Issues as diverse as basic skill, theological position, and sexual orientation have resulted in controversy about Bible translations.
Details of Style and Method
Even once we have decided on our method of translation there will be a number of details to work out. For example:
Do we convert weights and measures into modern terms or use the ancient terms?
If we don’t convert them, do we include footnotes indicating their approximate values?
Do we capitalize pronouns referring to God?
Do we capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus, and do we do so even in Old Testament prophecies?
Do we use gender neutral terminology, such as “brothers and sisters” when a Biblical writer refers to a mixed group?
This scenario has given us a very brief introduction to the types of questions that translators must deal with in order to produce a version of the Bible ready for your use. In the following chapters, we’ll deal with these issues in more detail one at a time.
Each of the following chapters will start with a brief introduction to the key concepts. Examples and additional information will be included next. At the end of each chapter there will be reference charts to help you with studying the material contained in that chapter further. You can choose how deeply you want to delve into the topic by deciding how deeply you read into each chapter.
Some Examples
Here are some examples of the differences in Bible versions that can result from the kinds of issues we have discussed in this chapter. I will quote only a few translations of each text so as to indicate the issue, and then briefly discuss what causes the difference.
In each example, I will include a very literal interlinear translation of the Greek or Hebrew source text. Do not make the mistake of regarding this very literal translation as more accurate; it is more raw and unprocessed, not more accurate. One might even get a completely incorrect idea of the meaning of the text by working with this raw material. I present it so you can see the path the translators take in producing their translation.
John the Immerser?
Consider the following clause, first in my excessively literal translation, then in three Bible versions:
| Matthew 3:11 |
| EGO MEN hUMAS BAPTIZÔ EN hUDATI I on the one hand you [baptize] in/with water EIS METANOIAN into/for repentance. |
| It’s true that I am immersing you in water so that you might turn from sin. (CJB) |
| I baptize you with water for repentance (NRSV) |
| I baptize you with water so that you will give up your sins. (CEV) |
The primary issue here is the use of the church term “baptize” versus the use of the term “immerse.” Many people believe that the term “immerse” is a better translation because it reflects more accurately the meaning of the Greek word BAPTIZO as used in this passage. Thus, rather than use a neutral term such as “baptize” which has come to mean different things to different people, they would suggest that the most accurate way to translate this passage would be with the word “immerse.”
But it’s not quite so simple as that. This is one of those places where we can let our theological preconceptions determine how we will translate, rather than simply seeking the most accurate translation, and then doing our theological study afterward. While it is quite likely that much of the baptism in the New Testament, included that of John, involved immersion, the word BAPTIZÔ itself doesn’t force this meaning.
Let’s look at an interesting example, from the Didache, an early Christian teaching tract probably written around 100 CE.
“Now concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have gone over all these things [the teachings presented earlier in the document] baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [living usually means naturally running]. But if you don’t have living water, baptize in other water, and if you don’t have cold water, use warm. But if you don’t have either one, pour water on the person’s head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” -- Didache 7:1-3, Author’s translation
So here the method of baptism need not be by immersion, though it appears that a method other than pouring was to be preferred if it was possible.
How Large was Nineveh?
| Jonah 3:3 |
| We - NINeWEH HAYeTHAH ;IYR GeDOLAH And Nineveh was city big MAHaLĒK SHeLOSHETH YAMIYM (of) traveling three days |
| Now Nineveh was an exceedingly large city, a three days’ walk across. (NRSV) |
| Now Nineveh was a very important city—a visit required three days. (NIV [1984]) |
| Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go all through it. (NIV [1978]) |
The fact is that the site of Nineveh is about 1800 acres, or 2.8 square miles. The problem for the translator is that it is difficult to determine what a city “of three days journey” actually is. Since we know the approximate size of Nineveh, it’s hard to fit in. Before we knew, for example when the King James Version was translated, it was assumed it would take three days to travel across the city. The NRSV has chosen to continue following that tradition, even though it contradicts the known size of the city. One possibility here is storyteller’s license—making a somewhat exaggerated statement to get the audience’s attention. The first edition of the NIV Old Testament (1978) solved the problem by assuming that the three days journey would be to go all around in the city. The 1984 edition alters that to “visit” but also changes the translation of the Hebrew word “GeDOLAH”, which can mean “great, large or important” so that the verse no longer refers to the size of the city at all.
A translator’s concern will show through here. Does the translator wish to leave open the possibility of an error in scripture? Even though there may be perfectly good explanations for the expression as it is written, will these be understood by the readers?
Further study: Read the following text as Jonah starts his preaching after going a day’s journey into the city. Does that suggest anything about how verse three should be translated?
Controlled by the Spirit?
| Romans 8:6 |
| TO GAR PHRONĒMA TES SARKOS THANATOS The for mindset of the flesh death TO DE PHRONĒMA TOU PNEUMATOS ZÔE KAI EIRĒNĒ the but mindset of the spirit life and peace |
| To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. (NRSV) |
| The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; (NIV) |
|
If our minds are ruled by our desires, we will die. But if our minds are ruled by the Spirit, we will have life and peace. (CEV)
|