Troublesome Topic: Why Have I Chosen to Produce My Own Translation?

There are already a number of very good translations out there. However, there is no perfect Bible translation, and mine is not perfect either. What drives this project is not my desire to make my own translation, but the desire to create a paraphrase and lay it alongside a translation—the two together. This desire grows from the fact that I feel there are still many aspects of Scripture that people find confusing, or at least there is a lack of clarity for the readers. Most of these pertain to things which we are not familiar with, like cultural issues, symbolism, geography, the meaning of names, etc. My desire is to bring clarity to those problematic areas and for that purpose I am presenting both a translation and a paraphrase side by side. The paraphrase provides a new way of explaining things, but the translation keeps us anchored to the text so as not to stray too far afield. Laying them side by side helps the reader know the difference and be more willing to trust the paraphrase.

I never, ever thought I would write a paraphrase of Scripture because I have held a dislike for paraphrases. I feel that many of them stray too far from the original text. However, I have come to see the need for one in order to help people understand the meaning of symbolism in particular. In symbolism, the text says one thing, but means something very different. Only a paraphrase can show you that; and only a paraphrase and a translation laid out side by side can show you both at the same time.

Several factors related directly to my two-column system have influenced my decision to make my own translation. Those factors are as follows:

1.  In order to express the meaning of the symbols I frequently have to do more than just plug in the alternate meaning; I often have to rearrange the entire sentence. I cannot use someone else’s translation and then twist it all around.

2. Copy right laws come into play here. I want to do this the right way, and in this situation doing my own translation seems the best way to accomplish what I wish to accomplish with the limits of the law.

3. Any translator struggles with the balance between staying as close as possible to the original text, and making its meaning clear to the audience. He cannot always choose a direct or literal translation because that would sound wrong in the second language (English in this case). He must change things at least a little bit; the question is how much change is the right amount? A paraphrase has more freedom to distance itself from the original in order to make the meaning clear to the audience. But how far from the original is it “safe” to go? The two-column system allows me to stay very close to the original language in the translation column, even if it sounds “wooden” or “rough,” and focus on what it means in the paraphrase column. Those that are simply doing a translation don’t have that kind of freedom so it stands to reason that my translation and theirs will sound different. 

4. Starting with translating from the original has forced me to get to know what the original text is saying in a fuller and more accurate way. This has been a blessing; my attempts at discerning the meaning of the symbolism would not have been as accurate or as powerful if I had used someone else’s translation.

The next lesson is How Often am I Right in my Interpretation of Symbolism?