Bible translations differ widely in many respects, but they all share in common the claim to be “accurate” and “faithful” to the source.
How can every translation be accurate? Is accuracy a subjective quality? Is it in the eye of the beholder? Is it just a social fiction? Or could it still be the most important quality of a Bible translation?
In this blog post I will present a definition of accuracy and illustrate different views of accuracy with reference to the translation of Genesis 4:4a. This sentence of only seven words in Hebrew will suffice for discussing several important concepts.
We’ll first touch on the fact that accuracy is about the meaning of the source text. Then we’ll discuss the difference between the meaning of the source and implicit information. That will lead to a discussion of whether Bible translators should follow the Hebrew, in this case, or a respected translation of the Hebrew.
We will then consider a very important but often misunderstood issue. How important is accuracy in relationship to the readers’ comprehension of the translation. In other words, what could a translator add or remove from a translation for the sake of greater comprehension.
We will conclude with a discussion of the role of the author and authorial intent as opposed to the translators’ purposes for their work.
Abel and His Offering
In Genesis 4:4a, Abel brings an offering of firstlings or firstborn lambs and kids from his flock. The verse also specifies that he offered their fat. The verse could be translated as: And Abel also brought an offering from the firstborn of his flock and their fat (Genesis 4:4a, personal translation).
In the following discussions of accuracy, we will focus on the translation of “brought,” “firstborn,” and “their fat.” We will consider some translations that expand “brought” with additional verbs like “killed,” “butchered,” or “offered,” to bring out information that readers might not grasp.
Similarly, some translations translate “firstborn” as “lamb” or “lambs” to make the referent more explicit.
Finally, “their fat” is rendered in various ways to communicate with greater clarity the idea that the firstborn of Abel’s flock are prized animals and that desirable portions of their meat are being offered to Yahweh.
The Meaning of the Source in the Target
Most translators would agree that accuracy is about the meaning of the source text. Any discussion of accuracy must begin with the source. Yet the meaning must be communicated in the target text, the translation. So, our discussion of accuracy must start with the meaning of the source text and then consider the meaning of the target text.
Here is a brief statement about accuracy that most translations would accept: Accuracy in translation entails preserving the meaning of the source text in the target text.
But what if the meaning is not sufficient for the reader? What if the reader doesn’t understand the significance of a word or phrase such as “their fat” in the way that it was intended by the author?
Are there different kinds of “meaning” that could be included in the translation to benefit readers?
Explicit Meaning and Implicit Information
When we read in Genesis 4:4a that Abel brings an offering, what mental images come to mind? Is he carrying lambs? Does he kill them beside a stone altar? Do we understand what the original writer and audience understood?
In 1976, the translation of Genesis 4:4a in the Good News Bible set a new direction in terms of adding implicit information to the text. In order to make Abel’s actions clearer to readers, he is described as bringing a lamb, killing it, and then offering it as a sacrifice: “Then Abel brought the first lamb born to one of his sheep, killed it, and gave the best parts of it as an offering.”
Note that the translation adds implicit information. There is an explicit reference to bringing an offering, and given the cultural background, it would be understood by the original audience that the offering was killed. To ensure that modern readers grasp this implicit cultural information, the Good News Bible adds it in the text.
Furthermore, the original audience would have understood that the fat is a prized or desirable portion of an animal. However, modern readers may not view an offering of fat in this way. Hence, the translators render “fat” as “the best parts.”
Finally, this translation renders the plural “firstborn” as a singular animal, “lamb.” In the Hebrew source, both “firstborn” and the “their” of “their fat” are plural, which strongly points to Abel offering several lambs or a combination of lambs and kids. Note that the term “flock” refers to both sheep and goats. The translators apparently interpreted an offering from the firstborn animals to mean a single lamb from among the lambs.
Returning to our definition of accuracy, it is essential to clarify what should be included as the meaning of the source text. Is implicit information part of the meaning of the text? I would argue that as little implicit information should be included as necessary for comprehension. Accuracy entails preserving the explicit meaning of the source text and not implicit information. To the extent that implicit information is added to the translation, it is for the sake of comprehension, not accuracy. It does not add to the accuracy but may increase comprehension or clarity.
Meaning of Source Versus Prestigious Translations
Bible translators refer to many translations in the process of rendering their own version. Translators have preferences in terms of which translations they think are good models. Furthermore, mission agencies and Bible Societies may also have standards in terms of which translations may be used as a model.
In the case of Genesis 4:4a, the Hebrew source states that Abel brought an offering and makes no mention of killing or butchering meat. In many translations that follow the Good News Bible as a model, an explicit reference to killing occurs.
For example, consider the following back-translation of Genesis 4:4a from the Tok Pisin Bible, a major language of Papua New Guinea: “And Abel took a prized, fat lamb. This lamb was the first lamb that was born to its mother. And Abel killed it and made an offering to the Lord.”
