I understand why people question whether we need yet another Bible translation in English. And I really do get the underlying (and legitimate) complaint. We have dozens of very good translations and we quibble over minor differences of meaning and questions of readability when there are whole people groups who don’t have a single full copy in their own language. Aren’t we just wasting our time? Shouldn’t we just shut up and make do?

To that, there is a lot to say. The concern or complaint is not illegitimate. It should be a matter of urgency for us to seek to get the Bible into languages where it is not. There is a sound and proper case to made for focusing our resources on getting it into languages where it doesn’t exist rather than multiplying versions in the languages where it does. There is every reason why focusing on getting the Bible to places where it can’t be read in the local language is important. So, let’s not just brush that away as though it doesn’t matter. It does.

However, and here is the kicker, multiplying versions in languages where there are plethora already is manifestly easier than where there are none. So, much as it may feel like we are taking masses of resources away from a place where there is no translation, it just isn’t proportionate effort. In English – where we have amongst the most versions in any given language – we also have the native speakers with the proficient level of Hebrew and Greek to do the work. Moreover, we have existing English translations upon which the bulk of the work is based anyway. Few are trying to totally reinvent the wheel, such was the case for the 1611 KJV – taking the essence of Tyndale’s earlier translation – and such has it been ever since. In our day, the work is easier again as we have all sorts of tools to make life considerably easier, particularly if we have the original electronic copies through which we can make whatever tweaks we may.

Translating the Bible into a new language, by contrast, is long and slow work. Minimally, you have to train someone to learn a new language, which is no small task. if it is a language with no existing bible version, you have to start your translation work from scratch. You could content yourself to translate one of the English versions we have, but then you run the risk of a game of telephone whereby the original gets translated, the translation gets translated, which then finds its way into the receiving language in some form. If you want to avoid that, you need someone who know the original languages and the receiving language. So, that’s further training there too. Then, if you are going to work from originals, you probably need a reasonable understanding of textual criticism and translation theory. Ideally, to avoid weird translation decisions, you would prefer a team (but you may at this point just think beggars can’t be choosers and get on with it).

You may or may not choose to do any or all of that. There may be payoffs and choices made depending on resources available and other such things. My point here isn’t to get into exactly which of that is absolutely necessary or not. Rather, just to point out, it is clearly harder, more costly and more time consuming than updating or tweaking an existing English translation. The reason we are able to produce so many English translations and for it not to be the resource-heavy matter some assume is because the heavy-lifting of training those who can do it and having versions aplenty from which we can work was all effectively laid 500 years ago and has been ongoing ever since. The resources, time taken, training required (from scratch) are all less and the people needed are more readily available. The whole endeavour is just easier to produce another version in English than to translate something into a brand new language for the first time.

We also need to contend with changing needs and context. I absolutely appreciate a highly educated, native British-speaking church can absolutely do without switching their very good bible translation for another very good bible translation because of some minor drawbacks of the first one. It is hardly vital. But not all contexts are that. Some of us are operating in places where people who speak English as a second language can’t easily read the ESV because it is written in such a way as it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to them. Someone will no doubt argue that surely another version might be easier for them without translating anything new. But when you are dealing with a foreign language, and half the words are out of date and the people in your area don’t speak like what you’re reading, it can be difficult. Considering that the work is less resource intensive, and we can help significant numbers of people to engage with the Bible in a way that is more helpful, isn’t there a valid case for giving people up to date Bibles in words they can understand and engage with in the churches they now find themselves?

Does that undermine the case for getting the Bible into languages that don’t yet have it? Of course not. Of course that should be a priority. But it isn’t an either/or situation. The labour intensive work of getting the Bible into a new language is a different endeavour to the less labour intensive job of updating an existing copy into language that is easier to understand for those who currently struggle to engage with it. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable to want to do both.

The argument against new copies seems to be a similar one as those who insist there is no real poverty in the UK. Because there are people over there who are much poorer, the poverty here can be ignored. By the same logic, because the biblical literacy and access to the Bible is much poorer over there, the relative poverty of some over here can be ignored. Neither strike me as good arguments or helpful argument. Indeed, we ought to be concerned about both and, in both cases, the solutions are not equal in resource. We have to accept one job simply is much bigger and harder than another. Eradicating world poverty is much harder than addressing nevertheless significant matters of relative poverty. Getting the Bible into a new language is much harder than addressing nevertheless significant matters of people still struggling to understand the Bible at home. The problems may not be equal, but they are nevertheless both problems. We must also recognise the solutions to them do not take the same effort and resource in both cases.

For this reason, I am not inclined to snark at a new English translation. Indeed, I think it will be helpful in getting people to engage with the Word. The resource expended on it is considerably less than doing something from scratch and its impact will be valuable. Does that mean we ignore where there are no translations? It certainly shouldn’t. Does that mean we are pulling resources away from those endeavours? Not really, not in any meaningful way. If we want people to understand and engage with the Word, that should matter everywhere. The time, energy and resource to achieve it will differ in different places. We should be concerned to get the Word, in forms it is properly understood, wherever people currently do not have or understand it. If we are achieving that, I am grateful whatever the language.