Bible Translations Are for People

On the more lighthearted side of the internet one finds the meme, “Americans will use anything except the metric system.” The earliest recorded illustration of this assertion is a sign which describes deer as the height of a bicycle and weighing as much as 800 hamburgers. As an American who has lived abroad for many years, I find this funny because it’s true. I readily admit my own inability to stop thinking in terms of (American) football fields.

A matter of taste

Why doesn’t the U.S. adopt the metric system? One may argue that it’s objectively better owing to its simplicity, consistency, precision, ease of learning, and worldwide adoption. Despite all this, we the American people are reluctant to adopt what may be perceived as a “foreign” system for fear of loss of identity or for financial reasons. Admittedly, it’s easier to keep using the system we’ve always used. So, for all the benefits of the metric system, it has yet to find wide acceptance among the average one-and-half-bicycle-tall American.

This situation stands in contrast to academic and scientific circles where the metric system has long been the accepted standard. We are then left waiting for the metric system to trickle down, if ever.

Here we find an analogy for the reception of the Bible. Advances in biblical studies are often slow to trickle down from the ivory tower to the page in the pew. Sacred texts like the Bible are notoriously resistant to change. People do not like when the Bible as they know it changes. As a result, translators sometimes avoid risk in favor of continuity with the past (tradition). In this, they are accountable to a variety of stakeholders, including a larger target audience and external partners like a publisher. Translators generally do not have total freedom to insist on what is arguably an objectively better translation, or one more precise, consistent, simpler, or representative of the latest scholarly thinking.

This interplay reveals that Bible translation is complex. It involves taste and could be likened to culinary art. Translation is both a human process and a tradition-laden, culturally mediated product intended for human consumption. To better appreciate this, let’s consider the example of “leprosy.”

The case of leprosy

“I once had leprosy” was not the comment I was expecting from the Cameroonian translator whose translation of the Gospel of Luke I was helping to check. You what now?! “Yes, many years ago I contracted leprosy… but I received treatment and was cured.”

In the Bible, we find multiple references to an unwelcome condition called tsaraat in Hebrew and lepra (or lepros) in Greek, traditionally translated “leprosy” (e.g., Lev. 13:2; Matt. 8:1–3). For decades, however, translators and biblical scholars have been itching to point out that the “leprosy” of the Bible is not what we today call leprosy or, more precisely, Hansen’s disease (see especially Hulse 1975). For example, under the entry for tsaraat, Cline’s Dictionary of Classical Hebrew emphatically states “not leprosy,” after providing the definition, “skin disease, with scaling as one of its symptoms.”

The reference work A Guide to Bible Translation cites “leprosy” as “perhaps the most significant case” of anachronism in Bible translation. As a result, some contemporary English Bibles now translate tsaraat as a “serious” (CSB) or “defiling” (NRSVue) “disease” where it refers, for example, to a skin condition in Leviticus. The NKJV and NASB, by contrast, are somewhat unique in continuing to use “leprosy” (or “leprous”), thereby favoring continuity with a centuries long legacy even if they may supply footnotes on occasion for clarification.

In the New Testament, the translation of lepra is slightly more complicated than we can explore in significant detail here. Nevertheless, it may be an exception that proves the point about continuity. Consider the recent NRSVue at Matthew 8:2 which leads the way towards healing potential mistranslation with its rendering “[person] with a skin disease,” thereby breaking with the “leprous” legacy of the KJV and its family of revisions the ASV, RSV, and NRSV.

Here, as is often the case in Bible translation, biblical studies was overruled by popular opinion (and pocketbooks).

On the other hand, most New Testament translations have been much slower to touch this issue. While a solo New Testament translation like Scot McKnight’s Second Testament (ST) can venture “a scaly-skin man,” those done by committee, like the CSB, are less willing to cleanse their translation (“a man with leprosy”), preferring instead to inform the careful reader via a footnote (“Gk lepros; a term for various skin diseases”). The CSB’s predecessor, the HCSB, had in fact experimented with “skin disease” in both the Old Testament and New Testament, but the CSB dutifully returned to “leprosy” in the New Testament in favor of more traditional language. Here, as is often the case in Bible translation, biblical studies was overruled by popular opinion (and pocketbooks).

