Are translations really based on the Greek and Hebrew? (Monday with Mounce 31)

English grammar is VERY VERY different from the Tagalog language. Just for verbs alone, we don't have tenses but only aspects (just like the Greek). We also don't follow strict word order because we have verb "focus," a declension of the verbs that helps determine the main subject of the sentence, object, etc. This is the reason why I noticed the similarity of the English Bible with our own Tagalog translation. It seems to follow the same rules of the English grammar while it should have been following the Greek or Hebrew. Do most translations of the Bibles in other languages really came straight from the Hebrew/Greek text or are they mediated from the English Bible?"

There is more to this question than at first meet the eye. First of all, isn’t the idea of a "focus" declension a great idea? Wouldn’t it be great to be able to indicate, especially in a longer sentence, what the main point is? If Greek had this, it would make exegesis much easier.

Also, it is a good example of how aspect is primary over tense in many languages, perhaps most languages. For English speakers learning Greek, this is often a hurdle because it feels so strange, but perhaps the strangeness of the aspect system in Greek (and Hebrew) is due more to the strangeness of English.

But what normally is the relationship among native translations, English, and Greek/Hebrew? Not knowing Tagalog or the translators, there is no way for me to actually answer the question, but I can tell you of certain tendencies.

First, Bible Societies are generally good organizations. If they explicitly say that their work is based on the Greek and Hebrew, I would think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Second, translators are always looking at other translations, and it may be that the Tagalog translators relied somewhat on English to help them understand the Greek. If you are making a new translation, and if you have two or three English translations that all agree on a specific translation, that consistency can have a strong influence on how you translate. It isn’t that you are copying; you want to be careful and right, and there is a perceived safety in numbers.

As far as English translations are concerned, most tend to be a bit conservative (the NLT and NET being notable exceptions). There is a stream of translation in English, and to move out of that stream requires some strong convictions. People are used to hearing verses a certain way, especially their favorite verses, and to introduce totally new translation can be perceived as dangerous. It is one thing to capitalize many of the occurrences of "spirit" as the TNIV did; it is another thing to break out of the mold and, for example actually translate the imperatives of the Lord’s Prayer as imperatives (e.g., "May your kingdom come" in the NLT).

This is not all bad. I preached yesterday on the fourth Servant passage in Isaiah, relying heavily on the specific words used by the ESV. But most of the people in this church use the NIV and I knew the words were translated differently, which made it harder for them to follow the sermon. When there is some consistency among translations, as long as it is faithful to the Greek and Hebrew and consistent with their translation philosophy, this can be a good thing.

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.