How Do I Know My Translation is Right?
Background: The makers of the New International Version of the Bible have recently announced a new translation (called Today’s New International Version, or the TNIV). Many smart people and respected leaders in the church support this new translation, and many other smart people and respected leaders are against it. Those against it are primarily concerned that because the TNIV is being marketed as the new NIV, it will become the church’s commonly accepted Bible, and as such they are concerned that the changes it makes are not faithful to the original manuscripts. Mark Roberts has been doing an excellent series on this topic for a few days now if you would like to know more about it.
What concerns me the most is not that there’s yet another translation, but that this has become such a big deal. The modern church has been fragmented time and again by people getting worked up over little things like this. We can talk about the goodness or badness of the TNIV, and in fact we should, but if we’re not talking about it in love then we are wasting our time and inappropriately dividing God’s kingdom. I think there are two primary diseases causing this problem: pride and fear.
Fear
It seems to me that we are afraid of the inferences people will make, and the doctrines they will cling to, based on a given translation. Some of us are afraid of the snake-handlers, some are afraid of tongues, some are afraid of dancing in the church, some are afraid of not dancing, some are afraid of oppression of women, some are afraid of women pastors. I think all are afraid that we will somehow miss what God is trying to tell us, or that we will anger Him by dancing or allowing women to teach or any other number of little things that are not the main message of the Gospel.
The problem with this is that if we are so afraid of missing what God is saying that we have ceased to love others, then we have already missed what God is saying.
The main message of the Bible is the same in every translation. God created the universe and people in His image. He gave people the authority and responsibility to rule over the earth. People messed it up by choosing to rule our own lives rather than listen to God, thus breaking our relationship with Him. God’s Son, Jesus, became one of us as part of God’s plan to pursue us and renew that relationship. Jesus taught us to love God and love people with our whole beings and to do nothing out of selfishness or pride - and the way to do this is to allow Him to be the ruler of our lives again. His Son was killed in our place - punishment for our rebellion - and He rose from the dead, thus conquering death and proving He could do the same for us. He has promised to return again and to create a new Earth populated with His people.
I don’t know a single translation of the Christian Bible that says something different from that. And all we are called to do is let God rule our lives again, love Him, and love others, holding nothing back. Everything hinges on these, and everything that does not hinge on these doesn’t matter. The little things are worth talking about, discussing, and studying, but they are not worth fighting about, splitting churches, or alienating people.
Pride
So we are afraid of other translations and what people might do apart from us. It is this same fear that caused the old church to keep the Bible in Latin and away from the laypeople. But there is pride behind this also. When we think that we have the only right translation, or even the correct interpretation, of the Bible, then we have become sinfully proud. In their “Statement of Concern about the TNIV Bible“, the folks against the TNIV help make my point for me:
Gender problems are not the only serious problems with the TNIV. For example: How do the TNIV translators know that changing “Jews” to “Jewish leaders,” for example in Acts 13:50 and 21:11, does not make a false claim, and obscure a possible corporate meaning? How do they know that changing “saints” to “those” in Acts 9:13 or to “believers” in Acts 9:32 or to “God’s people” in Romans 8:27 does not sacrifice precious connotations of holiness which the Greek word carries?
I mean no disrespect to the supporters of this statement. These are, in fact, good questions, but they are easily turned on their heads. How do the writers of this statement know that “Jews” does not carry with it connotations unintended in the Greek? How do they know that “those” or “believers” or “God’s people” is not a more accurate translation of the word “saints” according to the original intent of the authors? The answer is that we don’t know. None of us. We can make extremely educated guesses and we can do our best, but to make a claim that our educated guess is absolutely right is to cross the line from humility to pride.
The title of this post asks “How do I know my translation is right?” My answer is two-fold: (1) there is no “right” translation, they each have applications for which they are useful, and (2) it doesn’t matter because the meat of the gospel is the same in all flavors of all languages. We can know the main message of what God has told us in the Bible, even if we aren’t certain about all the details. And we can talk about the details and try to figure them out to our best ability, but we must be very slow to assume that we know the mind of God. God Himself said, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” If you want a humbling experience, try reading Job 38-41. Personally, I can’t read that and then claim that I know anything about the way God thinks.
Read any translation you like, they all say pretty much the same thing.
Yup. In fact, reading multiple translations often helps us have a better/fuller understanding.
Whoa - that Roberts series is right on. Very impressive.
-M@
I agree. Anyway the larger issue with translations is the underlying texts. I happen to believe that the majority text is correct, and reamin stunned that we have swallowed the liberals choice all these years. The use of the critical texts is based on liberal textual criticism deveoped by those who rejected the claims of those very texts.
Multiple translations are the way to go for sure, and a Greek concordance is great as well. And now I’m going to say something controversial:
I think in some ways the Roman Catholic Church has it right with regard to Tradition. What I mean to say is that they attempt to unify the church through Tradition. In other words, all those little things that truly do not matter in the grand scope of things are decided upon, and the whole church agrees as a whole as to what the ‘official’ doctrine is. While this does supply the unity that I think we sometimes need as Protestants, I think they err on the point of making Tradition equal with Scripture (and really *above* it).
