Why Yet Another New Testament Translation!
When I was 16, calamity befell me and my family. In my subsequent Quest for 'answers', a local evangelical church basically said "We've got answers! Come on over!" So I became very involved in that church. But I just kept asking questions, and one day, a little exasperated I suppose, the pastor said "If you'd only learn Greek, you could answer these questions yourself!". Well, I can do that! So I did—I found what I believed to be the toughest Greek program in the L.A. area (Biola University) and took 5 out of the 6 Greek courses they offered—2.5 academic years worth. (I would have taken the 6th course but more calamity befell me.)
At first I had only planned on reading the New Testament, but then I decided it would be better to do my own translation—because that process forces you to really think about what the Text is saying far more than only reading it.
So I did just that. The effort took me several years, and here is the result. Whatever the defects of my efforts here (and they are countless), this project is one of the best things I have ever done for myself. I can tell you from personal experience that the Master is right: "Be asking and you will receive, be seeking, and you will find, be knocking and it will be opened to you."
Translation Philosophies In General
The question of 'translation philosophy' arises because languages and cultures are simply not interchangeable—the translator has to decide what is the best way to express thoughts in one foreign language and culture into another. To use an extreme example, how do you translate the Bible references to camels in the desert into Eskimo? Closer to home, how do you translate the thoughts of a 1st century Jewish agrarian population under Roman occupation into 21st century industrial Middle Class American? There is no easy, one right way to do this, so there are probably as many 'translation philosophies' as there are translators!
As far as New Testament translation goes, however, there are two main camps at present (what follows is of course an oversimplification, but it's a place to start):
- Literal: Translate each Greek word or short phrase by an English word or short phrase. This was more or less the approach of the King James and the other older main-stream translations.
- Dynamic Equivalence: this camp would argue that a problem with the 'literal' approach is that you end up with unnatural and potentially confusing English. A native Greek speaker in 1st century would have heard natural sounding Greek, so Dynamic Equivalence argues that it is better to translate whole sentences (or perhaps groups of sentences) by natural sounding English sentences.
In the 'literal' approach you translate small units of Greek meaning by small units of English meaning. With 'dynamic equivalence' you translate complete Greek thoughts by complete English thoughts.
Each approach has its merits and disadvantages. All in all, the Dynamic Equivalence approach is probably better for day to day use—daily reading, reading aloud in Sunday worship, etc. But students of the Bible can't resist latching onto one word in a passage—what was meant by this word or phrase?—when there may really be no corresponding word per se in the Greek with a Dynamic Equivalence translation. And with Dynamic Equivalence, really what you're reading is the translator's understanding about what a passage means—probably more so than with the 'Literal' approach.
Of course opinions vary on all of this, but that is precisely my point. Good men and women differ on these difficult questions!
NOTE: it's worth pointing out that a truly 'literal' translation would be virtually incomprehensible. Some concessions to the differences between Greek and English are simply unavoidable. For example, here's the opening sentence of Luke's gospel (note: they didn't yet use punctuation like 'commas' in the 1st century):
Since indeed many set hand on to set in order narrative about the having been fully persuaded in us practices just as gave over to us the from beginning eye witnesses and assistants having become of the word it was thought also to me having followed along from above all accurately in order to you to write most strong Theophilus that you might perceive about which you were instructed words the security.
There is plenty of information in the Greek how to sort this out (e.g. standard phrase constructions, cases and genders of the nouns and participles, etc.) So a translation into comprehensible English would be:
Inasmuch as many have set their hand to produce an account concerning all the deeds having been accomplished among you, like those the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning gave to us, it seemed good for me also, having investigated anew all accurately in order to write to you, noblest Theophilos, in order that you may know the certainty of the words with which you have been instructed.
So What's the Best Translation?
There ain't no such thing. Any translation is a compromise, and each has its merits and disadvantages. I think, though, that it helps the English reader enormously to have a feeling for the problems all translators face, and how a particular translator is trying to address the problem.
If you really really want to know what the New Testament says, there really is no short cut or easy out—you need to learn Greek. But if I can do it, so can you! Take a class, work at a little every day, and most of all—persevere. Even a little Greek (tempered with humility) will richly reward you.
An Appeal for Humility
Let's step back for a moment and think about language itself. On the whole, language works really really well: "Dear, would you pick up some milk from the store on your way home?" I come home with the right stuff almost every time! Indeed, the vast majority of communication works very well. But not 100%. Do two native English speakers ever misunderstand each other? Of course!
