Choosing a Translation of the Bible

A generation or two ago, choosing a translation of the Bible was more a matter of choosing the color of the cover than choosing the version. Virtually, there was only one version — the King James Version. It was the only Bible that most people knew. It was the English translation of the Bible. It influenced the church, the society, and the English language itself. Indeed, the church and society thrived under it. The King James Version blessed the people of God for centuries.

But language changes. No language, except a dead one, is static. A cursory reading of English prose of a century ago demonstrates this. Take, for example, the description by Douglas MacArthur, the great American general educated in the nineteenth century, of the World War I French general, Henri Gouraud:

His Algerian exploits had won him the soubriquet of le lion d'Afrique, and his Gallipoli campaign had become almost a classic. But I was not prepared for the heroic figure to whom I reported. With one arm gone, and half a leg missing, with his red beard glittering in the sunlight, the jaunty rake of his cocked hat and the oratorical brilliance of his resonant voice, his impact was overwhelming. He seemed almost to be the reincarnation of the legendary figure of battle and romance, Henry of Navarre. And he was just as good as he looked.¹

Of course, this prose is still well understood today, but the vocabulary, the idioms, the turn of phrases have a different ring to them, the sound of a bygone Victorian era. But go back further in time, to the time of the King James Bible. The language sounds even stranger to our ears, almost foreign. Yet, with some study and a very good dictionary, even that Early Modern English prose may be understood.

But all translations, including the King James Version, seek to put the word of God in the language of the people. In fact, God inspired the authors of the New Testament to write in the Greek dialect of the common (Koine) people, not in the Greek dialect of the academy (Attic). So it should be with modern translations. Translators should put the word of God, which is the power of God unto salvation, into the language of the common man that he might know God and what God requires of him. Hence, there is a real need for modern translations — perhaps not so many modern translations — but nonetheless, there is a need, especially in our biblically and generally illiterate times.

Although the King James Version can no longer be widely used because English has changed, the translation principles of the King James Version have not changed nor have become obsolete. Indeed, it was those principles that blessed generations. Of course, the translators of the King James Version did not invent them. From the King James Version to Luther's translation, from Jerome's Vulgate to parts of the Septuagint, these principles — to one degree or another — have been followed. This is true even from the days of King James to our modern times. In selecting a modern translation, therefore, for public and private worship for Christians and for the common man who does not know the Lord, choose a modern translation that follows these proven and venerable principles that have blessed the church for centuries. Choose a translation then (1) that translates faithfully and accurately the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek without unnecessary interpretation, (2) that reflects a high view of Scripture, and (3) that — especially for our day — follows the natural changes of modern idiom, but does not follow unnatural language changes of political movements or agendas.

Choose a translation that translates faithfully and accurately the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek without unnecessary interpretation

A translation ought to translate. This is obvious, to be sure, but what is a translation? The word "translate" denotes bearing or transferring the meaning of one language to another language. This transference of meaning from one language to another may take many forms. At one extreme, one may woodenly transfer the grammar and idiom of one language to another without actually transferring any meaning. On the other extreme, one may ignore the grammar and idiom and may simply interpret or paraphrase the meaning of one language to the other. This will certainly transfer meaning, but is this the proper meaning? Clearly a middle course is needed.

Many today choose paraphrases for their translation of Scripture, finding them easier to understand, especially for children. In fact, they are easier to understand because they are not actually translations, but interpretations, mini-commentaries on the Scriptures. As such, they have their place, and they can certainly be helpful. Moreover, paraphrases are not just recent inventions with the Living Bible, but some ancient versions, such as the Targums and the Septuagint, are also paraphrastic in many places. Also modern versions such as the NIV try to follow a middle course between a paraphrase and a more "literal" translation. Again, these also have their place and they can be helpful, but they take many liberties in interpreting the text. They are more like a paraphrase in this aspect.

But do we simply trust the interpretation of the translators? For general conversation or understanding, this may be acceptable, but for Scripture, and for other writings that demand greater precision, such as law, a translation closer to the phrasing of the original is helpful, and indeed necessary. While interpretations and paraphrases are helpful, translating the grammar and idiom of Scripture to allow the reader to have a sense of the wording of Scripture and to interpret it for himself is more than helpful — it is essential.

