Michael S. Heiser
A famous Italian proverb declares “traduttore, traditore,” which means, “Translator, traitor.” Those who assume this is true are unaware how difficult it is to produce a translation. Every translator at some point invariably discards the meaning of the original text.
A committee of scholars assembled to produce a translation typically adopts an overarching philosophy of translation. In simplest terms, there are two. The first is called “formal equivalence,” which seeks to account for virtually every word in the original text by producing its English counterpart in translation. This is “word-for-word” or “literal” translation. The second is called “dynamic equivalence.” This approach seeks to capture the thought of the original verse in context, and then re-create that thought using whatever English words are most precise. This is “thought-for-thought” translation. But adopting an approach does not mean that all the translators will apply it equally. There is also a matter of interpretation. When the biblical text allows more than one translation due to ambiguity in the context, grammar, or word usage, a translator needs to make his or her own decision—which can lead to controversy.
First Corinthians 7:1 is illustrative of the potential hazard.
ESV: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
NASB: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
NIV: “It is good for a man not to marry.”
TNIV: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
NLT: “It is good to live a celibate life.”
The most “word-for-word” of these translations is that of the NASB, which captures the literal reading of the Greek words in the verse, particularly the verb “touch” (ἅπτοµαι, haptomai). Other translations move away from the ambiguous “touch” to “have sexual relations with” (ESV, TNIV).
The most controversial renderings are the NIV (“It is good for a man not to marry”) and the NLT (“It is good to live a celibate life”). How is it that the translators could go from a Greek word that means “touch” to these options?
The answer is that the translators factored in what was presumed to be the wider context of the chapter and, ultimately, the writer. In 1 Cor 7:7–8, Paul describes himself as single. His advice to the Corinthians in several places is that it would be wiser for those who are not married to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:7–8, 26–27) because of an undefined “present distress” (7:26). This context is presumed in 7:1 by the NIV and NLT.
These translations are certainly plausible, but still problematic. While Paul notes a “present distress” in 7:27, can we be certain that Paul was thinking of that distress in 7:1? Might Paul have been thinking about sexual morality instead? The verses that immediately follow 7:1 speak frankly of sexual temptation (7:2–4). If morality was on Paul’s mind, then the ESV and TNIV are more on target. The point would then be an admonition to avoid sexual contact outside of marriage, not to avoid marriage itself.
Translation isn’t just a matter of matching words of one language to words of another. Rather than consider Bible translators as traitors, we need to be sympathetic to their burden. Reading multiple translations can reveal the complexities of the process.
“By the skin of your teeth”
“My bone cleaveth to my skin and to my flesh, And I am escaped with the skin of my teeth” (Job 19:20 KJV).
Want to learn more about translations? Logos.com/HowToChoose