When it comes to the Bible, we, in the English-speaking world, are profoundly blessed for we have at our disposal scores of translations of Scripture. While they range from excellent to abysmal, in many cases even the worst of them is far superior to the best available in any number of other languages. And, of course, we acknowledge that multitudes of languages remain which still have no access at all to God’s Word. Certainly we have little cause to complain and every cause to express gratitude to God. We have the luxury and responsibility even, of not just studying the Bible, but of first seeking out the best translation available. And that is increasingly becoming a daunting task as each seems to have its strengths and its weaknesses. Meanwhile, the translation philosophies that bring about such strengths and weaknesses remain hidden to most readers who prefer to leave such discussions in the hands of the academics.
In 2002 Leland Ryken wrote The Word of God in English, a book that laid out the criteria for a superior translation of the Bible into the English language. Though not quite an academic book, neither was it particularly easy reading. Still, it did a good of presenting arguments for what Ryken calls an “essentially literal” approach to translating the Bible. An essentially literal translation is one that strives to translate the exact words of the original-language text but not in such a rigid way as to violate the normal rules of language and syntax in the receptor language. The Word of God in English cemented in my mind the importance of selecting an excellent translation of Scripture and of having confidence that the words we read in the Bible are the words the Author intended for us to read.
Seven years later, Ryken returns with Understanding English Bible Translation. It is shorter and more streamlined than its predecessor and is written for more of a general audience. Also, it is updated, reflecting new realities that have come about even in the past seven years. It is a book that any Christian can read and understand, avoiding the more difficult nuances and focusing primarily on the big-picture. Ryken’s purpose is to show once more the superiority of the essentially literal approach to translation and to display the negative consequences of depending upon lesser translation philosophies such as dynamic equivalence or paraphrasing.
Ryken launches a five-pronged attack. In the book’s first part, he provides an overview of the issues related to translation and provides answers to common questions associated with translating the Bible. In part two he briefly tells the story of English Bible translation, starting with Wycliffe and continuing to Eugene Peterson and beyond. The third part looks to the two main genres of Bible translation, showing how the two genres are, foundationally, vastly different. They have divergent goals for translation, divergent views of the Bible, divergent views of the Bible’s authors, reader and translators, divergent methods of translation and divergent styles of translation. In the fourth part he provides a vision for the ideal English Bible translation before, in part five, showing how an accurate, high-quality translation of the Bible is of critical importance to the life of the church.
Throughout, he argues well. I must say, though, that a weakness remains that, in my mind, threatens to undo his argument and it is this: his definition of an essentially literal translation remains just a little bit too nebulous, a little too subjective. I realize that a brief definition can hardly capture all of the complexities of a translation philosophy, but still, I do wonder at times whether perhaps the lines are just a little too hazy. It seems that any translation is only as strong as its greatest compromise and every translation must in some way compromise the original words. Though this does not hamper the book itself or the issues it introduces, I do feel that it is often lingering in the background but that it goes largely unaddressed.
I am of the opinion that every Christian can benefit from reading a good book on the subject of Bible translation. When we understand the issues faced by translators, and when we then turn to a sound version of the Bible, we have renewed confidence that the words before us are the very words of God. And this, really, is the core of most of Ryken’s arguments. He wants Christians to have before them a Bible that accurately conveys the words that God has spoken—not a paraphrase of those words, not an interpretation of them, but simply a translation that, as much as possible, takes the exact words of the original and carries them over to English. One would think that this would not be difficult to come by, but the modern history of English Bible translation shows few versions that adhere to this philosophy.
In Understanding English Bible Translation Ryken argues persuasively that there is much to gain in depending upon an essentially literal translation of Scripture and he argues equally well that there is potential for great loss if we turn instead to dynamic equivalents or other less-stringent translations. The book is suitable for any Christian reader and whether you choose to read this book or another like it, I am convinced you will benefit from understanding the distinctions between the genres and from grappling with the larger issues. In the end I hope, I trust, you will have greater confidence in the Bible you read.



Comments (20) »
1. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
September 29, 2009
8:30 AM
The definition of the type of translation used in the ESV is nebulous because the method itself is described using a term that is also nebulous: essentially literal. What does it mean to be “essentially” something? ‘Well, he’s essentially a good husband’. Prefacing the word ‘literal’ with ‘essentially’ makes understanding what exactly has been used in the translation process a bit elusive.
I do like the ESV and use it quite often these days. But when it comes to study and really knowing what the original languages have, I go back to my trusted NASB, in which I can be confident of its literal translation style, rather than an essentially literal method. Granted, it may not read as smoothly as the ESV, but it does render the Hebrew and Greek more literally than the ESV does.
2. Mark Denning
September 29, 2009
10:04 AM
I’m a graduate student at the Charlotte, NC campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and have had the privilege of attempting to understand some of the original language that Scripture is written in. In both Greek and Hebrew class the instructors have repeatedly said, “more literal is not automatically more accurate,” though the vast majority of folks assume that it is. I think Tim’s critique is dead on when he says, “It seems that any translation is only as strong as its greatest compromise and every translation must in some way compromise the original words. Though this does not hamper the book itself or the issues it introduces, I do feel that it is often lingering in the background but that it goes largely unaddressed.” Every translation is an interpretation and there is no perfect translation. I believe Tim is correct in his idea that every translation must in some way compromise the original words. But the word compromise implies unfaithfulness to the original intent. Rather than “compromise”, I would say every translation must “communicate the meaning” of the original words into what translators call the “receptor language” of the culture who will be reading it.