All translations, of course, require some interpretation. Issues of context, both grammatical and historical, and authorial intent must enter into any translation. Sometimes a grammatical construction may allow multiple understandings. In such cases, a translator must decide which rendering is appropriate, based on his judgment and interpretation. With the original texts of the Bible, the situation is still more complicated. The Greek New Testament is without punctuation. The translator must supply this, based on his understanding of the passage. This does not mean, however, that the language is at the mercy of the translator to make what he will of the passage through the punctuation. The Greek language with its intricate subordination often makes the punctuation clear, with issues of parentheses being the most difficult. Even more complicated than Greek, Hebrew, also written without punctuation, is often written without vowels. Furthermore, Hebrew does not have the subtle subordination of Greek. Yet, God has preserved the understanding of the vowels and the punctuation through the Masoretic tradition. These issues do require interpretation on occasion, but again, God has not left us to our own devises. Though translations require some interpretation, it should be kept to a minimum.

Keeping interpretation to a minimum, a translator should represent the Hebrew and Greek to allow the reader the privilege and responsibility to interpret the text. Too often Sunday School classes are left confused because their "translations" read differently. Actually, of course, their translations are interpretations that differ. Many wonder how translations can differ so widely. Some wonder just how accurate their English translations are. For example, 1 Thess 4:4 reads in part, "that each might know how to possess his own vessel." The TNIV interprets "his own vessel" as "your own body." To be sure, the TNIV emasculates the gender (and changes the person from third to second) with "his own" becoming "your own," which does not reflect the Greek, but it also interprets "vessel" as "body." The New American Bible (NAB), however, has a different interpretation: "that each of you know how to acquire a wife for himself." Here "vessel" is interpreted as "wife." Paul, of course, could have written "body" or "wife," but instead he wrote "vessel." Perhaps, it is better to translate the Greek as intended by the human and divine author and leave interpretation to the reader. The situation is even more serious when the translator botches an interpretation. In Exod 21:22, the TNIV interprets the passage, "If people are fighting and a pregnant woman is hit and gives birth prematurely." This interpretation of Exod 21:22 as a premature birth is certainly wrong.² The TNIV, to be fair, has the proper interpretation in the footnote, but the TNIV does not always put an alternative interpretation or the correct interpretation in a footnote. Again, translate the passage to let the reader interpret. Do not prejudice or mislead the reader with interpretational blunders.

A similar principle applies to emending the text. A translator should not change or "correct" the text except in a very few cases, such as obvious copyist mistakes. For instance, the TNIV in Ps 12:6 emends the Hebrew text, which reads, "The words of the Lord are pure words, (like) silver refined in the furnace of the earth, refined seven times," to "And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times,"³ without sufficient textual justification to satisfy their notions of how the text should read and of how the biblical parallelism should be. In a footnote, the TNIV instructs the reader that their correction of the text is the "probable reading of the original Hebrew text." The Committee on Bible Translation of the TNIV in their "A Word to the Reader," the preface to the TNIV, states that such emendations "are usually indicated in the textual notes."⁴ Of course, all emendations should be noted and perhaps emphasized by italics. Again, to be fair, the TNIV is not alone. Many conservative translations take too many liberties in "correcting" the text. The translator, again, must restrain himself and let the text speak for itself. The text just may be correct.

As much as possible, a translation should reflect the text as it is and the grammatical structure to allow the reader to interpret the text when possible, allowing other study aids to assist in interpretation. A translator should restrain the urge and resist the temptation to emend or to interpret the text for the reader.

Choose a translation that reflects a high view of Scripture

Although a translator must interpret with restraint and caution, a translator does not come to the text theologically neutral. Even if without theological training, a translator has certain presuppositions, consciously or unconsciously, when he comes to a text. If a translator, for instance, comes to the Bible believing that it is like any other book, merely a human product, the result of human ingenuity, then he does not properly understand the true nature of the book. His translation will err. Not necessarily often, but yet too often. His translation will miss the unity of the divine mind behind the Scriptures. It will fail to appreciate the divine wisdom of the Scriptures. It will lack the divine pathos of the Scriptures. In short, the translation will be sterile, with unnecessary errors and blunders. Worse yet, some translators come to the Bible with a negative bias, with an agenda to subvert the clear teachings of the Bible. The Revised Standard Version (RSV), for instance, often shows this bias. In Rom 9:5, the RSV distorts the syntax to shun Paul's assertion of Christ's deity: "to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen." The RSV renders the last part of the verse as an independent sentence, a doxology. Such a rendering, while imaginative, is forced — indeed, forced by a theological bias.⁵ Perhaps because of the severe criticism that the RSV received over this unfortunate rendering, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) emends the translation of its forbearer to the appropriate rendering, "to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." This correction, however, is isolated. The NRSV, unfortunately, follows the same bias against the word of God as its fore-runner, the RSV. Moreover, the NRSV adds a layer of gender-inclusive language to its bias. Other translations with the same bias, such as the Revised English Bible (REB) and the NAB, still refuse to surrender to the correct translation of Rom 9:5, as the NRSV has.

