Book Review - Choosing A Bible
Choosing a Bible used to be an easy task. Only a few decades ago there were only two or three translations to choose from, giving a person very little in the way of options. The situation today is far different. We are inundated with translations of Scripture and it seems that a major new translation hits the store shelves every couple of years. Terms like “dynamic equivalent,” “formal equivalent,” and “paraphrase” are tossed around but few people have any real sense of what they mean. Christians purchase Bibles expecting that what they are reading is truly the Word of God. But is it?
Leland Ryken has written extensively on the subject of Bible translations. His book The Word of God in English, which I have reviewed here, was foundational in my life as I attempted to come to terms with the multitudes of translation options available to me. I have since read an excellent essay he wrote for a recent book Translating Truth. Choosing A Bible is a short book, weighing in at only 30 pages, that provides a highly-compressed version of the most important arguments from The Word of God in English and his contribution to Translating Truth. Ryken seeks to show quickly and convincingly that Christians deserve and ought to desire nothing less than an essentially literal translation of the Bible.
The format of the book is simple. He begins by showing how Bible translations differ from each other. He writes about the goal of translation and compares thought-for-thought with word-for-word. He then provides five negative effects of dynamic equivalent (or thought-for-thought) translations. They are:
- Taking liberties in translation
- Destabilization of the text
- What the Bible “means” vs. what the Bible says
- Falling short of what we should expect
- A logical and liguistic impossibility
The book concludes with ten reasons that we can trust essentially literal translations. These include transparency to the original text, keeping to the essential task of translation, preserving theological precision, preserving the dignity and beauty of the Bible and consistency with the doctrine of inspiration.
As with all of Ryken’s writing, this book is well-argued and convicting. He does not argue for a particular translation, though it is obvious that he prefers the English Standard Version (he did, after all, serve on the translation oversight committee for the ESV). He merely argues that we, as Christians, deserve to be given nothing less than the Word of God in English.
This book is meant to appeal to all Christians and there is little that will prove difficult to understand. Choosing A Bible is a great introduction to translation theory and to understanding the importance of translations that preserve the words of God.
Comments (17) »
1. impleri
January 15, 2006
11:03 AM
If that be the case, then the Septuagint should not be trusted because it takes liberties with the texts, such as the translation of the Hebrew almah (“young woman”) as the Greek parthenos (“virgin”) even though “virgin” in Hebrew would have been betulah. This occurs in the (mis)translation of Isaiah that gets quoted in Matthew and Luke’s birth narratives. Oh but wait, those people trusted the Septuagint…
2. Mike
January 15, 2006
12:44 PM
Hebrew almah (“young woman”) as the Greek parthenos (“virgin”) even though “virgin” in Hebrew would have been betulah
First, almah can mean both “young woman” and “virgin”. It is not a mistranslation to render it virgin.
Second, and probably unrelated, I was just how many after taking Greek look at literal translations and realize they aren’t as “literal” as they sometimes try to make it sound. Maybe it is just me… who knows?
mike
3. voiceofthesheep
January 15, 2006
1:13 PM
For those whom The Word of God in English may be too much to digest regarding the importance of the type of translation to use (though it is very much worth taking the time to read)…I hope this condensed version (pun intended) will be read by many.
I used to teach a class that included showing the differences between the translation philosophies. I stressed the importance (using points from Ryken) of knowing that what you are reading in your translation is what the writers actually wrote rather than what someone else thinks the writers were trying to say.
I think it boils down to a difference between reading a translation (essentially literal or formal equivalent) verses reading an interpretation (paraphrase or dynamic equivalent).
4. Peter G.
January 15, 2006
1:57 PM
Sorry guys, but you just can’t dichotomize between “translations” and “interpretations” like that. All translation involves interpretation. One can’t study a foreign language very long without realizing that. I certainly think that it is important for people with no knowledge of the Biblical languages to study from a literal translation, but there are times when the literal translation makes things so wooden in English that the meaning is completely lost. If a person wants to study the Bible in English, she really ought to use several translations; some that employ dynamic equivalence (e.g. NIV, NLT) and some that use formal equivalence (NASB, ESV).
I’m not saying that either type of translation is better. Both are necessary and good for the purposes they serve (and so are paraphrases for that matter). So choosing a translation should not be seen as a task of either-or, but of both-and.
5. voiceofthesheep
January 15, 2006
2:50 PM
Peter G said: “Sorry guys, but you just can’t dichotomize between “translations” and “interpretations” like that. All translation involves interpretation.”
You are putting words into my mouth that I did not say…kinda like a dynamic equivalence of what I actually said (smiling here).
I never said there was a translation out there that did not involve interpretation. But I am sure you understood the spirit of my comments. I think anyone who has studied differences in translation philosophies will agree that there is more interpretation involved in the NIV than in the NASB.
You also said: “I’m not saying that either type of translation is better. Both are necessary and good for the purposes they serve (and so are paraphrases for that matter).”
What purpose does a paraphrase or a thought-for-thought version serve…other than as a biblical commentary?
Yes. I agree. A variety of translations is profitable to discern the meaning of the Scriptures (as stated by the KJV translators). And when it comes to serious study, I don’t want to have to guess whether what I am reading is really what the original authors wrote or not.
Sure, other translation philosophies have their place - as a commentary to the Bible, maybe. But, those that faithfully attempt to translate the actual words of the writers are the best ones to use to know what those writers wrote rather than what someone thinks they were trying to say.