Here's a better example: Most of the Constitution is quite clear—senators having terms of 6 years, for example, but what did the Founding Fathers really mean by 'the right to bear arms'? Countless really smart individuals still can't come to a consensus as to what the Founding Fathers really meant by that, and/or how to apply that to our very different 21st century world. This is a hard question, even though we and the Founding Fathers belong to the same American culture and all are native English speakers. Wait, you argue, 'American Culture' and 'native English' have both changed a lot in 200 years! Ah, that's my point precisely! Furthermore, what relevance (if any) does the change (I hesitate to call it 'improvement') in gun technology from single shot muskets to AK-47s have on our understanding and application of the Founding Father's original intent?
Here's another example: there's an entire industry—namely: lawyers—in which one lawyer (or group) tries to express an agreement (a law or a contract) without any possibility of being misunderstood—and later another lawyer (or group) generally finds alternate interpretations to benefit their client!
Language is a fabulous tool, it has served Humanity marvelously, but it has its limits! Wait—so do human beings!!
"It's not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that give me trouble, it's the parts I DO understand!"
(Mark Twain)
All in all I think we can read Scripture, even through the lens of a translator, and understand what we really need to understand (especially if we read large blocks of it to get context). When Jesus says "Love God and love your neighbor" I have a pretty good idea of what is expected of me. (Of course having an understanding of the concept is one thing, actually applying it is quite another!) I would go so far as to say that the really important ideas are expressed over and over in different ways to ensure that they are finally pounded into my thick skull. Just like a parent with their child!
My Translation Philosophy
I decided right from the outset that there was no point in trying to emulate any of the standard commercial translations. Any one of the Scholars who participated in those efforts has forgotten more Greek than I'll ever know!
Also, my experience of doing this translation is that the New Testament really reads essentially the same in Greek vs. English—the entire edifice of Christian Theology isn't going to collapse by reading the Greek. The difference is more like watching a movie in black and white versus COLOR. Greek was an enormously sophisticated language—the language of Homer, Aeschylus, Plato, Hippocrates and Archimedes (to give just one example each of poetry, literature, philosophy, medicine and mathematics/astronomy)—with its own unique capabilities and nuances, and I thought it might be interesting to be creative with English to try to convey some of that. Most translations make 'easy reading' one of their primary goals—just to try something different, what if I demanded more of the English reader so as to convey more of the color of the original?
Specific Examples of my Translation Philosophy
To a surprising degree (in my opinion), translators smooth over easy details of the original Greek. For example, the phrase "the kingdom of heaven," which appears so frequently in Matthew's gospel, is isn't always singular, it's frequently plural:
Blessed are the poor in the spirit
For theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.Faithful New Testament Matt. 5:3 Blessed are the poor in the spirit
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.King James Blessed are the poor in the spirit
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.RSV Blessed are the poor in the spirit
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.NASB
In other passages, Matthew uses 'heaven' singular, such as in the Lord's Prayer:
"Your kingdom come, your will come to pass, as in heaven, so also on earth." (Matt.6:10)
In general I translate details in the original New Testament (like singular and plural) as translated literally as possible—especially when they can be translated by perfectly normal English—so English readers can assess the significance for themselves.
Example 2
English uses the one word "love" for an enormous variety of types of love; the Greek distinguishes them by using many different words. The two principle words for "love" in the New Testament: are "agape" ("ah-GAH-pay") and "philia" ("fi-LEE-ah"), and the Faithful New Testament translates them as "agape-love" and "philia-love" respectively.
Some Bible expositors teach that agape-love is "God's Love" and philia-love is "Man's Love". But consider:
How can you have "God's love" for the darkness? And Paul saysMen agape-loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. (John 3:19, Faithful New Testament)
If anyone does not philia-love the Lord, let him be accursed. (I Cor. 16:22, Faithful New Testament)
This would seem to indicate that philia-love is as important as agape-love.
Some scholars argue that agape and philia are really synonymous, and they may be right. With my approach, the English reader is in a better position to assess that for themselves.
