Translating a religious text is unlike translating other prose, because the source is treated as authoritative and the translation will be recited, argued over and quoted. Every decision is therefore constrained.
Literal and idiomatic approaches pull against each other
A word-for-word rendering preserves the structure of the original and lets readers see the underlying idiom, at the cost of producing sentences that read awkwardly.
An idiomatic rendering produces natural prose but makes interpretive choices on the reader's behalf, since deciding what a phrase means is unavoidable before it can be said naturally.
Most projects position themselves somewhere between the two and state where, which is why translations differ systematically rather than randomly.
Ambiguity in the source is a decision point
Source texts frequently contain phrases that have been read in more than one way for centuries, and the ambiguity is sometimes deliberate.
A translation cannot usually preserve it, because the target language forces a choice between readings that the original left open.
Footnotes are the standard remedy, and the density of notes in a scholarly edition is a fair measure of how many such decisions were made.
Sound matters where the text is recited
Texts intended for liturgy are heard more often than read, so rhythm, stress and memorability carry weight that a reference translation can ignore.
Translators working for public reading test passages aloud, and phrasing that scans poorly is revised even when it is accurate.
Some traditions decline the problem by retaining the original language for recitation while using translation for study, treating the two functions as separate.
Key terms are settled before the work begins
Words carrying doctrinal weight are usually agreed in advance and rendered consistently throughout, so that a reader can trace them across a whole text.
Where no equivalent exists in the target language, the options are to borrow the original word, coin a term or use an approximation and explain it.
Each choice has consequences that persist for generations, since a term introduced by an influential translation shapes how the tradition is discussed in that language thereafter.
Authority is negotiated, not assumed
A translation becomes usable when a community accepts it, and acceptance depends on who produced it and by what process.
Committees are common for this reason, drawing on several scholarly and denominational backgrounds so that no single perspective determines contested passages.
Older translations often retain affection long after newer and more accurate ones appear, which is a fact about attachment to remembered language rather than about scholarship.