An Incarnational View of Translation

In several previous posts I’ve talked about the incaration and how it is central to Christianity. This post is not a continuation of that series, but rather a very brief detour to look at one of my favorite topics: Bible translation. I had been thinking about this post for a few days, but I was pushed to actually write something when I read nspiration, inerrancy, and the incarnation: grappling with the human and historical dimension of an inspired scripture, by Michael Pahl. Now the post consists of a number of quotations from other authors, each commenting on the unique divine-human combination in the Bible; somehow God inspires without trampling on the humanity of the authors.

My question is this: How does this impact the way we translate? What translation principles are best suited to translating such a book?

I’m tempted to answer simply that if the Bible is fully human (without denying that it’s fully divine), then our translation principles should be the same as they are for any other fully human book. As Wayne Leman (Better Bibles Blog) would say, the translation should be clear, accurate, and natural.

But just as the divine side of Jesus (holy, blameless, undefiled–Hebrews 7:26) draws us away from the failures and the weaknesses and “leads us on toward perfection” (Hebrews 6:1), so I would suggest that our belief in the divine side of scripture should draw us forward toward the best translation effort possible. That best effort, in my view, should be to let the modern reader or hearer hear God in the human language of scripture.

That’s why I like the term “dynamic equivalence” even over more current terms like “functional equivalence.” Don’t get me wrong. Functional equivalence is a good and descriptive term, but it somehow fails to become a fire in my bones. “Dynamic equivalence,” trying to produce the same effect in a modern audience that the original text (or spoken words) would have produced in their original audience–that’s a worthy, fire-in-the-bones goal.

I have never actually seen it, though there are passages in numerous versions that do approach it. It’s a bit like the “perfection” of Hebrews 6:1–you keep moving toward it. It’s the north star, drawing you toward it, but light years away. I have never myself produced anything that I even regard as a good translation in writing. They’re just adequate to their purpose most of the time.

I recall one instance on a mission trip when I was asked to give a devotional. Because I had heard some team members talking about how they were less spiritual than others, and that the officially religious folks (myself included) were doing the “spiritual work,” I used a portion of 1 Corinthians 12. I read it over and over from my Greek Testament until it was rooted in me, and then I just spoke my translation from my heart. I recommended that members of the team read the passage for themselves. One member came to me after the devotional time and said, “What translation were you reading from? I want to read it in that translation.”

I wish I could produce that effect on demand, but I can’t. Even at that, of course, it was only a translation going on toward perfection, not one that had attained it. I’m guessing that the only way to do it would be to spend as much time with each passage, under as much conviction of the Holy Spirit as I was under at that time, before letting the passage pour forth for your audience as God’s message for God’s people on God’s mission.

Even though I studied Biblical languages in school, I have never accepted the notion that one must be skilled in the source languages in order to understand the Bible. I suspect this comes from my incarnational view as well. God “got into” the words in Hebrew and Greek, and I think that with the aid of the Holy Spirit, he can “get into” the words in English.

Translators, teachers, and expositors also become the conduit for God’s power in God’s word to get to God’s people. That’s the guiding star, I think, of truly dynamic–filled with dunamis–Bible translation.