Preferring ‘leprosy’ in Africa

When I’ve checked translation drafts of the Bible into African languages, all teams except one have preferred to translate tsaraat and lepra with traditional local terms for “leprosy.” Despite lengthy conversations about lexicons, anachronism, and accuracy, only one team decided to adopt a more general rendering like “skin disease,” and that was just for the Old Testament.

The reasons for this are many. First, there is personal experience (not unlike the appeal to bicycles and hamburgers): “We know this disease. Either we’ve had it, or we know someone who’s had it. We have a name for it, and it connects better than something generic and weak,” a translator might explain. It is worth noting as well that while leprosy is found the world over, those affected by it have not experienced the same level of stigmatization and ostracization everywhere. Contexts influenced by Islamic culture, for example, have been known to show greater tolerance towards those with the disease. Second, a traditional rendering maintains continuity with the millennia long tradition of “leprosy” which started with the Septuagint and passed to numerous national languages through the Vulgate. Third, in New Testament translation, it can sound ridiculous recommending against translating with “leprosy” when the Greek word is lepra; the cognate form betrays us even if the first-century meaning was more general. Lastly, it’s worth remembering that traditional local equivalents for medical conditions may be equally general in meaning as far as they may reflect a similarly pre-scientific understanding of observable conditions.

The counterpoint about anachronism was not well received by one team, taken instead as an assault on the Bible. In a way, it is an assault on the Bible—the Bible as some have always known it, that is. The charge of anachronism puts into question sacred texts as fixed and never changing. And so, we start to see why Bible translations have not fully healed themselves of “leprosy.”

Acceptability

Though it sometimes surprises ordinary Bible readers, this polyphony of perspectives demonstrates that Bible translation is never as simple as transferring a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek lexeme from a lexicon to a lectionary. Translation helps series like the UBS Handbook and SIL’s Translator’s Notes recognize that more is at stake than simply finding the best, most technically accurate rendering.

Accuracy is but one part of this creative process we call translation; another is finding a translation that works, one that is acceptable to the translating community as a whole and meets agreed upon goals. Commenting on Leviticus 13, for example, the UBS Handbook notes that “in some modern versions… the word ‘leprosy’ is still used because the alternative is considered ‘too heavy’ or ‘too awkward.’” Reading this, we may wonder “too heavy, too awkward” for whom? For people. Too heavy for people to process (“malignant skin disease” [NEB]); too awkward for people to read (“scaly-skin man” [ST]). The criteria of heaviness and awkwardness are decidedly human-ward qualities.

In her classic textbook for Bible translators, SIL senior translation consultant Katy Barnwell identifies the four qualities of a “good translation” as accuracy, clarity, naturalness, and acceptability.¹Katharine Barnwell, Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in Translation Principles, 4th ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2020), 36. From decades of experience, Barnwell wisely acknowledges that “a translation that for some reason is not accepted by the intended audience will not achieve its purpose, even though it is accurate, clear, and natural.”

This criterion of acceptability is enshrined in the Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible (1968; 1987) which states that “translations will be carried out in close cooperation, with the aim that the new text will be acceptable to, and be used by all Christians and Christian communities who speak the language into which the translation is being made.”

Similarly, the Forum of Bible Agencies International’s Basic Principles and Procedures for Bible Translation urges translators “to test the translation as extensively as possible in the receptor community to ensure that it communicates accurately, clearly and naturally, keeping in mind the sensitivities and experience of the receptor audience.”

UBS translation consultant Carl Gross even goes so far as to suggest that:

“acceptability” is a predominant criterion of translation… although it is seldom, if ever, acknowledged as such. In those instances where an accurate, clear, or natural rendering is deemed not to be acceptable to the receptor audience, this fourth principle comes to the fore and generally, if not always, carries the day.

So, we find in Bible translation a need for considerations beyond technical accuracy. The interconnected qualities of a “good” translation are regularly in tension; it is for translators to seek creative balance and compensate for inevitable translation loss. Where acceptability increases, accuracy may decrease and vice versa. This reveals the complex, Janus-faced nature of translation, being both source-oriented and target-oriented. On the target-oriented side, acceptability, naturalness, and clarity look to people while the criterion of accuracy looks to the source.