Modern translations may also show their negative bias towards Scripture by stretching the syntax of the biblical text to conform with Babylonian texts, which the Hebrews presumably borrowed. For example, the REB and NAB translate Gen 1:1 as a temporal clause to agree with the beginning of the Babylonian creation account, Enuma Elish, which begins with a temporal clause. This is against the natural rendering of the syntax and the Masoretic understanding of the verse.⁶ Moreover, it is against the New Testament understanding of the verse as John 1:1 and Heb 11:3 probably indicate. In another example, the NRSV, REB, NAB, and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) begin a new paragraph within Gen 2:4 to make the following account, which they assume to be a second creation account consistent with a naturalistic approach to Scripture, start with a temporal clause for the same reason as Gen 1:1. Again, the Masoretic understanding, which sees a new paragraph beginning after Gen 2:3 but not within verse four, contradicts these modern translations and their biases.⁷ Sad to say, examples like these can be multiplied many times.

Perhaps the worst example of this pernicious attitude towards Scripture occurs when translations rearrange the word of God to suit their own opinion of how the text should read. This is emendation gone mad. Without the slightest textual justification, without sound contextual reasons, indeed without reason itself, the REB and the NAB cut Zech 4:1-3 and paste it after Zech 4:10. This is not an isolated example. The REB does this several times as do other translations of this mindset. The cut-and-paste Bible, however, is the New English Bible (NEB), the forerunner of the REB. A cursory reading of the footnotes shows that the NEB rearranges the text at will, often mixing textual comments like "transpose" and "probable reading" with "corrupt" and "Hebrew unintelligible." After reading the textual notes of the NEB, one wonders how the Old Testament could have ever been translated or interpreted with such pervasive "corruptions" in the text. Recently, such translations have moved away from the excesses of the NEB — at least somewhat — returning to a resemblance of sanity in dealing with the text.

Instead of following such a destructive philosophy against the Scripture, both in understanding it and in translating it, a translator must have proper views about the Scriptures. He must see them as a supernatural product and not just as a natural or human product. Although the Scriptures are the product of many men writing over many centuries, ultimately they reflect the thinking of one mind — one divine mind. As such, they possess a unity of thought and instruction, not a collection of inconsistent and contradictory "texts." Furthermore, they possess a wisdom and a teaching worthy of their infinitely wise Author. Hence, the translator should love, cherish, and gladly receive the Scriptures — he should appreciate the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:12-15). In short, he must see the Scriptures as the very word of God. This principle supplies the overall context or philosophy of the translation. If a translator misunderstands the nature of the work that he translates, he will almost certainly mistranslate it. If he translates a comedy as a tragedy, a joke as a law, or a comic strip as a sober historical account, the translation, though perhaps grammatically correct, will fall wide of the mark. A translator, therefore, must come to the text with an orthodox understanding of Scripture.

This does not imply, of course, that orthodoxy must drive translation; on the contrary, proper translation and interpretation must drive orthodoxy. A translator must translate Scripture faithfully, seeking to please its Author, not to please a theological point of view. Hence, as a translator must restrain the urge to interpret individual verses and passages, so he must restrain himself, as much as possible, from inserting his own theological views or agendas into a translation. He must allow the translation, or actually the word of God, to speak for itself and allow the reader to interpret its teachings and to develop its theology.

Hence, although a translator cannot approach the Scriptures theologically neutral, a translator must first believe God and his word, then he must translate the Scriptures as accurately and as honestly as is humanly possible, allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves.

