The one translation I'm aware that even considers this issue is the New Jerusalem Bible. In the introduction to the Gospels is this note:
Mark's Greek is rough, redolent of Aramaic, and often fauly; but it is fresh, lively and appealing. Matthew's Greek is also rather marked by Aramaic but smoother than Mark's as well as less picteresque and more correct. Luke's is mixed; when writing independently, his Greek is excellent, but out of respect for his sources he incorporates their imperfections—after polishing them a little. Occasionally he goes out of his way to give a good imitation of Septuagint Greek.Now that's the sort of thing I want from a translation. The fresh, lively and appealing Mark, the smoother Matthew, the excellent Luke, and what can I say of Paul? And I want similar distinctiveness in the Old Testament too. Unfortunately what we get is homogeneity of languages from stylists in the NIV or Leland Ryken in the ESV. I say let the Bible writers speak with their own voice.
So here's my answer to Scot McKnight's question. I want a translation that reflects the original authors' skill with Koine Greek. I want a translation with Paul's epistles in the language of the NEB; Mark's Gospel from Lacey's street bible; Luke and Acts as in NIV; James the NLT; John's Gospel, epistles, and Revelation the CEV; Matthew, Jude, 1 & 2 Peter, and Hebrews from Stern's CJB. Then we'd have English translations that match the language of the originals not something to revere as a piece of beautiful literature. Translations that are redolent with the life we know is in there.
Categories: Bible translation, Bible English, Language Usage, Literary Style