Bibliotheca
Sacra 150 (April-June 1993): 140-50
Copyright © 1993 Dallas
Theological Seminary; cited with permission.
THEORIES OF THE
TRANSLATION PROCESS*
Bruce M. Metzger
If, according to the traditional
rendering of Proverbs
lator is scarcely less hard.
Not only does the work of translation
demand the utmost in concentrated effort, but the
result will sel-
dom please everyone, least
of all the conscientious translator.
Since
not all the nuances in a text can be conveyed into another
language, the translator must choose which ones
are to be ren-
dered and which are not. For
this reason the cynic speaks of
translation as "the art of making the right
sacrifice," and the
Italians
have put the matter succinctly in a proverb, "The trans-
lator is a traitor" (traduttore, traditore).
In short, except on a
purely practical level, translation is never entirely
successful.
There
is always what Ortega y Gasset called the misery and
the
splendor of the translation process.1
The work of translating the Bible presents
special difficul-
ties. Since the Scriptures are a source of both
information and in-
spiration, Bible translations
must be accurate as well as felici-
tous. They must be suitable
for rapid scanning as well as for de-
tailed study, and suitable for ceremonial reading
aloud to large
and small audiences. Ideally, they should be
intelligible and
even inviting to readers of all ages, of all degrees
of education,
and of almost all levels of intelligence. Such an
ideal is, of
course, virtually impossible to attain.
Bruce
M. Metzger is Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Emeri-
tus, Princeton Theological
Seminary,
*
This is article two in the four-part series, "Translating the Bible: An
Ongoing
Task,"
delivered by the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures at
ological Seminary,
1 Jose Ortega y Gasset, "Miseria y esplendor de la traducci6n," Obras completas,
4th
ed. (Madrid: Revista de Occidante,
1958), 5:433-52.
Theories of the Translation Process 141
The problem is compounded by the diversity of
theories of the
translation process. Should the translation be
literalistic or free
and paraphrastic? At what
level of English style should it be
pitched? Is it right to introduce into the
rendering cultural expla-
nations, and if so, how frequently? In the
printed format of the
Bible, should pronouns that refer to Deity be
capitalized?
Is it ad-
visable to print the words of
Christ in red ink? All these are legit-
imate questions that need to
be considered by Bible translators.
Perhaps
it is well to note the graceful phrasing of metaphors
for the translation process that the King James
translators ad-
dressed to the reader near the beginning of the
preface to their ver-
sion (a preface that unfortunately
is seldom included in modern
printings of that version):
Translation
it is that openeth the window, to let in the light;
that breaketh
the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth
aside the curtain, that we may look into the
most Holy place; that
removeth the cover of the well,
that we may come by the water,
even as Jacob rolled away
the stone from the mouth of the well,
by which means the flocks
of Laban were watered.2
Basically there are two competing theories of
translation. In
one the predominant purpose is to express as
exactly as possible
the full force and meaning of every word and turn
of phrase in the
original, and in the other the predominant
purpose is to produce a
result that does not read like a translation at all,
but that moves in
its new dress with the same ease as in its native
rendering. Of
course in the hands of good translators neither of
these two ap-
proaches can ever be entirely
ignored. The question is merely
which should come first, and which second, in the
translator's
mind; and when the two are in conflict and it is
therefore neces-
sary to choose between them,
the question is which side is to be
sacrificed. This article discusses examples of
various kinds of
translations of the Scriptures down
through the ages.
TRANSLATIONS
IN THE ANCIENT WORLD
Early in the Christian era, a Jewish scholar
named
was dissatisfied with the Septuagint translation
and undertook to
produce a Greek rendering of the Hebrew
Scriptures that would
represent each Hebrew word with a corresponding
Greek word.
The
result of following this procedure was the production of a ren-
2 The Translators to the Reader; Preface to the King James Version 1611,
ed.