Choose a translation that follows natural language changes of modern idiom, but does not follow the unnatural language changes of political movements or agendas

As a translator should restrain the urge and resist the temptation to emend or to interpret the text or to insert his theology into the text, so he should also resist following or conforming to political movements. Political movements and issues, to be sure, have impacted the interpretation and translation of Scripture. The King James Version is the result of a political compromise, at least somewhat, between King James and the Puritans.⁸ This compromise did not affect the translation, but only the production of the translation. The existence of some inordinately large commentaries in America on the book Philemon before 1861 seems odd until one realizes the political issue of that time — slavery. The translation of Exod 21:22 was non-controversial in America until 1973, the year of Roe v. Wade. When political passions run high on any issue, sometimes the issue has controlled biblical interpretation. At other times, biblical interpretation has been allowed to speak for itself concerning the issue. In past times, translators and interpreters attempted to let the Bible speak for itself without allowing political considerations to override or to control the translation or interpretation of Scripture. This is not to say that they have always been successful, but the attempt is honorable and noble. Most Christians, if not all, recognize this.

But times are changing. Now some believe that the translator should adjust his work to avoid offending modern sensibilities. The Committee on Bible Translation for the NIVI — the New International Version: Inclusive Language Edition (the predecessor to the TNIV) — stated in its policy on gender-inclusive language that

Authors of Biblical books, even while writing Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit, unconsciously reflected in many ways, the particular cultures in which they wrote. Hence in the manner in which they articulate the Word of God, they sometimes offend modern sensibilities. At such times, translators can and may use non-offending renderings so as not to hinder the message of the Spirit.⁹

This principle opens a Pandora's box for the translator. If the writers of Scripture, inspired by the Spirit, write things offensive to modern sensibilities, who is the translator to correct the words of the Spirit so as not to hinder the message of the Spirit? Should translators commission polls, gather focus groups, or interview various special interest groups to determine whose sensibilities are offended? Perhaps the Spirit intended to offend modern sensibilities. But there is more. The next principle declares,

The patriarchalism (like other social patterns) of the ancient cultures in which the Biblical books were composed is pervasively reflected in forms of expression that appear, in the modern context, to deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers. For these forms, alternative modes of expression can and may by used, though care must be taken not to distort the intent of the original text.¹⁰

Again, permission is granted to adjust translations if "forms of expression appear, in the modern context, to deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers." Such subjective and arbitrary principles are a license to insert all sorts of modern agendas into Bible translation.

Which brings us to the gender-inclusive language debate. For non-evangelical interpreters and for translators of the NRSV and the REB, gender-inclusive language is fully embraced. For evangelicals, on the other hand, the issue is hotly contested, with some accepting and others rejecting gender-inclusive language.

The gender-inclusive language debate has both political and linguistic dimensions, with proponents and opponents of gender-inclusive language agreeing on one point: Secular feminism is the source and the driving force behind the gender-inclusive language. D. A. Carson, a proponent, states, "I acknowledge that much of the demand of reform of the English language on this point is from active feminists. Much of the push for change is ideologically driven. I don't think all of it is, but certainly much of it is."¹¹ Similarly, Bruce Waltke, another proponent, says, "Although I resent it, the English language has been impacted by secular (non-biblical) feminism and many students today are trained to hear 'man' and 'he' and their equivalents as referring only to males, excluding females."¹²

But the agreement ends there. Carson goes on to indicate, as I read him, that while he has disagreements with the feminist movement, he agrees with them concerning gender-inclusive language — "One must try to assess where, in the light of Scripture, feminist agendas make telling points, where their demands make little difference (from a biblical point of view), and where they seem to fly in the face of Scripture."¹³ Indeed, though an opponent of gender-inclusive language, I agree with Carson that feminism may well "make telling points" on issues, such as pornography, for example. But they do not "make telling points" on gender-inclusive language. They instead attempt to politicize speech and thought, as part of our current culture wars, against the traditional culture of the West and its source, the Scriptures. Listen to Bruce Metzger, for instance, writing for the Committee of the NRSV, "During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text."¹⁴ Of course, the writers of Scripture and the Writer of Scripture may be (and have been) charged with possessing a similar "linguistic sexism and bias." Listen to the preface of the NIVI: "It is often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language."¹⁵ The biblical writers, however, never condemn patriarchal culture per se, and throughout the Scriptures, the Bible teaches a male headship that implies, at least to some degree, a patriarchal culture. Even if "their demands make little difference (from a biblical point of view)," translators of the word of God must not consider or accept the demands of the feminists, or for that matter, the demands of any group. Their demands, however, do make a difference — they politicize the word of God.