Our introductory Hebrew instructor this semester is a bible translator for SIL which is a sister organization of Wycliffe Bible translators. He has been doing translation work for 25 years, holds two masters degrees in translation, and has recently finished a project where he helped translate the whole bible into the language of the Solomon Islands. Read about him here: http://www.christianstandard.com/interview.asp?id=758 He is an expert in original languages and their translation into a receptor language. Just the other day in class he drew attention to page 43 of our textbook, The First Hebrew Primer, which says, “The plural form אֲנָשִׁים may be translated as men or as people. The plural form בָּנִים may be translated as sons or as children.” Words have a semantic range of meaning depending on the context so going with the essentially literal rendering into the receptor language does not always produce/convey the intended meaning of the author.
While I respect Dr. Ryken for his erudition, I’m not convinced that his perspectives/angle give us the whole picture on this very complex art of Bible translation. It would be nice to see Tim review and recommend a book that articulates the other side of this debate as well. People should read both perspectives to make an informed decision.
3. Josiah
September 29, 2009
10:13 AM
Sounds like an interesting book! Perhaps the reason why Dr. Ryken argues for “essentially” literal instead of just “literal” is because translation always and inevitably involves interpretation. All translations, no matter how closely they stick to the syntax of the original language, are interpreting the passage—even the NASB. Languages are not codes, where there is a 1-1 relationship between words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and an English equivalent. Languages are essentially about communicating meaning, and different languages have different ways to communicate that meaning. The trick is to capture the meaning in words that are understandable to a speaker of English—no easy task! That is why we speakers of English are so blessed—we can look at the fruit of much scholarly labor in the form of many translations, and seek to understand which translation best fits the context.
4. John
September 29, 2009
10:24 AM
I agree with Mark that literal is not always accurate. While I do not know the original Biblical languages, I do know several other languages. If French or German were translated literally into English, it would, many times, be unintellegible. Translation is more than substituting one word for another. Context has a lot to do with it. And idioms never translate well. Each language has its own, and if you want the reader to understand it, you almost always have to substitute. That is why I look at the credentials of the translators themselves. They need to not only understand what the words mean, but how they translate in context. You also have to have an understanding of the culture in which it was written. God’s Word is for all people at all times, but as language changes, translations must also change or the reader will never understand.
5. Renee
September 29, 2009
10:36 AM
A friend of mine, while on a summer trip to France, meant to tell a local gentleman that she was envious of his French dialect. I’m envious of you was roughly translated to I’m in need of you (j’ai envie de toi). He had a good laugh at her expense.
Context and subtleties - a good translation is more than literal.
6. J.P.H.
September 29, 2009
10:37 AM
A good/common example of the difficulty of translation is a phrase like, “¿Cómo te llamas?” in Spanish.
The literal English translation would be, “How do you call yourself?” or “What do you call yourself?” But a native English speaker would hardly ever phrase the question that way. Instead he’d ask, “What is your name?” Or, “What are you called?”
7. Dan H.
September 29, 2009
12:45 PM
I may have read it somewhere, or perhaps I’ve simply convinced myself that a fervent prayer for spiritual guidance would be a most natural and desirable way to begin a day’s work when translating the Holy Word of God. It is easy for me to imagine Martin Luther doing this daily as he did his Latin -> German bible translation work. Or William Tyndale’s fine efforts (that eventually made it into the KJV) would be frequently preceded by a prayer for guidance. My point is simply that we cannot and should not discount the divine counsel of the Holy Spirit in matters such as these.
May God protect and give guidance to both the translator and the reader so that the words will be His Inspired Words and our understandings will be faithful to His Truth. Amen…
In Christ,
Dan…
P.S. Renee (#5) you rightly stated: “a good translation is more than literal.” To this I might add: “a good translation cannot be literal.”
8. Philip Meade
September 29, 2009
2:13 PM
Traduttore, traditore – Italian proverb, “translators, traitors”
9. Penn
September 29, 2009
3:15 PM
As native English speakers, we of all people should have nothing to complain about when it comes to Bible translations.
1. Men were literally murdered to bring us our translation.
2. We have some great literal word-for-word (or close-to-it) translations, which many languages do not have.
3. We can understand the gospel in our own language from our translations!
4. Praise God for Bible translators, may He raise up thousands upon thousands more of ‘em!
10. Penn
September 29, 2009
3:25 PM
my 1. point was that men were killed as martyrs. The translators or those who helped them.
11. Renee
September 29, 2009
3:40 PM
Translators = Traitors
Historians = Translators
Historians = Traitors?
12. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
September 29, 2009
4:33 PM
I still stand by my comment. When it comes to detailed study as it relates to what is in the Hebrew and Greek, a more literal translation like the NASB is better. When I read the NASB, I am more confident in it than in the ESV that what I am reading is more closely representing the original than other translations. When I am studying, I am less interested in reading what some translators thought the writers were trying to say as I am in reading what they actually wrote. I would prefer, through study and reflection, to determine the meaning on my own instead of a translation doing it for me. That is one reason I also refer frequently to my Young’s Literal Translation.
13. steveprost
September 29, 2009
9:44 PM
2 recent outstanding blog posts on how we need to even watch out carefully for a softening influence in the more recently touted more literal translations like ESV. We need good preaching/teaching that does its original language homework.
www.baylyblog.com/2009/09/more-tender-than-god.html#more
www.baylyblog.com/2009/09/more-tender-than-god-part-2.html#more
14. Mike Aubrey
September 30, 2009
1:14 AM
A *very* different review: http://goddidntsaythat.com/2009/09/30/review-understanding-english-bible-translation-the-case-for-an-essentially-literal-approach/
15. Mike Aubrey
September 30, 2009
1:15 AM
When it comes to detailed study as it relates to what is in the Hebrew and Greek, a more literal translation like the NASB is better.
No, the Hebrew and Greek are better/
16. Mark Denning
September 30, 2009
8:38 AM
Mike Aubrey, thanks for the link to the review you put in comment 14. I found it to be a helpful perspective. Since Understanding English Bible Translation is “as official a justification of the ESV and its translation philosophy as can be obtained.” according to another reviewer, it would be nice to see Tim review the official justification of the opposing TNIV and its translation philosophy.
How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions by Gordon Fee & Mark Strauss.
Or if that can’t be tolerated maybe something written by someone who has no personal investment in the ESV or TNIV. He’s also not an American. Both of these facts mean (in my opinion) he might offer a slightly more objective perspective than either Ryken or Fee.
A User’s Guide To Bible Translations: Making The Most Of Different Versions by David Dewey
17. threegirldad
September 30, 2009
7:16 PM
What the ESV translators themselves mean by “essentially literal” seems clear enough from their own explanation of their translation philosophy.
18. Tim Worley
October 3, 2009
11:46 AM
I find it unfortunate that most discussions of Bible translation seem to revolve around a Formal Equivalance/Dynamic Equivalence dichotomy, as if all translations neatly fall into one of those two categories (one of which is then regarded as good, the other as bad). The truth is, translations exist along a continuum. To speak of “what formal translations are like” or “what dynamic translations are like” obscures the fact that most translations fall somewhere in the middle. I’ll grant that you could probably place NASB on the most formal end, and the Message on the most dynamic end (if the Message can be considered a true translation), but those are the extremes (in terms of a translation continuum). If I *must* choose between one of those extremes, I’ll go with NASB, hands down. But that doesn’t mean that I’d necessarily choose a formal translation as my first, go-to Bible. My Bible choices are NOT limited to NASB vs. Message. There are other choices.
I find it’s more helpful to think in terms of three translation categories: formal, mediating, and dynamic. A mediating translation attempts to fall somewhere between the two, adhering to a word-for-word approach when the original wording is clear to readers of the target language, and using a thought-for-though approach when the original would be obscure to today’s reader.
Good examples of mediating translations would include the HCSB, NIV/TNIV, and NET Bible. I find these translations most helpful - they still retain a good measure of the formal elements of the Hebrew and Greek, but are written in good, clear English. I do consult other translation types as well (e.g., ESV, NLT), but generally only after first working through the passage in a mediating translation. Personally, I’ve found this the most helpful approach to Bible study.
Craig Blomberg has a nice post on the benefits of mediating translations:
http://www.denverseminary.edu/craig-blombergs-blog-new-testament-musings/translations-arent-that-different-but-we-can-have-preferences/
19. Wes
October 4, 2009
11:46 PM
I, as well as many others, recommend the book, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart. This book includes a very good explanation of the challenge facing translators and why we all must interpret what we read. The book also explains how all of the many translations fall on a spectrum of what the authors consider are three categories of translation philosophies: formal, dynamic, and freer (if I am remembering the name of the last category correctly).
The authors state that it’s best to have several translations throughout the spectrum of the translation categories for proper Bible study.
20. T.S. OWEN
October 5, 2009
9:40 PM
Im disappointed that the ITALICS are not used in more translations to distinguish words added by the translators that are not directly based on any original language words. If a translator cannot point me to a word in the Hebrew or Greek in my concordance to match the English words in my translation then I feel betrayed if not warned by Italics or a similiar method [brackets maybe]. I really wish the ESV had continued the wisdom of the NKJV and the NASB by using ITALICS to contrast their adding of words even if implied linguistically. As such I will never trust it enough to use it for study but I will use it as a mediating translation. Overall a bad precedent to claim to be close to the original languages as a conservative translation and then add words without warning. No translation does this perfectly and no translation is perfect but the goal should be perfect not flawed from the get go. We should not except compromise on this adding to Gods word through translation without warning. I recommend a book by a Reformed Baptist named Gary F. Zeolla “The Differences Between Bible Versions” its the best Ive found and it is the hardest to find in a store, of course amazon has it though LOL.