The Bible in Solomon Island Pijin shows a similar influence of the Good News Bible as seen in the following back-translation: “But Abel brought a firstborn lamb from among his sheep and killed it, and he brought all its good meat that had fat. He gave it to Yahweh as his offering.”
The translation in the Amele language of Papua New Guinea follows the Tok Pisin Bible, but with additional implicit information: “Abel too sacrificed to Yahweh but he killed and butchered from some of the first-born sheep and took the fatty meat and brought it.”
Returning to our definition of accuracy, it is important to add that the meaning of the source text refers to the biblical source text. The ultimate standard of accuracy has to the biblical sources and not prestigious translations, whether it be the Good News Bible or any other translation.
Meaning and Not Comprehension
Many Bible translators today refer to two kinds of accuracy: exegetical accuracy and communicative accuracy.
Exegetical accuracy is focused on the meaning of the source and how well it is reproduced in the target text. In other words, exegetical accuracy is a new term for the traditional concept of accuracy in translation.
Communicative accuracy, by contrast, is a newer concept. It is not focused on meaning but on comprehension. Communicative accuracy refers to the degree to which the meaning of the source text is understood by readers of the target text. Proponents of dynamic equivalent translations such as Eugene Nida first put forward the idea that accurate comprehension was an important measure of overall accuracy.
In Toward a Science of Translating, Nida wrote: “Actually, one cannot speak of “accuracy” apart from comprehension by the receptor, for there is no way of treating accuracy except in terms of the extent to which the message gets across (or should presumably get across) to the intended receptor. “Accuracy” is meaningless, if treated in isolation from actual decoding by individuals for which the message is intended.”
Note that Nida and his colleagues focus on the “intended receptor” or audience. They believed they should translate in a way that communicated clearly for their audience. Accuracy was “meaningless” if the reader does not first comprehend the message of the text, both the explicit meaning and implicit, cultural information.
If readers of a translation of Genesis 4:4a don’t understand that Abel killed his offerings and then offered the best portions, for instance, then the translation is obscure and leads to an inaccurate understanding of the source. “Best portions” might be more accurate for some readers than “fat” since it leads them to a more accurate understanding of Abel’s offering, according to this view.
As I noted in my blog post on different views of accuracy, I think the concept of communicative accuracy is an indirect way of prioritizing comprehension or clarity over traditional accuracy. Furthermore, it allows for inaccurate renderings to be called accurate. I have heard translators boldly state that something is accurate in the sense that the readers understand it accurately.
In terms of defining accuracy, it is important to affirm that accuracy is a matter of meaning and not comprehension.
Author’s Intention or Translator’s Purpose
A growing number of Bible translators ascribe to a new approach to translation titled skopos theory. According to skopos theory, translators determine the purpose of their work and translate as outlined in a document called a translation brief.
In the book Translating the Bible in Plain Language, Matthijs J. de Jong discusses how this approach was applied in the Dutch context to produce Bijbel in Gewone Taal, a Bible in plain, everyday Dutch.
In this translation, Genesis 4:4a is translated: “Abel also brought an offering. He slaughtered a beautiful young sheep.” Note that this translation resembles the Good News Bible in rendering the offering as a single animal, “a beautiful young sheep.” An explicit mention of killing the offering is also included in the text. Finally, there is no reference to “firstborn,” “flock,” nor “their fat.”
de Jong proposes that this Bible is accurate because there is enough information in verses such as Genesis 4:4a for the reader to recognize and acknowledge that the verse is a Bible translation (17). Furthermore, he notes that clarity and comprehensibility are higher values in their work, hence the simplification of the verse (16-17).
Skopos theory puts accuracy in the hands of translators. Regardless of the author’s words or intentions, the translators have the authority and freedom to shape their work to fit their purposes, adding or removing as they so desire. They are not accountable to the source but to themselves as they define what they plan to do in their translation brief.
If translators define accuracy according to their own purpose, objective standards no longer exist. We are reduced to applauding each other’s efforts and raising our hands only to say that a translation is not as internally consistent as it could be. And when the translators say that any perceived inconsistency was intentional and purposeful, there is nothing left but to applaud still more.
In Conclusion
To summarize our discussion, accuracy in translation entails preserving the meaning as explicitly communicated by the source text in the target text according to the author’s intention.
Such a statement on accuracy stands in contrast to the view of accuracy which prioritize comprehension over accuracy. The concept of “communicative accuracy” should be set aside, especially given that the term is not clearly understood as referring to comprehension.
Finally, we should not define accuracy as preserving the meaning of the source text according to the purpose of the translation project. We should not follow skopos theory and “dethrone” the text of Scripture. On the contrary, we should affirm the authority of Scripture and translation as an endeavor for the glory of God.