The disagreement goes even deeper. Carson writes, "translations [should] change as the receptor languages change, regardless of the motivations that some entertain for those changes."¹⁶ On the contrary, we must, in the strongest terms, reject language changes, both in the culture generally and in the Bible specifically, that have improper motivations. Suppose a society like Nazi Germany were to decree, or just promote, that the term "Jew" no longer be used, but instead an insulting slur be used. The language change may be accepted by nearly all, it may even be embraced by all, but the Christians of that society, including Christian translators, must resist such language changes. Certainly language changes, but the motivations for that change must be considered. Natural changes in languages are benign. Changes like the dropping of case endings, the elimination of rare forms, the obsolescence of certain words and idioms, and the adding of new words and idiom are common and natural. The movement towards gender-inclusive language, however, is clearly an unnatural change in the language. Such changes must be viewed with extreme caution. This unnatural change in the language is politically driven, as Carson and other evangelicals acknowledge. Language has now become a target to deconstruct the Bible and society, a tool for speech codes on college campuses, an issue to control speech and thought through law in Europe and Canada. This ideology views the Bible as hate speech, sexist, homophobic, and bigoted in thought and in expression. While translations should reflect natural changes in a language, they should not reflect unnatural changes, forced on the language through political and ideological motivations.

For many evangelical proponents of gender-inclusive language the issue is not the motivations for the language change, but whether the language change actually distorts the word of God. Again, Carson writes, "Where the line must be drawn is where a translation is domesticating God's Word such that the truth of Scripture is distorted."¹⁷ Obviously, for Carson and other proponents, gender-inclusive language does not distort Scripture. But for opponents it certainly does distort Scripture. Much has been written about particular verses of the TNIV, whether they distort Scripture or not.¹⁸ But in the larger context and culture of Scripture, gender-inclusive language clearly distorts Scripture by giving the reader the mistaken idea that the Scriptures themselves employ gender-inclusive language, thus giving the mistaken impression that the Bible supports such language. Moreover, such language, to use the words of the NIVI, "mutes the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers." Gender-inclusive language not only mutes the culture of the biblical writers, but it distorts it, leaving the mistaken impression that the biblical culture was not so patriarchal after all and that the writers of Scripture and the speakers within Scripture were sensitive, indeed supportive, of gender-inclusive language and perhaps even of other aspects of that ideology. Gender-inclusive translations, accepting an unnatural language change of political ideology, inject the deadly viruses of the modern culture wars directly into Scripture. Such translations present a view of biblical culture and expression, both anachronistic and distorted.

Because gender-inclusive language is an unnatural language change, the linguistic and political dimensions cannot be separated. Certainly, the translation and the interpretation of the Bible have been influenced through the centuries by many factors, including political and theological factors, but gender-inclusive translations overtly politicize Scripture in a manner unparalleled in history. Biblical translation and interpretation, while they must speak to political and social issues where applicable, must stay above politicization. Translators and interpreters must avoid many temptations, including reading their own interpretations or theology into the text and allowing political agendas to influence their work.

Conclusion

There are many Bibles to choose from today. I recommend (1) those that translate, yet do not interpret — when possible — for the reader; (2) those that reflect a high view of Scripture, yet do not insert their own theological views; and (3) those that follow the natural changes of modern idiom, yet do not follow the unnatural language changes of modern agendas and ideology. I also recommend translations that reject principles that approve modifications in translations so as not to offend modern sensibilities. This means, of course, that I recommend Bibles with a translation philosophy similar to the New American Standard Bible and others like it. Other translations that are more paraphrastic may be used with profit, but use them as interpretations or commentaries. This also means, of course, that I reject the TNIV as a politicized work.

The English language changes. And like most languages, it changes slowly and naturally. The language of a hundred years ago is still clear and well understood, with perhaps some idioms or grammatical forms becoming obsolete. In the last twenty-five years the language change is slight, except in one area — language has become politicized. Let us not allow the translation and interpretation of the Bible to become politicized as well. Let us, therefore, allow the Bible to speak clearly and boldly from its own culture, time, and agenda, and let all others read and consider whether their culture, time, and agenda honors God and his word, or not.