The interconnected qualities of a “good” translation are regularly in tension.

In other words, that which is acceptable, natural, and clear is largely determined in relation to the end user, the target audience. By contrast, accuracy, once defined by translation stakeholders, is largely gauged in relation to source material. Taken together, this means that even a translation with intentional misprints, such as the edition of the King James Bible prepared for King Charles’ coronation, can on occasion be considered more acceptable than one in which typos are corrected.

The ‘turn’ in translation

The 1960s represent a “turn” in the history of Bible translation on these issues as emerging translation studies gave rise to more target-oriented approaches. Historically, theologians and biblical scholars (as well as the earliest Bible translators) have been for the most part source-oriented, focused on the source text and on bringing the reader to the world of the Bible (what is sometimes referred to as a foreignizing approach). This approach prioritizes perceived accuracy but becomes myopic if it ignores the human participants in the process and fails to recognize their impact on and use of translations.

Today, we find in Barnwell that three out of four qualities of a “good translation” are target-oriented (clear, natural, and acceptable) while only one is source-oriented (accuracy). Yes, all translations represent a delicate balancing act and blend of these factors, but, in the end, translation is for humans not for translation’s sake. The goal is obviously not to produce the most technically accurate translation that no one uses! Translation scholar Gideon Toury therefore suggests that translations exist on a continuum running from “adequate” (adopting the linguistic and cultural norms of the source text) to “acceptable” (adopting the norms of the target text), but they cannot be wholly either or neither; there’s always a blend.

The four qualities outlined above are fundamentally subjective even if mixed with elements of objectivity (e.g., the quality of a recording in an audio Bible). Unsurprisingly, translation scholars continue to debate the qualities of a “good” translation as well as how to assess quality in translation. For example, some have suggested replacing the criteria of clear, accurate, natural, and acceptable with the criteria of trustworthy, appropriate, understandable, and appealing. Here “appropriate” supersedes “acceptable” to include the idea of “fit for purpose.”²Sebastian Floor and Bryan Harmelink, “Multimodality in Bible Translation: Could It Contribute to Quality Assurance?” in Quality in Translation: A Multi-Threaded Fabric, ed. Stephen Watters and Reinier de Blois (Dallas: SIL International, 2023), 162–164.

Regardless of terminology, we recognize the importance of laying out one’s criteria of evaluation and identifying implicit cultural values and expectations. Additionally, because the criteria of a “good” translation are still hotly debated, we may rightfully concede that there is no such thing as the “best” translation. Which artwork is best? What is the best meal? All translations can be evaluated by any number of criteria before being improved upon. Quality is a continuum. As a guide, we may aim for a consensus view in dialogue with relevant stakeholders.

Related

• 
  Detail at Luke 1 from the earliest datable copy of the complete Bible in English (14th c.). Egerton MS 618 (f. 35v)
  Five Decisions Every Bible Translator Must Make

  Knowing the hard decisions Bible translators face inspires gratitude for our Bibles and encourages us to read them.

  Peter J. Gurry

People win

Writing in 1960 on the question of “leprosy” in Bible translation, the medical doctor K. Gramberg expressed in alternate terms this tension in how to define a “good” translation:

What should count more, [the translator’s] responsibility as philologist and theologian, or Christian compassion for those who are shunned by society? Or does he agree with the linguist who wrote to me and said: “Even though this is a medical and social question of the greatest importance, the linguistic and theological factors cannot be neglected.” Is this entirely true? Is it absolutely impossible to rank Christian compassion above linguistic, historical, or theological motives for the sake of the happiness of so many tragic folk?

For some, like Gramberg’s linguist, maintaining “leprosy” in translation is preferable because it is perceived to be more accurate, which in this case may simply mean that it is a translation that maintains continuity with the past. For others, like Dr. Gramberg, “leprosy” is unacceptable, not only because of anachronism (accuracy), but because of its contribution in some contexts to the stigmatization of those affected by Hansen’s disease today.

For certain translators, as shown earlier, maintaining “leprosy” is acceptable because of its potential to connect with the target audience. This is in addition to a preference for continuity. By comparison, one doctor lauded the publication of the New English Bible (NEB) in 1970 as “an historic event” in part for the way it broke with the traditional “leprosy” rendering of the KJV and RSV in Leviticus, offering instead, “malignant skin-disease.”

