The Myth of the Word-For-Word Bible Translation. (Languages Don’t Work That Way.)
When I was young, people (who should have known better) told me that I should only read Bibles that were translated with a “word for word” method so as to preserve the original meaning of the text. Anything else was unacceptable.
This made sense to me, at the time. Why read a translation that isn’t literally the same words as the original? It was a simple concept. Or, so I thought. Later I noticed that in the front of every Bible I owned (I owned a lot of them – and still do) was a section describing the method of translation used by the scholars and none of them claimed to be literal, word-for-word translations. None of them.
Did you know that the old Hebrew and Greek texts didn’t contain punctuation? It’s all added in by translators. A misplaced comma can change the meaning of an entire paragraph, and in this case they aren’t even in the manuscripts. However, punctuation is how languages work, today, so it wouldn’t be a proper translation without commas, quotation marks, and the rest.
But anyone who’s studied languages, at all, can see a more fundamental problem: languages cannot be
translated with word-for-word methods.
For example, take a simple sentence that we all learn in Spanish class – “Como se llamas.” It means, “What’s your name” to us, but a word-for-word translation would be “How you are called?” It’s not even readable that way, and that’s just a simple example. When you apply this method to a very ancient language the problems are much more complicated.
To put it simply: it is impossible to translate anything in a word-for-word manner – especially something written in ancient languages. (To make matters worse, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but his words were recorded in Greek, so our manuscripts don’t even have His original words – they had to be translated into something else to be preserved.) To bring an ancient text to a modern audience the translator must understand the meaning of each sentence and then translate that sentence into contemporary rhetoric. Since language changes with each generation these translations must be updated regularly or they’ll stop making sense.
What bugs me the most is that the people who told me to seek out word-for-word translations were ministers who had graduated from conservative, Christian seminaries. How could they make this mistake?
Related Posts
About The Author
Good article. Every translation is also an interpretation.
Each translation also serves a good purpose. The NIV is written on a 9th grade reading level and is great for teenagers and new believers. The NASB is on a 12th grade reading level. It is for Christians who are more mature in the faith. The ESV is also written on a higher reading level, but it has more proper grammar than the NASB, so it is for more mature Christians who also like proper English Grammar. The New Living is a good translation for younger readers. It is a 6th grade reading level. So each translation serves a good purpose and when taken for what they are, they are all pretty good.
My classes in Greek and Hebrew and Biblical translation were some of the most interesting classes I took in seminary. They also often left me wondering, having grown up a Christian — WHY HAS NO ONE TOLD ME THIS?
I think people who have studied the topic end up doing two things. The first is assuming no one else really cares to hear a more technical explanation regarding translation. And the second, fail to understand that without explanation many of the terms scholars use to talk about translation mean something else to others not familiar with the way that term is used.
For example, word-for-word translation is more of a type of translation than a literal definition. So, translation types would be word-for-word as opposed to paraphrase. Some translations focus on paraphrase of a sentence, or a paraphrase or even a whole section of Scripture. The Message translation is an expample.
In your example with
“Como se llamas.” In Biblical interpretation translating as, “What’s your name” would be considered word-for-word translation even though not exact to the literal meaning of each word. If the phrase was translated as, “Please tell me the name that your parent’s gave you.” That would not be word-for-word but a paraphrase, and perhaps if there were more context for the sentence the actual meaning of what the author was trying to ask.
Anyway, I’m sure a bit of this many knew already but it seemed worth pointing out. And again, I agree that much emphasis is put on which translation is right, when really none is ‘right’ in the sense that is often meant when people make that argument.
Each translation does serve a different purpose, but those purposes aren’t limited to reading levels. Because language always exists in particular cultural and personal contexts, word-for-word translations, and even phrase-by-phrase translations (even based on Bethany’s very helpful, more accurate definitions), have a hard time communicating (translating) context. Paraphrases are often quite valuable in this regard.
Whenever we translate anything, something is lost. There’s no such thing as a perfect translation. The translators choose their priorities and strive to make the best translation possible to achieve their particular goals. Word-for-word, phrase-by-phrase, and paraphrase each prioritize different ends and therefore gain and sacrifice different elements of meaning and communication. The translation work I’ve done for my PhD work were humbling, maddening, exhilarating projects.
It’s been echoed already, but I’ll reiterate it one more time here–Adam’s point is an important one. Word-for-word translations are not more objective and therefore better. Translation and interpretation are inseparable.
On another note, I know many long-time Christians, myself included, who find refreshment in paraphrases because the translations we grew up with are so familiar; the paraphrases help us see with fresh perspective. My reading level is rather high, but the paraphrases—such as The New Living and The Message—serve a purpose for folks like me as well.
One last thing: For all the reasons mentioned, I think it’s a good practice when studying Scripture to use several translations side-by-side. When simply reading Scripture, read whichever you like, whichever will keep you reading! In either case, exposure to various translations is an enriching experience. Like Adam’s post also implies, various translations complement each other; they shouldn’t be in competition.