</end controversy>
I really like the Creeds… they give a good synopsis of the essentials of the Christian faith.
Hey anselm, thanks for your comment. I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying though. What are the “majority” and “critical” texts, and who are “the liberals” in this context?
Thanks for the article, Adam. Very thoughtful and right on.
To your question about the texts: basically all manuscripts (MSS) can be divided in groups or families, largely based on the variations (variants) in the text, and the assumed family tree of how each variant occurred. One of the largest controversies in the area of textual criticism (analyzing the text to determine what the original said) has been between one group, called the Majority MSS because it was composed of the majority of MSS, and what is called the Critical Text, not because it was criticizing the Bible but because it was generated by considering MSS “critically” and putting together a proposed Bible text based on an eclectic approach from various MSS groups rather than just taking the Majority MSS text, thus the “liberals.”
When I was in seminary the controversy was manifested in arguments about the KJV, based on the Majority MSS, being the only correct version. In my thesis I tried to cut through all the controversy by assuming that the Bible was given to show us how to live - to give us theological doctrine. So I analyzed the book of Romans, doctrinally robust, and compared the text of the Majority MSS to the eclectic text that was current then. I forget the exact number and I’m not home to check right now, but I think it was around 125 variants between the two. Of that 125 there were only 2 or 3 that warranted further doctrinal analysis. Many variants were like substituting “in” for “into” or spelling proper nouns differently. Who cares whether Genessaret has one or two s’s? And of the 3 that had potential doctrinal impact none mattered at all.
I have to believe that the Creator who stooped to communicate with us through written word wanted that message to survive the abuse of time. So He has not allowed MSS variants, which are not obvious changes to the original, that affect the message.
One corollary thought: Why did God allow variants in the first place? Perhaps they are part of his plan? If we actually had the intact original text do you think we might end up worshipping the book rather than the Author?
Thanks for the guidance to the Roberts articles, Adam! Good stuff!
I do think that we should glean from several versions, while exercising caution. We need to recognize and remember that translators, to produce a readable version, can’t transalte word-for-word and must make decisions about how to represent the text in a target language. Those decisions are basically interpretations - additions that can greatly help or hinder our reading and understanding of the Bible. There are minds between us and the original message. Sometimes the version is the product of a committee of translators who have studied and debated the translation issues (NIV), while others are the paraphrae or translation of a single person (LB and Message). I’d say that we must use several versions to compare and lead us to an understanding of the text.
And we need to be careful that we are not using a specific version just to support whatever idea we are trying to promote at the time. I heard a sermon several months ago that made a deep impression on me. I kept the notes and they are in my Bible today. The preacher used 12 Bible references from 6 different versions. And 6 of the references were either flat wrong or grossly taken out of context. I am familiar with the sermon preparation technique on which the preacher has something he wants to say, then searches for just the right verse to prove his point. Going even further and selecting just the right version to make one’s points is even worse. It should be obvious that this is mis-use of the versions we have.
Thanks for the clarification, Dave. I have read about all of that before, but I never had to study it thoroughly so I had forgotten most of the terminology.
We also have to remember that the message not only has to survive the test of time in translation, but also the fact that it is being translated into hundreds of languages and the message remains the same.
I didn’t end up writing about it, but one of the original thoughts that sparked this post was how all of the debate on one translation being right or wrong is very English-centric. I mean, we’re arguing about which English translation of the Bible is better than another English translation while at the same time there are languages that only have (and will only ever have) one translation available to them. Is it worth worrying about whether other cultures have a “correct” translation? Or is it even possible, because the connotations gained and lost in English are completely independent of those gain or lost in Swahili, for example.
As I said in the post, it’s worth talking about, but it shouldn’t be as big of a deal as we’ve made it out to be. It shouldn’t be causing rifts among God’s people. Nothing should.
Right on again, Adam! The example I always think about is the problem resolved by Don Richardson as a Sawi missionary. In that culture Judas Iscariot became the one admired because he successfully betrayed his friend, Jesus. It wasn’t until Richardson learned the “peace child” concept that he had an adequate way to portry Jesus sacrificial ministry. So Jesus became the “Peace Child” rather than the Saviour. If anyone is not familar with this story I recommend the book “Peace Child”. There’s also a movie but I haven’t seen it.
This is a tough one. I would have to agree with Adam. The heart remains no matter what the translation, but hearts are often misread. It takes time to experience someone’s heart, life, ideas, and then to say: “I understand them.”(insert the Jesus paradox of transformation here) But usually We must rely on context. We cannot take the words themselves at face value, at least in our own understanding. The NIV at least works to develop some of the context inherently for the reader. This way, misreading, in terms of context, is less possible. We need these dynamic kinds of translations, otherwise, we would still be sacrificing animals and all the rest of the “Stuff” that fits into an Ancient Near Eastern world. What is most amazing to me is the way the themes and the actions resonate so clearly, even as the manifest through ancient traditions and history. Through them, we learn about who God is, who we are, and how we might actually live. Alright, I can’t get sucked into the blog….