Studying the Biblical Text by Comparing Translations
William T. (Bill) Lambert, Ed D
Professor Emeritus, New Testament Literature and Interpretation, Harding University
Is it fair to God (or safe for us) to base our belief system, our moral culture, how we worship, or what we do in service to God on a carless and shallow study of the Bible? Serious Bible study involves much thought, time, and work. We cannot know how to apply biblical teachings to our lives until we know what the Bible means; we cannot know what the Bible means until we know what the Bible says; and we cannot know what the Bible really says without giving the time and effort to serious Bible study. Digging for gold is hard work and time consuming, but, when we strike gold, it’s worth the effort. Serious Bible study is appropriate because the Bible is God speaking!
A biblical text is a composition written by a person chosen by God. This biblical writer wrote under the supervision and control of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit that searches even “the deep things of God” and reveals God’s thoughts reveals the mind of God (1 Cor. 2:9-13). So, biblical statements are the Word of God—God speaking to us. Therefore, biblical statements deserve to be studied prayerfully, ¬rationally, and thoroughly!
The following obvious matters related to the communication of a biblical concept and its meaning should be given serious consideration. A document is made up of letters of the alphabet that form words; words that form phrases, clauses, and sentences. Sentences form paragraphs; and paragraphs form documents.
In the Bible documents are written to set forth a truth claim. The truth claim of a document is its thesis (i.e., main point or big idea) —the point of truth God wants to pass on to us. The thesis (i.e., main truth-claim) of a document is developed by the words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and paragraphs that make up the document. Each of these smaller parts (i.e., words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and paragraphs) of a document serves to either explain, illustrate, or prove the thesis or truth-claim made by the document.
If we are to thoroughly understand the truth-claim of a document, we must understand the meaning of each of these smaller parts. So, to be thorough and independent in our Bible study, we must give attention to the meaning of each word, phrase, clause, sentence, and paragraph.
Precise and complete understanding of a biblical text depends on a clear understanding of the meaning of words and how they are grammatically and syntactically put together (especially key words in a text). The verb and subject are probably the most important key words in a sentence. Also, we must understand the function of each phrase and each clause in each sentence. Likewise, we must understand the meaning and function of every sentence and every paragraph in the document. However, modifying words can also be keys to understanding precise meaning.
The subject is key because it names what the sentence is all about. The verb is key because it makes a statement about the subject. Modifiers are key because they can both limit and expand. They limit a claim to particular kinds (i.e., which one, what kind, and how many) or specific conditions (i.e., when, where, why).
Word meaning is usually a combination of the (1) denotations, i.e., the general field of meaning of the word and (2) connotation, i.e., a meaning that is tied to the denotation but modified by grammar (e.g., person, number, gender, and case in nouns, and tense, voice, and mood in verbs).
Also, viewing the meaning of a text in context is an essential. The immediate context, book context, historical context, canonical context, and theological context, all seriously effect meaning. For example, if an interpretation contradicts the nature of God/Christ or the purpose of Christianity, it violates the ¬¬theological context. If an interpretation contradicts clear teaching in other texts, it is obviously a wrong interpretation. Also, if a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph is applied to a totally different situation than the one at hand (i.e., the problem, need, question, etc.), it will be given a meaning that violates God’s truth intent for the passage.
Our understanding of what words in a text mean can be both expanded and sharpened by comparing translations. When comparing translations, we should consider what kind of translations we are using. When classified according to who produced the translation, there are three basic kinds: (1) private translations (produced by one or two individuals, (2) denominational translations (produced by a small committee representing one particular denomination), and (3) standard translations (produced by a large committee of recognized scholars from various theological traditions or denominational backgrounds).
There are two basic approaches to translating the word of God. When classified according to approach, we have two classes of translations. (1) A formal-correspondence translation is an effort to give a word-for-word translation and maintain a form in sentences that corresponds to or is nearly the same as the form of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. This type of translation is more difficult to understand by English readers. (2) A dynamic-equivalent translation is more concerned with conveying the idea of the text (the idea as understood by the writer and the first readers, original recipients) than with word-for-word or form. Translations produced by this approach are largely paraphrases and more open to being more an interpretation than a translation–more open to personal beliefs or theological preconceptions creeping in.
To be fair, one English word often cannot adequately translate the rich full meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word. This is especially true when we attempt to reflect grammatical and contextual implications in our translation. Consequently, often translators must use a phrase or clause instead of just one word to adequately translate a word in the original language. The formal correspondence translation is more likely to be ambiguous (i.e., open to more than one meaning) or unclear. On the other hand, although usually more clearly stated, the dynamic equivalent translation is more open to bias and preconception and sometimes results in an excessively free paraphrase. Therefore, translation should be performed with great care and a system of checks-and-balances operative in the process.
When asked about which translation I would recommend, I ask, “For whom?” Of course, I would always recommend only translations that are true to the original. However, translations are produced for people with different levels of verbal skills or use of the English language. Some translations are best for (1) people with a high level of formal education; (2) others for intelligent people with less formal education; (3) and yet others for those who use English as a second language. Because of these differences, translations will differ in three basic ways: word use, sentence length, and paragraph lengths. Translations for people with a higher-level of education usually use more complicated words, longer compound and complex sentences, and form paragraphs that focus around larger thought units containing several smaller thought units. On the other hand, translations intended for those with less education or those using English as a second language use simpler words, shorter simple sentences, and smaller thought units as shorter paragraphs.
