Dangers of Comparing Translations

I am frequently asked to compare various translations. Generally my questioner wants me to declare one translation correct, and the other incorrect, or at least to state that one rendering is better than the other. Translators know that this is frequently difficult to do, because there is no one-to-one relationship between source language and target language.

The non-expert can easily be confused by the fact that two translations of a single passage can both be justified, or even many different renderings. The reason for this is that there are many different things that are conveyed by the text in its source language, and a translator will not be able to transfer all of those elements into a translation.

• Each word has a range of meaning that is unique. Any word or phrase used to translate it will necessarily shift the emphasis.
• The form of the source text may emphasize one thing or another, and the form is even more difficult to “translate” than are the words themselves. For example, the chiasm is a common structure in the Bible (a form in which the parallel thoughts are placed in a sort of V–ABCB’A’). You can maintain this chiasm in the translation, but does a chiasm mean the same thing to readers of modern English or another target language? Is there even a form that would emphasize certain phrases as the chiasm does?
• There are different types of discourse/writing that are involved, and they may not totally correspond to forms in the target language.
• The purpose of the translation itself may impact what is the best translation in any particular case.

For these and other reasons it is very hard to tell something which of two translations is better, and even more difficult to label on right and the other wrong. It is important to remember that in answering that question I can only provide my opinion, as can anyone else. It is worthwhile to consider that with respect to most translations that provides the opinion of one person against an expert translation committee. It’s not certain that the individual will be wrong, but one ought to give careful consideration to all the issues before determining that the entire translation committee was simply out to lunch.

A better question is to ask which of the two translations best communicates the intended message of the source text to the target audience of the translation. On this many people can have a valid opinion. In fact, as Wayne Leman from Better Bibles Blog regularly comments, this can be objectively tested by surveying the appropriate target audience. It is not my purpose here to discuss the details of such testing. I just want to point out that it provides some opportunity for objectivity in a complex situation.

One final comment is that there must be a standard against which a translation is tested, and some goal for that translation, so that we can test to see if something particular is achieved. Without both of those elements any comments are pointless. In general for translations within the Christian tradition this means that the standard against which the translation is to be tested is the source text in the original languages–Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic–and the goal is that the meaning of the text is conveyed to some defined target population.

An example of the failure of this process involves the KJV-Only comparisons of various modern versions to the KJV. There is no point in such comparison, because the KJV itself is a translation, and its rendering should be tested according to the source text and the goal of communicating that message to a particular audience. Similarly, modern readers now often compare new renderings against that of the NIV, or some other translation that has become standard in their community, and complain about the differences. The question again has to be how well the NIV conveys the meaning to the audience in comparison to how well the compared (usually newer) version does at the same task.