Wouldn’t you rather read their actual words than the opinions of men? Please, don’t take me so literal that you say we can’t really know what they actually wrote without knowing and reading in the original languages. The formal and essentially literal translations of today - along with our own diligent word studies - can give us a faithful rendering of what was written.
Read the dynamic translations and paraphrases as additional commentary, but realize that if you rely on them to be your Bible, you(generic) can’t be sure that what you are reading is even the word of God.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says it well: COPIES AND TRANSLATIONS OF SCRIPTURE ARE THE WORD OF GOD TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY FAITHFULLY REPRESENT THE ORIGINAL.
6. Andrew Cairns
January 15, 2006
3:22 PM
I think Peter G has the right idea. All translations are, by definition, at least in part somewhat less than would have been presented in the original language. Nothwithstanding this, I’m sure God would have known about this when he scattered the languages at Babel … so we can probably not worry too much about it beyond where the discussion is already at.
God is able to change the heart of Pharoah, his people Israel, and various others without employing his written word, so it’s entirely reasonable to assume that he can also reach those who sincerely seek him and his ways through whatever biblical translation they are able to acquire.
7. RosaMarie
January 15, 2006
3:31 PM
Guess someone should have told William Tyndale and the others not to sweat it, huh?
8. Andrew Cairns
January 15, 2006
5:08 PM
Not really my point RosaMarie (but I think you knew that already).
I’m glad for the work of Tyndale and others. I even enjoy/prefer the ESV over the looser versions. What I don’t enjoy is people arguing these issues from preposterous viewpoints; as if God were unable to speak through any translation other than the one they prefer.
9. impleri
January 15, 2006
5:11 PM
Technically, a translation is any work that uses a text in its original language and translates it into a different language. A paraphrase is technically any work that uses an already translated text and paraphrases it in the same language. And, as Peter G. said, there is hardly any “translation” without “interpretation.” The question comes down to “whose interpretation?” Mike said: “Second, and probably unrelated, I was just how many after taking Greek look at literal translations and realize they aren’t as “literal” as they sometimes try to make it sound.” This is very important as many times a truly literal translation would be indecipherable in the target language. As far as the translation and usage in Matthew, here’s a Jewish Reb who vehemently disagrees with you and points to a number of sources that counter the claims that (1) almah can be unequivocally translated as “virgin” and (2) Matthew used the Greek Septuagint as his source (which i had also implied in my prior post). Above all, let’s not forget that the original manuscripts that compose the Bible (whether including the Apocrypha or not) were Divinely inspired. We have no proof that the translations and transmissions we have were also Divinely inspired.
10. Tim Challies
January 15, 2006
5:16 PM
“as if God were unable to speak through any translation other than the one they prefer.”
But that’s hardly the point, is it? God can work in any way He chooses, but that doesn’t mean that some are superior to others.
11. david
January 15, 2006
5:25 PM
Tim, did you mean to say, “God can work in any way He chooses, but that doesn’t mean that some are not superior to others?”
12. Tim Challies
January 15, 2006
5:53 PM
I sure did! :)
13. voiceofthesheep
January 15, 2006
9:28 PM
QUOTE: “What I don’t enjoy is people arguing these issues from preposterous viewpoints; as if God were unable to speak through any translation other than the one they prefer.”
Wow! Talk about a dynamic equivalence interpretation derived from the comments posted here…
14. Tim
January 15, 2006
9:38 PM
A User’s Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions is a much better book - far more even-handed. click
15. Peter G.
January 16, 2006
12:37 AM
“Wouldn’t you rather read their actual words than the opinions of men?” But no matter the translation you are always reading the opinions of men at some point. No two languages are exactly alike and so some things will always be lost or muddled when translated.
There is no such thing as an absolutely literal translation. If today’s literal translations were absolutely literal there would be no discrepancies between them.
I completely agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy above, but I believe that certain dynamic equivalence translations like the NIV are in fact a faithful representation of the original, in some instances, far more so that the literal translations.
“I think anyone who has studied differences in translation philosophies will agree that there is more interpretation involved in the NIV than in the NASB.” I agree, but sometimes the interpretations of the NIV render the original far better than the NASB. That said, I think it is vital that people understand the differences between translations and keep the intended purposes of any translation in mind when they read and study.
16. Matthew
January 19, 2006
9:11 AM
I appreciate the sentiment behind formal eq. literature, and I alternate between NKJV and NASB-updated. However, I disagree with suggestions that the NIV “can’t be trusted” as the Word of God, but the NASB or ESV can. I think the premise is “for any particular passage, the NIV cannot be trusted to render the Word of God as precisely (accurately?) as certain versions.” This is a claim that many would disagree with - - but it seems like a reasonable claim to make. It would be better to talk about specific passages, etc.
But the claim that the NIV can’t be trusted is stronger and I think unsupportable. (This is how I read, e.g., voiceofthesheep’s quote: “Read the dynamic translations and paraphrases as additional commentary, but realize that if you rely on them to be your Bible, you(generic) can’t be sure that what you are reading is even the word of God.”)
Perhaps I could be convinced otherwise. Would you provide some examples of NIV renderings that truly mislead the reader? I think the charge (that the best-selling “modern” Bible translation is really a book on par with William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible or Matthew Henry’s Commentary) is a serious one, and hand-waving generalizations are not enough to support it.
17. John
January 22, 2006
7:59 AM
King James Version has always been my favorite.
Post Your Comment Here »