Really? How come?
Jesus very likely spoke Aramaic as a matter of daily practice. He also likely spoke Hebrew when the need arose, in a synagogue, for example. Given his upbringing in Galilee, he also very likely spoke Greek. So, when Jesus is quoted in the Gospels, what language do the original authors quote? Is it Greek? Or, as is very likely the case, was it Aramaic. In other words, Jesus spoke in Aramaic and they recorded (several years later) in Greek.
Well, then, what are the original autographs of the Gospels? Setting aside the arguments that the very first originals (whatever that might actually mean) were in something other than Greek, we nevertheless have today, as our guiding and authoritative documents, ones that are translations.
But, Traduttore tradittore ("translator [is a] traitor").
Was the Holy Spirit a traitor to the Christ? I'm not saying translation is easy. But, why is it axiomatic that a translation must be inaccurate in some way--by definition. Is that really the case? In all cases? Without exception? Are the actual words of Jesus and the recording of those words in the original autographs the only occurrence of interlingual communication where the source and destination grammars and associated lexis just so happen to provide for perfectly accurate transfer of all the information?
I believe the original authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit to accurately write the original autographs of the Bible. But if Jesus spoke in something other than Greek, than what we have in the original autographs is, in fact, a translation. And, a wholly accurate one at that! Also, the multiple, simultaneous translations occurring during the event recorded in Acts 2:5-12 add complexity to this observation. We have one speaker and hearers from, quite literally, all over the place. In all these cases the translations are accurate--by the definition of inspiration.
Perhaps all that a translation must accomplish (I certainly don't mean to set the bar low) is to be perfectly sufficient in conveying the originally intended meaning (note the singular). And, may I say, that's hard enough. But, perhaps the problem is somewhere else. Perhaps we create an inaccurate measurement (that is, our measuring device itself is wrong to some degree) when we insist that accurate translations must perfectly render all that can be analyzed in the original. Maybe it's inaccurate to expect that a deep analysis of a text somehow exposes more precise truth.
Let me state what I honestly think is obvious--once you see it: the accuracy of a text can't be measured by capturing every nuance of the original. The original authors did not do that. The Holy Spirit doesn't do that. And, translations can't do that. Texts don't function that way. Every nuance is never intended. Many of the interpersonal misunderstandings I've encountered function within the boundaries of that expectation of analytical precision. And that generates the misunderstanding. How often have you said, "But, I didn't say that!" You didn't expect the hearer to analyze your words to that detail. Or, you didn't expect the hearer to understand you to imply something you never intended to say, an implication arrived at by detailed (though possibly quick) analysis.
I wonder how often God says, "But, I didn't say that!"
So, why, today, do we measure accuracy in terms of detailed analysis? What would be the characteristics of an accurate metric--a metric that accurately measures the fidelity of a translation?