Private Translations
So far as translations that are closer to the original language or less near the original text familiar to the writer and first readers, the following is true. Private translations are the products of individual efforts at translation. The translator may or may not be a scholar with knowledge of biblical language, culture, translation theory, and linguistics. Private translations have two serious weaknesses. First, they often reflect less scholarship than standard translations. Sometimes they demonstrate a simplistic approach to the grammar of biblical languages.
Some who translate apply the basics of the grammar of the original language without consideration of various syntactical essentials dictated by context. Also, a lack of depth in the grammar of their own language leads to a failure to adequately express the propositional significance of the grammar (i.e., the significance of tense, voice, mood and case) of the original.
In verb tense, there are indications of time of the action or state, duration of the action or state, and duration of the effect of the action or state of being. In the mood of verbs, there are indications of levels of reality, e.g., reality, probability, possibility.
In the voice of verbs, there are indications of whether the subject is acting, being acted upon by someone else, or performing an act upon self. The case of nouns indicate whether the subject is acting or being acted upon, the benefactor for whom the action is performed, the location of action, the agency through which the action is performed, etc.
Many who attempt private translations are not adequately knowledgeable in original languages, translation theory, or even their own language. Even at best, the scholarship of one good scholar does not compare to the combined scholarship of a committee of scholars.
In addition, private translations lack the checks and balances provided by a committee of scholars from varied religious backgrounds. Consequently, these translations tend to reflect the religious biases of their translators.
When a large committee of scholars from varied theological backgrounds translate, they tend to prevent one another from putting theological biases into the resulting translation. However, this sometimes prevents them from giving full expression to the original language for fear of offending other members of the committee. They even sometimes simply transliterate words, i.e., write the original word in English letters. For example, baptize is not a translation of the Greek word baptizo; it is a transliteration. Some committee members might be offended by the literal meaning of baptizo–immerse or submerge. A trustworthy private translation might be more expressive and clarify that which is ambiguous or unclear in “standard translations.”
Denominational Translations
Small committees representing single religious affiliations and their denominational biases produce denominational translations. Also, the members of these committees may or may not be experts in biblical languages, linguistics, and translation theory. But, as you would suspect, their translations are in danger of having the same weaknesses as private translations. (1) They usually do not reflect the scholarship of a large committee, especially the combined scholarship of a large committee. (2) Also, they lack the checks-and-balances of varied theological backgrounds and, as you might imagine, tend to reflect doctrinal biases common to their denominational affiliation.
Standard Translations
Reasonably large committees of recognized scholars in Hebrew and Greek, linguistics, culture, English language, and translation theory usually produce standard translations. These scholars consider carefully what communication acts meant to their first readers in their cultural, religious, political, and personal contexts. They also translate in words and phrases that best convey the same meaning to their targeted readers in their cultural, religious, political, and personal contexts. Moreover, the variety of theological preferences among them usually provides the checks-and-balances needed to minimize religious bias.
Standard translations have two important advantages over private and denominational translations. (1) They are supported by greater scholarship. The individuals on the committee are usually (not always) more highly recognized as scholars than those who work on private and denominational translations. In addition, the combined scholarship of the scholars who make up the large committees that give us standard translations is much greater than that of the one or few who produce private and denominational translations. (2) Standard translations reflect less bias than the others. The committees that give us standard translations are made up of scholars from many different religious traditions. They serve as checks-and-balances to each other and prevent theological biases in translations.
Standard translations do reflect one weakness. In an effort to achieve a consensus and to avoid offending anyone on the committee from any religious tradition, they often use general, ambiguous, and unclear terms. Sometimes, they even simply transliterate the word in the original text into English (not translate) to achieve consensus or to avoid the risk offending committee members whose theology might be called into question by a clear and explicit translation.
Considering the above, when comparing translations, you should use a standard translation as a basic study text. Comparing other more expressive and emphatic translations will add to the word meaning revealed in standard translations. Such comparative texts can be helpful when they expand the meaning found in standard translations. However, when a comparative text contradicts a standard translation, the nonstandard translation should be questioned and a more thorough investigation through lexical and usage studies should be conducted.
The bottom line is that standard translations should be preferred over private and denominational translations. In fact, the reason for in-depth word studies is usually one or both of the following: (1) the need to have a more thorough understanding of what the Scripture teaches in a text or about a theme or subject; (2) a conflict of meaning assigned to words and phrases reflected from one translation to another.
When I began in-depth Bible study (and in my early-years of teaching “How to Study the Bible,” “Biblical Hermeneutics,” or “Biblical Interpretation,” to compare translations required having several translations opened to a text and laid out before me on a desk or table. But, now there are computer programs designed for biblical research. We can type in the text we want to study and open it on the computer screen. Then we can open parallel translations—even the text in the original Greek or Hebrew. We can look at these texts side-by-side and compare the texts. Even those who never studied the original language can see the Greek or Hebrew word highlighted, a lexical definition, and an analysis of the word. So, study by comparing translations is made easier for today’s Bible students. I use “Accordance” search program.
What you may take away from this article: 1. Three basic kinds of biblical translations as classified according to who produced them. 2. Advantages and disadvantages of each of the above kind of translation. 3. Two basic approaches to biblical translations classified according to the form a translation takes. 4. Why a word-for-word translation is sometimes not clear. 5. The reasons for differences in translations related to levels of education. 6. Three ways translations might differ when considering various levels of education. 7. How modern technology or biblical-search computer programs make comparing translations much easier.
©William T. (Bill) Lambert, EdD, 11/2017
Professor Emeritus, New Testament Literature, Harding University
504 East Center Avenue
Searcy, AR 72143