Some others have suggested that the best way to handle tsaraat in translation is not to translate at all, but to transliterate, thereby forcing tsaraat into the target language.³Oliver W. Hasselblad and Olaf K. Skinsnes, “The Fullness of Time Has Come-Now Also for Leprosy” Notes on Translation 47 (1973): 12–15. This approach has been tried and, in the case of Malay, has been found wanting for reasons of acceptability:

The old Malay versions rendered tsara’ath by kusta = leprosy. The 1939 version changed over to transliteration. But even pastors trained by that version’s translator have not accepted the change. They preferred kusta which did have a meaning to “tsaraath disease” which had none, and which they therefore had to explain again and again, usually by equating it with… kusta. So the means defeated the end!

What this comes down to is the difficulty of deciding, like in the case of the Korean translation of “leprosy,” “whether the Bible would take the initiative and lead the language of its users, or adopt the language widely used by the greater number of people.” Guess who most often wins? People! Because translation is for people.

Limits to acceptability

Are there limits to acceptability? Yes. Various stakeholders determine these limits. As a translation consultant who checks and approves translations of the Bible, to whom am I accountable? Personally, my loyalties are multiple: to God above all; my conscience; the biblical authors and scribes; churches who support my ministry; organizations with which I’m affiliated; the historical legacy of preceding Bible translators and translations; contemporary translators and translations; translating communities; and the global Church.

Ultimately, I am helping to prepare a meal that is not primarily intended for me. It needs to be acceptable while also conforming to best practices concerning quality, just like a commercial kitchen must meet certain base standards but is welcome to serve any food that is acceptable to customers. It is not for the customer alone to decide how or what they eat; the government and its regulatory bodies are designed to prevent customers from eating foods that are unhealthy or harmful.

Translation, like cooking, is an art with multiple correct or acceptable end products, depending on multiple factors including the customer, the occasion, and the purpose. Indeed, both the kitchen and the consumer have a role to play in the food that is prepared. Bible translation is not so different.

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Consider again the multiple and diverse stakeholders participating in conversations about quality in Bible translation. When it comes to translating tsaraat and lepra, they can include doctors, scholars, stylists, farmers, grandmothers, people affected by Hansen’s disease, etc. These stakeholders can easily be forgotten in debates over Bible translation philosophy.

I am grateful for organizations and platforms that raise awareness about these issues since we all have a role to play in ongoing discussions about Bible translation and quality. As co-heirs of Scripture, we must value each other’s perspective, showing flexibility in matters of charity, and listening well to clearly articulated matters of conscience.

Bible translation, like cooking, is complex; it is art mingled with science.

Bible translation, like cooking, is complex; it is art mingled with science. Let us be mindful of meals we will not eat, for translation decisions, like food choices, do in fact involve the “happiness of human beings” as one author poignantly noted on the subject of leprosy in the Bible.

Conclusion

Today, the Christian Scriptures continue on their trajectory towards accessibility for all people. The diversity and multiplicity of biblical texts and the versions they’ve inspired bear witness to the importance of the criterion of acceptability. Translation is for people. Bible translation exists because untranslated biblical texts are unacceptable to Bible consumers whose language repertoire does not include Hebrew and Greek or whose preferred mode of communication is oral or signed.

My late grandmother would not have accepted a single leaf of Codex Leningrad or Codex Vaticanus as her daily Bible; but she was right at home in the branches of her beloved KJV, a translation whose legacy continues to contribute to the happiness of human beings, anachronisms and all.

Notes

• 1
  Katharine Barnwell, Bible Translation: An Introductory Course in Translation Principles, 4th ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2020), 36.
• 2
  Sebastian Floor and Bryan Harmelink, “Multimodality in Bible Translation: Could It Contribute to Quality Assurance?” in Quality in Translation: A Multi-Threaded Fabric, ed. Stephen Watters and Reinier de Blois (Dallas: SIL International, 2023), 162–164.
• 3
  Oliver W. Hasselblad and Olaf K. Skinsnes, “The Fullness of Time Has Come-Now Also for Leprosy” Notes on Translation 47 (1973): 12–15.