Edgar
J. Goodspeed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1935), 21.
142
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / April.-June
1993
dering that was so slavishly
literal that it was often unintelligi-
ble to a reader who did not
know Hebrew as well as Greek. For
example in Genesis 1:1 the Hebrew text prefixes
the word tx, to
"heaven" and to "earth" in order to indicate
that these words are
the object of the verb "create."
be the Hebrew preposition, spelled the same way,
and therefore
rendered the text e]poi<hsen o[ qeo>j su>n to>n ou]rano>n kai> su>n th?n
gh?n, a rendering that is
totally un-Greek.
SYMMACHUS
Toward the end of the second Christian century
another
Greek
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was prepared. This
was by Symmachus, an Ebionite Christian of Jewish back-
ground. His theory and method were the opposite of
that of Aquila,
for his aim was to make an elegant Greek rendering.
To judge
from the scattered fragments that remain of his
translation,
Symmachus tended to be paraphrastic
in representing the Hebrew
original. He preferred idiomatic Greek
constructions in contrast
to other versions in which the Hebrew
constructions are pre-
served. Thus he usually converted into a Greek
participle the
first of two finite verbs connected with a copula. He
made copious
use of a wide range of Greek particles to bring out
subtle distinc-
tions of relationship that
the Hebrew cannot adequately express.
In
more than one passage Symmachus had a tendency to
soften
anthropomorphic expressions of the
Hebrew text.
JEROME
Jerome's approach is puzzling. On the one hand
in his letter
to Sunnia and Fretela, Jerome declared that the work of a good
translator consists in rendering idiomatic
expressions of one
language
into the modes of expression native to the other.3 In an-
other letter, addressed to Pammachius,
he discussed the best
method of translating literary works in general, and
stated,
"From
my youth up I have always aimed at rendering sense not
words.... A literal translation from one language to
another ob-
scures the sense."4
At the same time, however, Jerome made an
exception when it came to the Bible. He added a
qualification, "In
translating from the Greek I render sense for sense
and not word
for word-except in the case of the Holy Scriptures,
where even the
order of the words is a mystery."5
3 Jerome, Epistle 106. 3.
3.
4 Ibid.,
57.6.
5 Ibid.,
57.5.
Theories of the Translation Process 143
Here Jerome clearly advocated two different
methods of
translation, depending on whether the original is a
secular or a
sacred text. In the Bible every word is sacred. In his
letter to
Paulinus, Jerome wrote, "The Apocalypse of
John has as many
mysteries as words,"6 and these
mysteries must be preserved in
the translation. Since the order of words
transcends human un-
derstanding, a change in the order
of words not only destroys this
mystery, but it also endangers the profundity of
the sacred text.
All this seems to be clear enough until one
looks at Jerome's
work in preparing the Latin text of the Vulgate. His
declaration
of policy in translating Scripture seems to be
inconsistent with
his general practice. It is perplexing that
although Jerome advo-
cated the word-for-word
method of Bible translation, he was not
always consistent in following it. Perhaps the best
solution to this
anomaly is to suggest that in making the Vulgate
translation
Jerome
had in fact renounced a great part of the ornamentation of
style and paraphrase he was accustomed to employ when
dealing
with secular works, but nevertheless allowed himself
a certain
amount of freedom and variety of renderings in the
Vulgate.
ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS
English translations of the Bible present a
great variety of
types of rendering.
THE KING JAMES VERSION
In the preface to the 1611 English version, the
translators set
forth their theory of translation. At some length
they declared:
We have not tied ourselves to an [sic] uniformity of phrasing, or
to an identity of words,
as some peradventure would wish that we
had done, because they
observe, that some learned men some-
where, have been as exact as
they could that way. Truly, that we
might not vary from the sense
of that which we had translated be-
fore, if the word signified
the same in both places (for there be
some words that be not of
the same sense everywhere) we were
especially careful, and made a
conscience, according to our duty.
