It’s not uncommon to hear today that all Bible translations have value and should be accepted and even used by everyone. Some even claim it is divisive to say otherwise.
What does it mean for every English version to have value?
In short, every translation offers something of value to the readers, especially something lacking in another Bible. A new insight. A new level of comprehension. Even a fresh breath of relevance that leads you to read more!
What Is the Value of Accuracy?
What about accuracy? Is every Bible translation valuable as well as accurate? One might think that the most valuable translation is the one that is most accurate.
From time immemorial, translators have viewed their work as valuable because it seeks to be an accurate representation of the source text.
In the first complete English Bible of the Reformation era, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, Miles Coverdale wrote the following in the preface about his efforts to avoid bias and be faithful and accurate:
“…I have never wrested nor altered so much as one word for the maintenance of any manner of sect: but have with a clear conscience purely and faithfully translated this out of five sundry interpreters, having only the manifest truth of the scripture before mine eyes, trusting in the goodness of God, that it shall be unto his worship…”
Coverdale attempted to translate accurately without bias, consulting five translations in the process and trusting God to help him produce a work that would lead people to worship God.
The Forum of Bible Agencies International states as their first principle in translation the following commitment:
“To translate the Scriptures accurately, without loss, change, distortion or embellishment of the meaning of the original text. Accuracy in Bible translation is the faithful communication, as exactly as possible, of that meaning, determined according to sound principles of exegesis.”
Given the importance given to accuracy by these international Bible organizations, you might think that everyone agrees on what accuracy is and why it is needed. But that is not the case.
Do We Need a New Kind of Accuracy?
In the 1960s, some translators pioneered a new approach to translation. This approach focused on providing the least educated with a unique Bible translation aimed at increased comprehension. The translation only used words in widespread use, and, as a result, traditional theological terms were omitted in favor of modern terms that intended readers would understand more readily.
This translation was called a “common language” translation. (To learn more about this approach and William Wonderly’s contribution, click here.) These translations eventually became better known as “dynamic equivalent” or “functional equivalent” translations.
The common language or dynamic equivalent translations have an admirable goal. We should want more people to comprehend and love the Scriptures. However, this approach has led to simplified texts as the means to that end. They describe these works as “accurate” and “faithful” translations, yet from their first appearance to today, their striking difference from traditional translations is obvious.
How can very different translations both be faithful to the same source?
To understand this apparent difference, it is essential to recognize that common language translators expand the concept of accuracy. According to their approach, accuracy is not only in reference to the original meaning of the source but also in reference to the reader’s understanding or comprehension.
Some translators refer to these two proposed kinds of accuracy as exegetical accuracy and communicative accuracy.
In a book entitled Good News For Everyone : How to Use the Good News Bible (Today’s English Version), Nida discusses this new view of accuracy in translation: “accuracy in translation cannot be reckoned merely in terms of corresponding words but on the basis of what the new readers actually understand” (p. 13).
The new definition of accuracy allows for new ways of translation.
How Do You Translate the Jews, justification, and jasper?
When the definition of accuracy is expanded to focus on the reader’s comprehension, how does it affect the translation?
The apostle John often uses the expression the Jews in reference to the religious authorities, such as in John 1:19. The Good New Bible and other dynamic equivalent translations render the Jews as “the Jewish authorities” or “the religious authorities” to more clearly communicate the meaning of the expression.
The main concern is that a reader, especially one new to the Bible, may not realize the true meaning of the expression; according to their view, the traditional, literal rendering the Jews could result in an inaccurate understanding. Hence, it is more accurate to translate it as “the Jewish authorities” because the new reader has a greater chance of arriving at the intended meaning or the “accurate” meaning.
In a similar line of reasoning, the term justification is considered too specialized for the average reader, leading to an inaccurate understanding or no understanding at all. As a result, in Romans 4:25, our justification is translated as “to put us right with God.”
However, not every specialized term is translated by an explanatory phrase. In Revelations 21:19, we read about the precious stones that form the foundations of the city walls of the new Jerusalem. The gem jasper is mentioned along with other precious minerals such as sapphire, onyx and beryl.
One might assume that one or more of these terms would be explained or translated with a phrase like “a red precious stone.” But, interestingly, the Good New Bible and other translations in this tradition have retained these technical terms.
Is Accuracy No Longer Essential?
In a well-written work on translation entitled How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss discuss the debate about accuracy among translations. They consider all translations accurate, though literal translations may exhibit inaccuracy whereas dynamic or idiomatic translations may exhibit a loss of nuance in meaning (p. 34).
Fee and Strauss don’t discuss the topic of accuracy in significant detail. Rather, they affirm that all translations have value, such as in the following quote about translations for children:
some people reject the use of easy-to-read versions because they claim that some of the meaning of the original texts is inevitably lost. The point, as we have seen, is debatable, and it could be argued that idiomatic versions are actually more accurate. But allowing for the moment that some versions oversimplify the text and thereby miss some of the meaning, does this really negate their value? (p. 41)
Note that Fee and Strauss are aware of the concern that meaning is lost in a simplified translation such as an easy-to-read version. However, they dismiss the point and offer the counter argument that idiomatic or dynamic equivalent translations are more accurate. They appeal to the idea of accuracy with regard to the reader’s understanding or “communicative accuracy.” Focused on the reader, they end by asking if it matters if some of the Scripture’s meaning is lost when the reader gains something.
In a very engaging work on Bible translation in English, One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal?, Dave Brunn takes the topic of accuracy a little further.
Brunn notes that accuracy is a standard for translation but that the Scriptures don’t say that we must translate accurately (p. 20). In fact, the careful analysis of how Jesus and the apostle Paul quoted from the Old Testament suggests that we have more latitude in translation than previously realized (p. 150-55).
In Revelation 22:18-19, the apostle John warns against adding to or taking away from the words that he just wrote. Brunn notes that some have referred to these verses in support of a more literal translation of Scripture. Brunn skillfully explains how this verse shouldn’t be used to argue that the best translation of a verse is the one with the same number of words as the source. I fully agree that we shouldn’t be evaluating translations based on word counts. Yet Brunn doesn’t explore any positive implications of this verse for translation (p. 80-82).
Like Fee and Strauss, Brunn believes that all translations have value. The various English Bibles represent a sacred trust to believers (p. 192-93). Brunn suggests that it is unwise and unhelpful to focus on differences in translation. Instead, we should use all translations, recognizing that none are perfect and each has something to offer the discerning reader (p. 188-91).
As the concept of accuracy becomes broader and broader, the door is opened for more and more approaches to translating the English Bible, each “accurate” and “valuable” in their own way.
In Conclusion
With each passing year, more and more English Bible translations appear. How should we respond to these new works? Is every translation valuable?
A growing number of voices promote the view that all translations have value. As we consider the topic of value, it is important to consider the question of accuracy.
As we discussed above, the definition of accuracy has been expanded to include the accurate comprehension of the text. This view of accuracy rests on the reader’s comprehension and, as a result, audience has become very important.
This view of accuracy allows for more ways to translate and, more importantly, for these various English translations to be valuable in their own way.
The proponents of this view inevitably place on the readers the task of comparing translations and gleaning value from them. If the readers find themselves unsure of why the translations differ or what the purported value may be, then they just don’t understand enough about translation.
When you hear next that all translations have something to offer you, remember that the value of a translation is linked to its accuracy. That is the greatest value a translation has to offer.