Bible translation is an incredible ministry, essential to the purposes of God and for His church as it expands to the ends of the earth.
Yet it is also a complex endeavor that is increasingly difficult to understand. For years, I struggled to understand why Bible translators translate the way they do. I used to talk about form and meaning, literal and dynamic, as though these dichotomies actually helped understand translation. But to understand Bible translation today, it is key to study the actual translations produced and what translators say themselves about their decisions.
After years of studying translations and discussing the latest strategies with my fellow Bible translators, I have concluded that translation is about more than meaning. It’s about more than accuracy. It is primarily about benefiting readers by producing a text that is clearly understood. And the key to making it understandable or clear is adding helpful information. But not just any helpful information.
Let’s consider 5 key beliefs that most Bible translators hold to today.
1. The authors of Scripture wrote to be understood.
The first belief concerns the authors of Scripture. It is generally believed that the authors of Scripture wrote for their intended audience in a manner that they thought would be understood, if not “well understood.”
In her textbook on Bible translation, Katharine Barnwell expresses this belief as follows: “The original author of each book of Scripture wrote in a language that he believed would be well understood by those for whom the message was intended” (7).
The Scriptures clearly show that the authors of Scripture wrote at the direction of the Holy Spirit. In 2 Peter 1:21, the Scriptures declare that the prophets wrote at the direction of the Holy Spirit and not by their own will.
Furthermore, there is no indication that the prophets of old pondered over word choices and selected the words and expressions that would be best understood by their audience. On the contrary, some prophets wrote without fully understanding what they wrote.
For instance, Daniel states very clearly to God that he doesn’t understand the prophetic Word that he wrote himself (Daniel 12:8). In response, God tells him that the message he has written is to be sealed for the end of time (Daniel 12:9), indicating that Daniel not only doesn’t understand the message to his own satisfaction but also doesn’t know for whom it is intended.
Nonetheless, this belief about the original authors allows modern translators to claim a precedence and common ground. The priority that they place on an easily understood translation is not, they claim, a novel desire but actually a concern that they share with the prophets and apostles who wrote Scripture in the first place.
2. The original authors and readers understood more than what was written.
The second belief is not so much about Scripture as it is about the nature of communication. When we communicate, we focus on the information we want to convey and don’t share what we know that the other person already knows.
If I were to leave a note for my wife, for instance, I might write “Back before dinner. Love you!” on a sticky note and leave it on her desk. I don’t include information that I think is obvious, such as my name or her name or the time of dinner.
If my wife were to show the note to someone else, they wouldn’t understand details that I and my wife understand. My wife understood, for instance, that it was her husband writing and that he planned to eat the evening meal with her at home.
The information that I had and that my wife shared with me is called implicit information. It is implicit for someone looking at our note who may not know us or the situation. And there is a lot of implicit information in Scripture for readers today who were not part of the original context associated with the Bible.
For instance, in Mark 15:23, the Gospel writer records that wine mixed with myrrh is offered to Jesus before he was crucified. Mark does not explain why the wine had myrrh in it. Nor does he specify who offered it to our Lord. But he does mention that Jesus doesn’t accept it.
Some translators have suggested that the original author, Mark, knew why the wine had myrrh in it. He also assumed that his original audience would know why there was myrrh in the wine. Hence, he didn’t have to explain why there was myrrh in the wine. Furthermore, some suggest that the myrrh was mixed into the wine because it was thought to reduce pain. In other words, it was being used for medicinal purposes.
If you would like to read more about this view, check out Roger Bratcher’s article from 1971 in which he defends his translation of Mark 15:23 and comments more generally on translation.
We’ll return to Mark 15:23 shortly. It’s a good case study in how to handle implicit information. It also reveals how much importance translators give to assisting readers in comprehension.
3. Modern readers must understand what the original readers understood.
The third belief is central to Bible translation today. Most Bible translators place a high importance on the readers and their ability to comprehend the translation.
In a sense, the reader is the measure of success. If the modern reader can read a passage and understand it like the original readers, then the translation has achieved its purpose.
In her textbook on Bible translation, Katharine Barnwell expresses this belief as follows: “The aim of the translator is to enable the audience of the translation to understand the same message that the hearers of the original message understood.” (55).
Note that Barnwell refers to the “message” that the original audience understood. Unfortunately, I don’t know what the original audience understood. I’ve never had the opportunity to engage with them nor with the original author. The only thing I can interact with is the text. My aim is to translate the meaning of the text. Yet modern translators reach beyond the meaning of the text for implicit information that they believe existed in the past, in the original communication.
What does such implicit information from the past look like?
In the case of Mark 15:23, many translators today believe that implicit information from the original context would include an understanding of why myrrh would be mixed with wine.