But, that we should express the same notion in
the same particu-
lar word; as for example,
if we translate the Hebrew or Greek
word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Jour-
neying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if
one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy,
never Gladness,
etc. Thus to mince the
matter, we thought to savour more of cu-
riosity than wisdom, and that
rather it would breed scorn in the
Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader.7
6 Ibid.,
53.9.
7 The Translators to the Reader; Preface to the King James Version 1611,
36.
144
BIBUOTHECA SACRA /
April-June 1993
As examples of the wide variety of translation
in the King
James
Version one can point to the 11 ways in which the Greek
verb me<nw
is rendered in the New Testament, including "abide,"
"remain," "continue," "dwell,"
"tarry," "endure," "stand,"
and "be present." Even within the space
of a few verses in 1
Corinthians
13 four renderings of the same Greek verb are used:
"prophecies, they shall fail
. . . knowledge, it shall vanish away
that which is in part shall be done away ... I put away
...
childish things." Clearly the apostle had
some purpose in reiter-
ating the key word of this
passage, but this purpose is lost to the
reader of the King James Version.
EDWARD HARWOOD'S
TRANSLATION
After the publication of the King James Version
and its gen-
eral acceptance in
succeeding generations, its position was chal-
lenged by a classical scholar
and biblical critic named Edward
Harwood
(1729-1794). Dissatisfied with what he termed "the bald
and barbarous languages of the old vulgar
version," that is, the
Authorized
Version, in 1768 Harwood issued a rendering of the
New
Testament in the elevated style of English that was current
among many British authors in the second half of the
18th cen-
tury.8 The opening sentences
of the Parable of the Prodigal Son
are an example of the contrived and artificial
style imposed on
the simple and direct language of the Gospel of
Luke. "A Gen-
tleman of a splendid family
and opulent fortune had two sons.
One
day the younger approached his father, and begged him in the
most importunate and soothing terms to make a
partition of his
effects betwixt himself and his elder brother--The
indulgent fa-
ther, overcome by his
blandishments, immediately divided all
his fortunes betwixt them."
Likewise the simple and chaste language of
Mary's Magni-
ficat in the King James
Version (Luke
Harwood
so as to read, "My soul with reverence adores my Cre-
ator, and all my faculties
with transport join in celebrating the
goodness of God, my Saviour,
who hath in so signal a manner
condescended to regard my poor and
humble station. Transcen-
dent goodness! Every future age will now conjoin in
celebrating
my happiness!"
8 The title page reads,
"A liberal translation of the New
Testament; being an at-
tempt to translate the Sacred Writings with the same Freedom,
Spirit, and Ele-
gance with which other English translations of the Greek Classics
have lately
been executed ... with Select Notes, Critical and Explanatory.
By
T. Becket and Others,
Theories of the Translation Process 145
NOAH WEBSTER'S BIBLE
Altogether unlike the garish style used in
Harwood's render-
ing was the sober and
restrained revision of the King James Ver-
sion that Noah Webster, the
lexicographer, issued at
remove obsolete words and phrases and to correct
errors of
grammar and mistranslations. Examples of the
former are the
use of "who" for "which" when
it refers to persons; "it" for "his"
when it refers to plants and to things without life;
"falsehood" for
"leasing";
"hinder" for "let"; "button" for "tache"; "boiled" for
"sodden"; "Holy Spirit" for "Holy
Ghost." Errors of grammar
are "Whom do you say I am?" and the
occasional use of the sin-
gular number of the verb with
a plural subject (e.g., Luke
roneous or misleading were
corrected in the various passages
where they appeared. Practically all these changes
have been
adopted by later revisers, who found his judgment
sound as to the
need of change.
In addition to the kinds of changes mentioned
above, Webster
introduced another kind of amendment in the
language, which
he considered of very grave importance. In his own
words,
To these may be added many words and phrases,
very offensive to
delicacy and even to decency....
