Original Language
The Bible was originally written in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Different portions of the Bible were written in these three languages at different points in history, depending on which language and/or culture was dominant at the time of the writing. The portions of scripture written in each language are as follows:
Hebrew — Most of the Tanakh (commonly referred to as “Old Testament”) was written in Hebrew.
Aramaic — Small portions of the Tanakh were written in Aramaic including portions of Ezra, Daniel, and one verse in Jeremiah.
Greek — The Gospels and Epistles (New Testament) were written in Greek.
Translation
Translation is converting a written text, or spoken word, from one language to its equivalent meaning in another language. Translation seeks to determine what words or phrases in the second language most accurately capture the meaning of the first language. The English Bibles we read today are translations of the original ancient-language texts. Our translations are the work of scholars who attempted to convert the original texts to the English language we read, write, speak, and understand.
Translators follow a method or strategy for rendering texts from one language to another. Two primary strategies used to translate the Bible to English are as follows:
Literal Translation
In a literal translation, the translators attempt to carry over the precise meaning of the original text into English. A literal translation attempts to translate the meaning of the original language word-for-word to English.
Pros: A literal translation makes the most faithful attempt to translate the original-language text. A literal translation strives to most accurately mirror the language and meaning of the original text.
Cons: The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts cannot truly be translated in a completely literal manner. If a translation tries to stay as close as possible to the original language, it will lose readability due to differences in grammar and structure between the two languages. Translations must add words, phrases, and punctuation to make the translations readable to its intended audience. So, while a literal translation attempts to preserve the original meaning of the scriptures there will always be some change or loss in translation.
Examples: Some examples of literal Bible translations include Interlinear Translations, English Standard Version (ESV), and New American Standard Bible (NASB).
Non-Literal Translation
Non-literal translation attempts to convey the thought and meaning of the original text without conforming to the precise language, grammar, and structure of the original language. A non-literal translation seeks to present the scripture’s meaning in a way that is clear and easy for English-readers to understand and apply.
Pros: A non-literal translation is easy to read and understand and can convey the general meaning of the texts.
Cons: A non-literal translation takes additional liberties in translating the texts than a literal translation does. A non-literal translation relies on translators understanding the meaning of the original texts then effectively communicating the meaning in their own words. A non-literal translation can be seen as more of a commentary on the scriptures than a true translation.
Examples: Some examples of non-literal Bible translations include The Message and The Living Bible.
Problems in Translation
Regardless of what strategy a translator follows, something is always lost in translation. The grammar and structure of the original language cannot feasible be carried over to English in a manner that is clear, readable, and understood by native English-speakers. Something must always be added or changed in translation to make the translated text sensible to readers, so all translations will inherently deviate from the exact meaning of the original texts.
One specific problem with translation is choosing an English word that best conveys the meaning of the original-language word. A Biblical language (such as Hebrew) can have multiple meanings to a single word, but only one meaning comes across in translation. When the Bible is translated to a new language, the translators must decide what word in the new language best carries the meaning of the word used in the original language. Readers are generally presented with only the translator’s choice of word to study and interpret.
Example 1: Hagah (הָגָה)
Consider the Hebrew word “hagah” used in Joshua 1:8. In Joshua 1:8, hagah is translated as “meditate” in the ESV translation as follows:
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Joshua 1:8, ESV)
If we consider the definition of hagah in Hebrew, however, we find it can have multiple meanings as follows:
Hagah (הָגָה) — to moan, to growl, to utter, to speak, to muse
In the case of hagah in Joshua 1:8, it seems easy to choose the meaning “muse” (based on the surrounding context of the verse) as the definition to carry in translation. Muse encompasses the idea of considering, pondering, or reflecting and can be brought into English with the word “meditate”.
Other words and contextual uses of the original languages of the Bible are not so easy to translate as the given example. When translating the Bible to English, a translation team labors to choose the English words and phrases they think best to carry the meaning of the text; but, translators are limited to choosing just one word or phrase to capture the meaning of the text. Often, the words or phrases chosen for translation can lack clarity or obscure the meaning of the original text. Therefore, it is necessary to go back to the original language to fully understand the true meaning and intent of the verses we are reading. This is especially so when we are faced with a passage of scripture that appears unclear or difficult to interpret in the English translation.
Example 2: Kanaph (כָּנָף)
Let’s look at another example in Malachi 4:2 (this is equivalent of Malachi 3:20 in the Tanakh).
But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings… (Malachi 4:2, ESV)
Consider the translated phrase “with healing in its wings”. The Hebrew word translated as wing in this passage is kanaph (כָּנָף), which can mean wing but also can mean corner, edge, fold of a garment, or outer extremity. The translation of a sun rising with healing in its wings can lack clarity. Taking the translation at face value we might understand this passage refers to the Messiah and that he is prophesized to have power to heal. Such an interpretation of the verse does give us an accurate picture of the Messiah, who does have power to heal, but the prophesy loses something in this translation. When we consider the full meaning of kanaph (כָּנָף) we can understand the text to mean “with healing in the edge or fold of his garments”. Having gone back to the original Hebrew word kanaph (כָּנָף), this passage brings greater clarity to Malachi’s prophesy as it relates to the account of the woman who touched the edge of Messiah’s garment and was healed in Luke 8:44.