Using the Right Bible Translation? A professional translator’s perspective on translation choice, by Jonathan Downie
Conclusion
The aim of this article was to show the usefulness of skopos theory in helping church leaders choose the Bible translation they will use in any given situation. We have seen that the choices translators make in their work is as much affected by the skopos of their translation as it is by factors in the original language. The traditional approaches to Bible translation cannot explain, for example, the marked similarity between the NKJV and the KJV; skopos theory can. Skopos theory is also more useful in that it suggests that, if leaders wish to know which translation is best for which specific purpose, the prefaces found in each Bible translation will prove a reliable guide. Translations aimed at those familiar with a particular previous translation will prove more useful for work among such people. Translations aimed at those confused by, or unfamiliar with traditional terminology will prove more useful among people sharing those traits in common.
The correct response to the question posed in the title of this article is to avoid the temptation to make a universal recommendation of any single Bible translation or even of any single translation philosophy. Instead, this question should be continually in the minds of leaders as they minister and the answer should be formulated according to the purpose for which the translation is to be used. Just as Paul the Apostle could preach the gospel in the language of philosophy to the Greeks and in the language of the Old Testament to the Jews, we must be prepared to adjust the translation used according to the requirements of the particular ministry or personal situation.
PR
Want More?
Read Jonathan Downie’s more in depth article: “The End of an Era?: Does Skopos Theory Spell the End of the ‘Free vs. Literal’ Paradigm?” go online to:
Notes
1 In Fee and Strauss (2007: 28) these terms are replaced by “formal equivalent” and “functional equivalent” respectively on a similar diagram. For reasons of clarity and simplicity, the more well-recognised terms have been retained in this article.
2 The choice of the term “mediating” in Fee and Strauss (2007: 28) further underlines this point.
3 The diagram in Fee and Strauss (2007: 28) illustrates this point. Rather than the orderly arrangement of translations into three categories as in Fee and Stuart (2002: 36) we now have translations placed in the gaps between categories too. The question then arises as to how useful these theories actually are if even translation theorists have difficulty in using them as distinct categories.
Category: Biblical Studies, Pneuma Review, Summer 2009
Followers
Fans