Language which cannot be ut-
tered in company without a
violation of decorum, or the rules of
good breeding, exposes the
scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers,
impairs their authority, and multiplies
or confirms the enemies of
our holy religion.10
JULIA E. SMITH'S
TRANSLATION
Another idiosyncratic rendering, published a
century after
Harwood's
version, was produced in 1876 by an American trans-
lator, Julia E. Smith. This
rendering has the distinction of being
the first translation of the entire Bible made by a
woman. It was
issued at her own expense by the American Publishing
Company
of
"translated literally from the original tongues," and in
the pref-
ace Smith indicates that she "endeavored to
put the same English
9 The Webster Bible was
reissued in 1987 by the Baker Book House of Grand
Rapids.
10 In the following
passages Webster introduced various euphemisms in place of
the expressions used in the King James Version:
Genesis 20:18; 29:31; 30:22; 34:30;
38:9,
24; Exodus
Judges
2:17; 1 Samuel 1:5; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8; 18:27; Job
3:10-12;
40:17;
Psalms 22:9, 10; 38:5; 106:39; Ecclesiastes 11:5; Isaiah 36:12; Ezekiel 16 and
23;
John
11:39; Ephesians 5:5.
146
BIBUOTHECA SACRA / April-June 1993
word for the same Hebrew or Greek word
everywhere," for she
considered that this gave a "much clearer
understanding of the
text." The result, however, was a rendering
teeming with obscu-
rities and nonsense on almost
every page.
Paying no attention to the function of the
Hebrew waw
con-
secutive, she frequently used
the future tense in translating He-
brew] verbs in historical narrative, giving the
reader the impres-
sion that everything in
those narratives, including the acts of
creation in the first chapter of Genesis, was yet
to happen! The
extent of the obscurity is suggested by Jeremiah 22:23,
presented
as a complete sentence and reading, "Thou
dwelling in
building a nest in the cedars, how being
compassionated in pangs
coming to thee the pain as of her bringing
forth."
THE REVISED VERSION
(1881-1885)
In 1870 the
issued a proposal that a committee should be formed to
undertake
a revision of the Authorized or King James
Version of the Bible.11
At
first it was hoped to keep the work entirely in Anglican hands,
but eventually Free Church scholars, plus one
Unitarian, joined
the revision committee. As was to be expected, the
great majority
of the members of the revision committee had been
trained at Ox-
ford or
J.
Cadoux,12 these two universities
inculcated quite different ide-
als for the translation
process. The Oxford method aimed at con-
veying the sense of the
original in free idiomatic English without
too much regard for the precise wording of the
former; the
bridge method paid meticulous attention to verbal
accuracy, so as
to translate as literally as possible without
positive violence to
English
usage, or positive misrepresentation of the author's
meaning, and to leave it to the reader to
discern the sense from the
context. For good or for ill, the Cambridge
genius presided over
the English Revised Version.
The rules set before the revisers were rigid and
conservative.
For
example it was determined that, so far as possible, only such
expressions were to be used as were already present
in the King
James
Version. It is no surprise that by following this rule there
was actually an increase of archaic English
expressions in the
revision.
11
It is
significant that the
vision on the ground that it would deplore any
recasting of the text of Scripture.
12 C. J. Cadoux, The Bible and Its
Ancient and English Versions, ed. H. Wheeler
Robinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1940), 251.
Theories of the Translation Process 147
As a sample of the sometimes unidiomatic
English, the ren-
dering of Luke 9:17 can
scarcely be regarded as good English
style: "And they did eat, and were all filled:
and there was taken
up that which remained over to them of broken pieces,
twelve bas-
kets." The evaluation
of the New Testament in the Revised Ver-
sion by the famous
was brief and to the point: "The revision is
strong in Greek but
weak in English." Nevertheless for those who desire
an English
version that presents a formal equivalent of the
original texts, the
Revised
Version has no equal.
Like the Revised Version, the American Standard
Version is
extremely literalistic.
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT TRANSLATIONS
At the other extreme to translations that
present a formal
equivalent are those that seek to offer what can be
called a dy-
namic equivalent. The prime
mover in developing such transla-
tions, whether in English or
in other languages, has been
A.