Making clear the different Greek words for "love" in the English sometimes dramatically clarifies otherwise confusing passages. For example, in the following passage, the resurrected Jesus is talking to Peter, who had so recently denied Jesus three times (bold is added):
Faithful New Testament:
When therefore they ate breakfast, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, do you agape-love me more than these? He says to them: Yes, Lord, you know that I philia-love you. He says to him: Be feeding my lambs. 16 He says to him again a second time: Simon son of John, do you agape-love me? He says to him: Yes Lord, you know that I philia-love you. He says to him: Be shepherding my sheep. 17 He says to him the third time: Simon Peter, do you philia-love me? Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time: Do you philia-love me? And he said to him: You know everything, you know that I philia-love you. Jesus says to him: Be feeding my sheep. (John 21: 15-17)
King James:
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these?" He saith unto Him, "Yes, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee." He saith unto him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He saith to him again the second time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me?" He saith unto Him, "Yes, Lord, Though knowest that I love Thee." He saith unto him, "Feed My sheep." 17 He saith unto him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me?" Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, "Lovest thou Me?" and he said unto Him, "Lord Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I loveth Thee." Jesus saith unto him, "Feed My sheep." (John 21: 15-17)
The first two times Jesus asks Peter if he agape-loves Him, Peter replies that he philia-loves Him ; the third time when He asks Peter if philia-loves Him (which Peter had already said twice that he does), Peter is upset.
Example 3
Greek makes its negatives more emphatic by doubling and sometimes tripling them. The Faithful New Testament indicates a double negative by underlining the word "not" (that is, "not"), a triple negative by underlining the word "NOT" all upper case, (that is, "NOT"):
I will not abandon you, and I will NOT forsake you. Faithful New Testament Heb. 13:5 I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. King James Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you. RSV I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you. NASB
Although double negatives are fairly common, triple negatives are quite rare, only occurring a half dozen times in the entire New Testament. To have both a double and a triple negative in the same sentence is extremely unusual. With the Faithful New Testament, English readers can see for themselves the emphasis in the Original:
Or consider:
And he said to them: With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I say to you that I will NO LONGER eat it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And having taken a cup, having given thanks he said: Take this and divide it among yourselves, 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the product of the vine from now until the kingdom of God come. (Luke 22:15-18)
In this passage, "NO LONGER" is a rare triple-negative—the strongest negative that can be expressed in Greek. And just a couple verses later Jesus uses another strong double negative "I will not drink of the product of the vine…".
Example 4
In various passages, the New Testament is more forceful than would appear in other translations:
And behold a leper, having come, prostrated himself before him saying: Lord, if you wish it, you are able to cleanse me. And stretching out his hand he grasped him saying: I wish it, be cleansed. (Matt.8:2-3)
Generally verse 3 is translated "… he touched him…", which suggests that perhaps Jesus just barely touched the leper—before reading this passage in the Greek I always had the image of Jesus reaching out and barely touching the leper with the tip of one finger from as far away as possible. But in English we make a distinction between 'grasp' and 'touch', whereas the Greek word here is more generic than that—it can mean anything from 'touch' to 'grasp' or 'handle'. (Other more specific words are available.) I ended up choosing a word 'in the middle', and it definitely gives the passage more force:
And stretching out his hand He grasped him... Faithful New Testament Matt.8:3 And Jesus put forth His hand, and he touched him... King James And Jesus put forth His hand, and he touched him... RSV And Jesus put forth His hand, and he touched him... NASB
The image of Jesus confidently grasping a visually and olfactorily repulsive leper is really quite profound, and in my opinion is quite consistent with the general portrait of Him in the gospels.
Example 5
Greek verbs can express "continual action"—action that takes place over a period of time, versus "point" or "matter-of-fact" action—action that takes place essentially at one point in time. For example:
"Now Krispus, the chief of the synagogue, believed ["point action" or "matter of fact"] in the lord with his whole house, and many of the Corinthians, having heard ["point action" or "matter of fact"], were believing ["continual action"] and were being baptized ["continual action"]." (Acts 18:8)
In the case of imperatives ("commands") especially, the type of action can deepen the meaning considerably. Matt.7:7 is usually translated "Ask ... Seek ... Knock ... ", implying that one need only ask, seek or knock once, whereas the Original makes it clear that a continual course of action is required: "Be [continually] asking ..." (that is, don't stop!):
Be asking, and it will be given to you;
be seeking and you will find;
be knocking, and it will be opened to you.Faithful New Testament Matt. 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given to you;
Seek, and you will find;
Knock, and it will be opened unto you.King James Ask, and it will be given you;
seek, and you will find;
knock, and it will be opened to youRSV Ask, and it will be given to you;
seek, and you will find;
knock, and it will be opened to you.NASB
Why the Name "Faithful New Testament"
In my initial youthful zeal I thought this might actually be a viable 'commercial' translation, and thus I had to 'come up with a name'. Later I decided that was neither necessary nor appropriate. But I think there was still some inadvertant wisdom in my initial name choice: God rewarded my little baby-step faithfulness in doing this translation with his own Infinite Faithfulness, so the name stands!