Sometimes literal is the best translation

Yesterday I was reading John 1 in the NLT and came upon this wording:

As they approached, Jesus said, "Here comes an honest man – a true son of Israel." (John 1:47)

My translator antennae tune in whenever I read "son of ___" in an English translation since biblical text "son of ___" often does not have the same meaning as English "son of ___." With the NLT wording, most English readers can reasonably assume that Jesus was saying that Nathanael was the son of someone named Israel. But Jesus was not saying that Nathanael's father was named Israel. Instead, he was saying that Nathanael had the qualities of someone who truly acts as a "descendant of the man named Israel," that is, an Isrealite. (Biblically literate readers are taught that extended meaning, "descendant of ___" for biblical text "son of ___.")

I checked a number of other English versions and found that all except one other simply translate the underlying Greek word here, Israelites, as "Israelite," which is exactly the intended meaning. The other version which does not use the word "Israelite" is the CEV which is worded:

Here is a true descendant of our ancestor Israel.

Clearly, the CEV translators are trying to express the same meaning as "true Israelite."

It seems to me that those versions which literally translate (actually, transliterate) Greek Israelites to English "Israelite" are both accurate and clear. I see little reason to use any other English wording. In this case, a literal translation is probably the best translation, since it accurately and clearly communicates the original meaning to English readers. In many other cases, a literal translation does not accurately communicate the original meaning, but that is a topic for other posts.

Categories: Bible translation, literal translation, transliteration