- Can the Holy Bible be translated into another language and still be the Holy Bible.
- Can the Bible be translated and still be reliable?
There are two options. Option 1 is NO. Option 2 is YES.
I would argue that the Bible is translatable. But first it is only fair to look at the options, then consider the pretty strong consequences of such a view, and finally look at why (I believe) that such a view is accurate.
OPTION 1. NO. The Bible is not translatable. There are then two sub-options.
Sub-Option 1A. The Quran route. In classic Islam, the Quran is untranslable, inerrant, and always has been (uncreated) in 7th century (or later) Arabic. The recitations may be translated in the sense of putting them into a different language, but it cannot be described as being truly the Quran. Of course, if we were actually asking the question of whether the Quran meets that criteria, we would have to address issues of textual criticism with regards to source materials, development, and redactions. But we are dealing with the belief, not necessarily the reality. In classic Islamic sense, any translation of the Quran is not the Quran. Fairly simple.
Sub-Option 1B. This is a bit more subtle and can be seen in some classic thoughts regarding various translations of the Bible such as the Septuagint, Vulgate, Textus Receptus (compiled Greek), and KJV. Consider the Septuagint (LXX). The LXX the “official” Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible was, according to Rabbinical tradition, created by 70 rabbis translating for 70 days. After 70 days each of the rabbis brought his translation of the entire Hebrew Bible out to share with the other rabbis. To their amazement, all of the translations were exactly identical. Now, like with the Quran, we are not considering the historicity of such a belief… but the implications of such a belief. For 70 to all translate identically is absolutely improbable… ridiculous… on a human level. What is being said is that the LXX was not actually translated by man, but “RE-REVEALED” by God. The same logic has been applied to the Vulgate (Latin) translation of the Bible, as well as the Textus Receptus (Greek), and the King James Version (“AV 1611”). The argument is that the translation was not actually a human activity so much as a re-revealing of inerrant divine word. I think you can see why this re-revelation option is still pretty similar to the Quran option. Even though there may be Bibles in different translations, strictly speaking, the Bible (as in God’s revealed revelation) only exists in one, two, or three, or so specially inspired versions. Anything diverging from that is a human construct and not to be trusted. This sub-option is more subtle than 1A, but not much.
Option 2. Yes. The Bible is Translatable. To say that the Bible can be translated and still be the Bible does not negate the possibility of special status for the original revelation. One might say, for example, that the Bible is “Reliable” (or some other word suggesting that the Bible exists as a historic revelation given or inspired by God) in its original manuscripts (in their original languages), but it is possible to bring message forward into new languages accurately enough to be considered Reliable… and not something lesser. Again, I am not going to go into issues of inerrancy and reliability… but rather consider the implications that I believe follow from saying that translation of the Bible is possible and it still being the Bible.
In the next post, we will look at the ramifications of the belief that Yes, the Bible is translatable.