a grade 8 reading level. KJV is a little hard to categorize, considering the archaic language it uses.

Another theory of Bible translation calls for the opposite effort, an attempt to render the Bible in the smoothest reading, most accessible fashion possible. In order to do this, difficult words and passages are rendered using simpler words and passages with the goal of rendering the original concept as clearly as possible. Familiar idioms are substituted for those actually appearing in the original text. God's Word, Good News, and The Living Bible are examples of this kind of translation, which is more accurately described as paraphrase.

It's not as if translators only subscribe to one school of thought or another, but rather that they sit somewhere on a spectrum ranging from word-for-word literalism to thought-for-thought paraphrase. The Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and English Standard Version sit somewhere in the middle - there is definitely an effort made toward a more accurate, word-for-word rendering in English, but at the same time they contain some fairly significant errors. Translation is extremely demanding on the translator regardless of where he is on the spectrum, but the closer you are to a paraphrase, the more the translator's interpretation of the text comes through in the translation.

All of this is fine and good - as a pastor I definitely prefer those translations that do their best to keep the interpretive influence of the translator to a minimum, but I also appreciate that it is not helpful for the Bible to be so hard to read that most people give up when they try. That said, I do not see this Conservative Bible Project as being helpful at all in getting to know the original text. Not only does it come right out and claim to be a 'thought-for-thought' translation (paraphrase) of the original texts, it also reveals that it has a clear interpretive bias - conservatism (whatever that is!)! This is, I'm afraid, the worst kind of translation attempt, not just because of the blatant paraphrase, but even more because of the preconceived notions the translators are carrying into the project.

Take a look for yourself at some of the examples provided at the link above. Eliminating some of Jesus' words because they can be taken as liberal? Eliminating socialist themes and vocabulary from the Bible because they were obviously added later? It's absurd. Anyone who comes to the Bible with these prejudices in place is using their sinful, fallen reason magisterially over Scripture, forming God in their own image and likeness, rather than hearing the Word of God and conforming their lives, as the Spirit grants it, to that Word.

History is full of individuals and societies that sought to choose which parts of the Bible are actually Scripture and which were added later for some other reason. Unfortunately, this is an entirely backward way to look at it. We don't put ourselves over God; God is God, and we are not! Or, as Ireneaus of Lyons used to summarize, 'God makes; man is made.' Only as we are continually being formed into the image and likeness of God (which we only fully receive in eternity) can we have any hope of understanding Holy Scripture, no matter which translation is read!