.png)
“What is the best Bible translation?
Should I go with a ‘literal’ translation (word for word) or a dynamic equivalent one (thought for thought)?” How many
times have we had someone ask us those questions? How many books and blog posts
have we read on the subject? If you’ve been a Christian-intellectual-in-training
for a while, then you have probably seen or heard your fair share. Some people swear up
and down that there is only one correct translation (usually the KJV) or method (usually the literal with its current champion the ESV) while all the other ones are an abomination.
One of my colleagues at seminary, the Rev. Chad Brooks, said that while he was working at a Christian bookstore he
actually had a man come in and ask for “one of those Bibles like Paul carried.”
Chad replied, “I’m sorry, sir, we are fresh out of scrolls.” That little
story illustrates the fact that too few people understand—unless we read Greek
and Hebrew we are not reading the Bible as it was originally written. I have
written about this more fully in my post Kissing Through a Veil. But if
we get locked in on one method or translation we may miss the actual message of the Scripture itself.
Interestingly enough, debates of
this nature go back to the Reformation. While some Reformed churches today get
their britches in a wad over “dynamic equivalent” translations versus “literal
translations” (one thinks of the nearly fallacious claims made about the ESV over and
above translations like the NLT or NIV for instance), Dr. Martin Luther was
battling this way of thinking as early as 1530 A.D. He did it in high style,
lambasting Papists and calling many people “asses” along the way.
A couple of weeks ago I read a
short treatise called “An Open Letter On Translating.” [Click here to read it.]
In it Luther justifies his translating methods, particularly surrounding his
decision to include sola fide even
though it was not in the original language. He writes, “It has been charged by the despisers of truth that the text has been
modified and even falsified in many places, which has shocked and startled many
simple Christians, even among the educated who do not know any Hebrew or Greek.”
This could easily have been written last week, but he moves on to explain why
this claim has been made in the first place. “The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them
like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it
conveys the sense of the text-if the translation is to be clear and accurate,
it belongs there…We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
speak German—as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the
children on the street, the common person in the market about this. We must be
guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating
accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking
German to them.”
Of course, he spends more space on
his arguments than I have quoted here, but I hope you can catch the drift. For
Luther, the most important thing was for common people to be able to understand
the Bible in their own vernacular. He had no qualms in smoothing out idioms or
shifting syntax to aid comprehension. I wonder how he would have weighed in on
the subject if he were alive today.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the
subject. Please let us know what you’re favorite translation is and why.