To assist modern readers who may not understand the significance of the myrrh, the Good News Translation has “wine mixed with a drug called myrrh.” The Contemporary English Version includes “drug” but replaces “myrrh” with an explanation of its intended use: ” wine mixed with a drug to ease the pain.”
The Tok Pisin Bible of Papua New Guinea and others in that region of the world have the equivalent of “wine mixed with medicine.”
In the recently published Chadian Arabic Bible, the phrase is translated as “wine mixed with myrrh to relieve his pain.” Note how the translators make a possible use of myrrh explicit by adding “to relieve his pain.”
All Bible translators want their readers to understand the text. The crucial issue is what to do when the readers may not understand something because they lack information that the original author or audience may have had. The prevailing approach today is to make such implicit information explicit for the benefit of the reader on the grounds that it was present in the original communication, the “message.”
4. Implicit information should be in the text of Scripture.
Closely related to the previous belief is the importance given today to adding implicit information into the text of Scripture.
Bible translators will note in passing that cultural information could be added in a footnote or a glossary. For instance, the Pijin Bible of the Solomon Islands has the equivalent of “wine mixed with medicine” in the text of Mark 15:23 as well as a footnote explaining what myrrh is and how it was used to relieve pain.
Regardless of the use of prefaces, footnotes, and glossaries, it is becoming more and more of an accepted practice to add implicit information to the text of Scripture.
For example, it is not uncommon in study Bibles to have footnotes that explain the significance of Hebrew names. In Genesis 3:20, for instance, Adam gives his wife the name Eve. Modern Bibles may have a footnote to explain that the name Eve resembles the Hebrew word for “life.”
In the Chadian Arabic Bible, such information about names in the Old Testament is included in the text of Scripture. In Genesis 3:20, for instance, Eve is followed immediately in the text with parentheses. In the parentheses is a note saying that the meaning of Eve is life. There are 86 instances of implicit information about names being provided in the text of Scripture.
In Exodus 3:14, God declares “I am who I am.” In the Chadian Arabic Bible, this declaration is rendered with a clarifying statement, without any parentheses to indicate that it is not in the source: “I am He, meaning I am God the Eternal.”
These strategies for handling implicit information in the Chadian Arabic Bible are indicative of a broader move to add more and more implicit information to the text of Scripture. When perceived benefit to the reader is a principal requirement for adding information to the text, it is inevitable that translators will explore new ways of “benefiting” their readers.
5. Everyone must have a translation that follows these beliefs and practices.
Most Bible translation organizations today are devoted to producing translations that prioritize comprehension, including the comprehension of implicit information by explicitly including it in the text of Scripture.
Although other qualities of a translation such as accuracy and naturalness are mentioned, the degree to which implicit information is added to the text of Scripture indicates the priority of comprehension or clarity.
Bible translators are expected to follow the precedent set by earlier translations such as the Good News Bible or comparable translations in their area of the world. Furthermore, translators have a high regard for precedence. If a highly esteemed translation adds implicit information, others will follow its example. A case in point is the inclusion of a reference to Abel killing a single lamb in Genesis 4:4a as discussed in my post on accuracy.
The United Bible Society has created a helpful site titled Translation Insights and Perspectives. If you search for a given verse and read the relevant article such as for Mark 15:23, you’ll see that translators are encourage to follow the example of various functional equivalence or meaning-based translations. They may also be warned about being too close to the source text and producing a translation not fully comprehensible or clear to the intended readers.
It’s a curios state of affairs to find that many translations across Papua New Guinea are said to be functional equivalent or meaning-based translations. They are clearly translations that follow the Tok Pisin Bible as it followed the Good News Translation in English. To the extent that these national translations carefully follow the example of the Good News Translation, they are remaining very close to their source. In other words, to be a meaning-based translation entails being a literal rendering of a model translation. As I noted above, the many versions of Genesis 4:4a referring to Abel killing a lamb illustrate how closely translators follow the Tok Pisin Bible as it followed the Good News Bible.
Finally, the development of Muslim Idiom translations and cultural adaptations such as the First Nation Version show that there is no longer any limit on how much information may be added to a translation.
In Conclusion
These 5 key beliefs are essential to understanding Bible translation today.
Most Bible translators today believe that they are commissioned to produce a text of Scripture that is comprehensible or clear, following the precedence of other functional equivalent or meaning-based translations.
To achieve this goal, they may include information not in the text but assumed to be in the original message. In other words, they add information that the original writer and audience might have known.
How do we know what the original writer and audience knew, especially when they didn’t record it for us? In short, we don’t know. But translators are expected, if not required, to follow the translation decisions in specific Bibles as approved by consultants and their mission organizations.
We should consider whether these beliefs draw into question the authoritative nature of Scripture and the priority of accuracy to the source text. To what extent may translators add to Scripture or even take from it?
It is essential for you to understand these beliefs. To the extent that you grasp these issues you will be able to understand what kind of work Bible translators are engaged in and whether you share the same convictions.