Nida, long associated with the American Bible
Society.
Trained
in linguistics and competent in many related fields,
Nida has published extensively13 and has
prompted other schol-
ars to carry on similar
projects.
"Dynamic equivalence" is defined as
"the quality of a trans-
lation in which the message of
the original text has been so trans-
ported into the receptor language that the response of
the receptor is
essentially like that of the original receptors. . .
. The opposite
principle is formal correspondence."14
More recently the term
"functional equivalence"15 has been used to
describe such a
quality in the translation.
Whichever term is preferred, the process
involves the re-
wording of expressions and customs not well
known today. For
example in Psalm 23:5 the literal translation,
"anointed my head
with oil," is replaced with what is deemed to
be its modern equiva-
lent, "welcomed me as an honored guest."
Applying the process of
dynamic equivalence in translation, in 1966 the
American Bible
13 For a bibliography of Nida's publications from 1945 to 1975 see Language Struc-
ture and Translation: Essays by Eugene A. Nida, selected and
introduced by An-
war S. Dil (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1975), 274-83.
14
(Leiden: Brill, 1969),
202.
15 So described in the
subtitle of the book by Jan de Waard and Eugene A. Nida,
From One Language to
Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating
(Nashville: Nelson, 1986). See also the appendix
entitled "Diverse Theories of
Translation," 182-87.
148
BIBUOTHECA SACRA / April-June 1993
Society
issued Robert G. Bratcher's rendering of the New Testa-
ment in Today's English
Version, under the title Good News for
Modern
scholars, the translation of the Old Testament
was finished in
1976 and issued with the New Testament, as the Good News Bible.
The
apocryphal or deuterocanonical books followed in
1979. The
version uses contemporary American English, and
has won wide
acceptance because of its ready intelligibility.
The most recently produced translation (1991)
that embodies
"functional equivalence" is the American Bible Society's
Con-
temporary English Version, under the title Bible for Today's
Family. Originally intended as
an easily understood Bible for
young people, the version was recognized as having
appeal for a
much wider audience. The New Testament, produced by
Barclay
Newman
and others for the American Bible Society, is somewhat
similar to the Good News Bible; it is an idea-by-idea translation
that arranges the text in a sequence understandable
to today's
readers of English. The translators were also
concerned about
using
gender-inclusive language for men and women.
PARAPHRASES
The difference between a translation and a
paraphrase may
be expressed as follows: A paraphrase tells the
reader what the
passage means, whereas a literal translation
tells what the pas-
sage says. Of course a paraphrase can be useful,
just as a com-
mentary is a useful tool for
Bible students. The first paraphrase
of the New Testament in English was prepared by an
Anglican,
Henry
Hammond (1605--1660), and entitled A
Paraphrase and
Annotations upon all the
Books of the New Testament (
1653).
In the following century Samuel Johnson commended this
pioneer work of English biblical criticism. In
the 20th century,
paraphrases have once again attracted readers, first
through the
publication of J. B. Phillips's Letters to Young Churches (1947),
followed by Kenneth S. Wuest's
Expanded Translation of the
Greek New Testament, 3 volumes (1956-59). A
few years later a
paraphrase of the entire Bible was published
through the Lockman
Foundation under the title The Amplified Bible (1962). This
contains comments, enclosed within brackets, that
clarify the
sense of the original text. F. F. Bruce's
characteristically care-
ful work appeared in a
volume entitled The Letters of Paul: An
Expanded Paraphrase (1965).
By far the most popular biblical paraphrase has
been Kenneth
Theories of the Translation Process 149
simplified, easy-to-follow rendering in idiomatic
present-day
English. At times, however, the text is greatly
expanded by imag-
inative details for which there
is no warrant in the original. A
clear example is Amos 1:1, where the first 16 words
of a literal
word-to-word English rendering (such
as that of the American
Standard
Version) are expanded to 46 words. Sometimes in the
interest of smoothing away a difficulty,
ranted liberties with the text. For example, contrary
to what the
Synoptic
Gospels report, John
found the donkey on which He rode into
Bible
takes care of this problem by eliminating the passage.
SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS
Over the years preferences of style in printing
English have
changed. Neither in the King James Version nor
in subsequent
English
versions down to the 20th century have translators capi-
talized pronouns that refer to
Deity. It is only rather recently that
several translations have adopted this practice,
including the
Amplified
Bible, the
dard Version, and the New
King James Bible. Though such a
practice is thought to show more reverence, it
must be acknowl-
edged that there is absolutely no such
differentiation made in the
Hebrew or Greek text.
Furthermore where does one stop in applying such
a mis-
guided policy? If the translator capitalizes third
person pronouns
(he, his, him), what should be done with the relative
pronouns
(who, whom, whose)? Should one capitalize "you,"
even in
speeches of unbelievers that are reported in the
narrative, such as
Pilate's
question, "Are you the King of the Jews?" (Matt. 27:11)?
Such
problems as these indicate how inadvisable it is to follow the
practice of capitalizing pronouns.
Another modernism introduced rather recently in
printed
Bibles
is the use of red ink for the words of Christ. The first such
New
Testament was the King James Version edited by Louis
Klopsch and issued by the Christian Herald (
it was reprinted many times. During the 20th
century other pub-
lishers have issued a variety
of other versions in this manner.
Besides
passages in the Gospels, such editions, of course, also
print in red the sayings attributed to Christ in the
Book of Acts, 2
Corinthians, and Revelation.
Difficulties arise in ascertaining
the end of a conversation; in John 3 do the words
of Jesus end at
verse 15 or at verse 21?
The advisability of the practice can be debated.
On the one
150
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / April-June 1993
hand a different color of ink may assist the reader
to find more
quickly certain familiar passages. On the other
hand printing
the words of Christ in red not only violates the
unity of the text, but
also seems to lay a greater emphasis on the report
of what Jesus
said (as a teacher) than on what He did (as the
Savior).
Another difficulty confronts translators today
because of the
inability of modern English to differentiate
between "you" sin-
gular number and
"you" plural number. In earlier days "thou"
and "ye," with the objective forms
"thee" and "you," could repre-
sent exactly the Hebrew or Greek text. Today it is
necessary to
indicate in a footnote (as the NRSV does) that
the Greek word for
"you" is plural in Luke 14:24; John
Timothy
spoken to an individual. In other contexts that
mention several
persons, a footnote indicates that the word
"you" is singular in
number (e.g., Phile. 4-21).
CONCLUSION
One time at a meeting of his diocesan clergy,
Richard
Whately (1787-1863), the Anglican Archbishop of
ished his hearers when he
held up a copy of the Authorized Ver-
sion of the Bible and said,
"Never forget, gentlemen, that this is
not the Bible."' Then,
after a moment's pause, he continued,
"This,
gentlemen, is only a translation of the Bible."16
What should one say about Whately's
pronouncement? From
one point of view he was no doubt correct. But from
another point
of view one must also recognize the truth in what
the translators of
the King James Version forthrightly declared in the
preface to
their rendering:
We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the
very meanest
translation of the Bible in
English, set forth by men of our pro-
fession, . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being
translated into French, Dutch,
Italian and Latin, is still the
King's speech, though it be not interpreted by
every translator
with the like grace, nor
peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so
expressly for sense,
everywhere.... No cause therefore why the
word translated should be
denied to be the word, or forbidden to
be current,
notwithstanding that some imperfections and blem-
ishes may be noted in the
setting forth of it.17
16 Reported by Henry Solly, "These Eighty Years," or, The Story of an
Unfinished
Life (London: Simpkin & Martall, 1893),
2:81.
17 The Translators to the Reader; Preface to the King James Version 1611,
28-29.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
www.dts.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: