Book Review - Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach
[amazon 1433502798 thumbnail] |
As I am writing this, Tyndale House is sponsoring a contest to promote the sale of their New Living Translation (NLT). Among the giveaways are several iPads, an iPod, a Kindle and a trip to Hawaii! This “Bible Contest and Giveaway” is called “Breakthrough to Clarity.” Of course, I entered. I may not be a fan of the NLT, but I am of Apple and Hawaii.
To various degrees marketing influences us all. How healthy an impact it has had on modern society is not for this discussion. However, marketing does enter into our consideration of the history of Bible translation. Marketing puts the emphasis on the consumer. It makes the audience supreme. It was this attention to the audience that led to the great divide between translation theories.
Next year, the King James Version (KJV) will celebrate its 400th birthday. For over 360 years the KJV reigned unrivaled. This changed in 1978 with the debut of the New International Version (NIV). The NIV quickly became a best seller. Leland Ryken, in his book Understanding English Bible Translation suggests the “NIV cornered the market because (a) it was the only viable alternative to the obsolete King James Bible, and (b) marketing and advertising made it irresistibly attractive to the masses” (p. 65).
The Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had the audience in mind from the outset:
A sensitive feeling for style does not always accompany scholarship. Accordingly the Committee on Bible Translation submitted the developing version to a number of stylistic consultants. Two of them read every book of both Old and New Testaments twice—once before and once after the last major revision—and made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various kinds of people—young and old, highly educated and less well educated, ministers and laymen.1
What the NIV did in moderation, later translations did in spades. Are all translations created equal? Obviously, translators take different approaches to the text. Are all these approaches of equal value?
In Understanding English Bible Translation author Leland Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College since 1968, lays out (as the subtitle indicates) The Case For an Essentially Literal Approach. The book is a follow-up to his earlier book [amazon 1581344643]. If you choose to read just one, I recommend Understanding English Bible Translation, a more enjoyable, though less in-depth, read. Be advised—having served as literary stylist for the ESV and as coeditor of the ESV Literary Study Bible, Ryken is not an impartial observer. He states right up front this “is a book about the theory and practice of English Bible translation. Its aim is to clarify the current English Bible translation scene and to present arguments in favor of an essentially literal translation philosophy as being better than dynamic equivalence” (p. 13). I believe he accomplishes what he set out to do.
In Bible translation work, there are two extremes. The King James tradition (starting with Wycliffe and Tyndale and including Coverdale, Rogers and the Geneva Bible) uses an essentially literal approach to translation known as “verbal equivalence or formal equivalence” (p. 49). This formal approach was continued with the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New King James Version and the English Standard Version. The other end of the translation spectrum is known as “dynamic equivalence” (p. 57). This approach began with the work of Eugene Nida and is seen first in the Good News Bible, then the New International Version, the New Living Translation, the New Century Version and other more recent translations.
One way Ryken sums up these two extremes is by asking whether the goal of translation work is allegiance to the audience or to the author.
One of Eugene Nida’s translation principles is “the priority of the needs of the audience over the forms of language.” Nida then caters to readers even more specifically: “the use of language by persons twenty-five to thirty-five years of age has priority over the language of the older people or of children”; “in certain situations the speech of women should have priority over the speech of men” (p. 74).
Here the audience reigns supreme. In a more literal approach, the translators instead strive to find an English equivalent for the actual words of the author (or perhaps we should say, “Author”).
Ryken clearly demonstrates this contrast between formal and dynamic equivalence throughout the book. The author builds a very strong argument for the formal approach, demonstrating that many dynamic equivalent translations are essentially paraphrases.
Ryken often backs up his statements by referring directly to the prefaces of the dynamic equivalence translations, thus avoiding putting words in their mouths. He also repeatedly provides examples of dynamic equivalence verse translations and how they differ from the original words of the authors. Using Matthew 6:22-23 as a test case, Ryken quotes from a number of dynamic equivalent translations. His conclusion:
Even a cursory reading of the passages leaves us with an accurate general impression: the translators are continuously nervous about the possibility that readers will be unable to handle the passage accurately and/or easily in its untouched form. As a result, the translators have become commentators as well as translators, constantly tugging at the original text to make it something different from what the original text says: “sunshine into your soul”; “plunges you into darkness”; “dark with sin”; “a window for your body”; “all the light you need”; “open your eyes wide in wonder and belief”; “pull the blinds on your windows.” (p.102)
Boxes scattered throughout the book contain informative quotes from others who have something important to add to the discussion.
Ryken believes that the reader ought to be able to trust a translation to give them an English version of what the original author wrote. An essentially literal translation labors to do just that. He agrees with biblical scholar Raymond Van Leeuwen who writes, “It is hard to know what the Bible means when we are uncertain about what it says” (p.28).
I recommend this book, especially to those who stand in the aisle at the bookstore agonizing over which translation to choose.
Greg Wilson was raised in a Christian home and was led to the Lord at a young age by his father. He has been in full-time Christian ministry since graduating from Midwestern Baptist College (Pontiac, MI) in 1981. He has been married to Sharon for over 26 years and they have two married daughters and a teenage son. He has been the pastor of the Community Bible Church (Palmyra, PA) since 1998. His website is fromthebook.org.
- 18 views
Obviously, all translators make lexical, grammatical, and structural modifications driven by interpretive judgments. Any discussion of translation theory deals with the position various versions occupy on the spectrum between the two poles of formal equivalence and functional (formerly called dynamic) equivalence. I have stated the obvious to set up this observation: Ryken tends to leave the impression that versions lie at the poles setting up a fallacious either/or alternative. Pitting concerns of author against concerns of audience is another example of blatant fallacy that gains traction because of its emotional appeal to people who live in a monolingual culture.
The NIV is the target of his ongoing criticism. Translators introduced the public to the terminology of “dynamic equivalence” in the introduction to the NIV with the result that it became the lightning rod of criticism, being erroneously associated with any abuses of that theory. In reality, the NIV translators employed a moderate approach that balanced the formal and functional principles, preferring the latter on a case by case basis.
I would recommend Rod Decker’s DBTS Journal article on the subject. http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2006/Decker.pdf
Steven Thomas
Ryken does not deny this. (Anybody who’s even spent 20 minutes translating a few verses from the epistles of John can see it). That’s why they call it “essentially literal.”
What he does show is that there is a genuine philosophical difference between the approach the ESV translators (and other more formal equivalent versions like NASB) took and that taken by NIV translators and the makers of paraphrases like NLT. It’s true that NIV is barely in the dynamic equivalent category, and NLT is much deeper into that approach. It’s also true that ESV occasionally gets fairly paraphrastic. They do this reluctantly though and from a starting point that is DE averse. It would be a great help to have translators notes for the ESV like we have for NET so folks could see why they felt it necessary to break up this sentence here and alter word order dramatically there.
But on that score, as one who writes a fair amount and edits a good bit—in English, sentence divisions don’t carry a whole lot of semantic value. That is, one long sentence with four independent clauses does not mean anything different from four sentences, and the latter is easier to read. But yes, when you’re doing that with portions of Paul’s epistles, for example, you have to repeat subjects and verbs here and there when you create a sentence break and that does involve departing from “literalness” a step more than usual.
The truth is that all translations are somewhere on a scale of formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence and hardly any can be characterized as purely one or the other. But Ryken points out some substantial advantages for translations that try to be as literal as possible while still producing good quality English.
(Just to be clear, I have often found NIV valuable and also greatly enjoyed reading the entire Bible in NLT. But the latter clearly moves into “extremely concise commentary” on a regular basis. So it’s value is similar to the value of a commentary, but fills a unique niche because it is so compact.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Ryken] Essentially literal translation: a translation 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
A casual reading of this book would lead one to believe that the NIV is as bad as THE MESSAGE, and that the KJV never engages in dynamic equivalence. Neither is true.
Where we go from here is the larger question. If Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals are all going to rally round the translations that tend toward Formal Equivalence (KJV, NASB, ESV, etc.), as we should, then we must develop strategies to communicate the Word and its meaning to those with lower reading levels (rapidly becoming the majority of our population).
I’m working on an article on this now. In the near future I will submit it for publication here at SI.
“In spite of his conservative background, in later years Nida became increasingly ecumenical and New Evangelical in his approach.”
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[JobK] From Wikipedia:Furthermore, and equally pertinent to the point at hand, cows eat grass.
“In spite of his conservative background, in later years Nida became increasingly ecumenical and New Evangelical in his approach.”
MAS
[Mike Durning] If Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals are all going to rally round the translations that tend toward Formal Equivalence (KJV, NASB, ESV, etc.), as we should, then we must develop strategies to communicate the Word and its meaning to those with lower reading levels (rapidly becoming the majority of our population).
As the Bible was proclaimed in the years following the Reformation, literacy grew both as a by-product and because people wanted to understand the Bible. Then as a result of people holding and reading their very own copies of God’s Word, literal interpretation increased and expositional preaching came into vogue.
In other words, the spiral started going up — based on the Bible. I don’t think we can win by chasing the culture with new translations — which Mike is also not saying.
(On the other hand, we have probably all met some Baptist deacons who are “KJV Only” but can’t find many books in the Old Testament or pronounce half the words in the KJV. Not sure what strategy might be needful to reach them… :Sp)
Hey — I have a great idea: How about a new movement called NKJV Only/Preferred??! H:)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Mike Durning] we must develop strategies to communicate the Word and its meaning to those with lower reading levels (rapidly becoming the majority of our population).I don’t disagree with that but I think we also need strategies to improve reading levels…. in the long run, I’d put more money there (had I money to put).
I don’t see NIV as being the same as “the Message” by a long shot, and it’s true, Ryken is probably not careful enough about some important distinctions there. He does pretty much approach the question as “essentially literal vs. all other.” I don’t have my copy of his book handy at the moment but it seems like I remember the vast majority of his examples being from Good News Bible, Message, New Living Translation, and other versions quite deep into “dynamic” territory. But even NLT doesn’t deserve to be just lumped with The Message. Vastly different. Both dynamic but Message pulls out all the stops. I don’t consider it to even be a good paraphrase.
In Ryken’s defense, he probably chose to keep some things simpler for the sake of the target audience of the book. He is quite passionate about ESV’s translation philosophy though, and I did think he was overstating things a bit here and there in his zeal to bring the differences of approach into sharp relief.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Mark Snoeberger]As Nida is the creator of the “dynamic equivalence”, it is indeed somewhat more pertinent to the point at hand than cows eating grass. And based on the nature of your reply, you knew this to be true when you responded in the manner that you chose to.[JobK] From Wikipedia:Furthermore, and equally pertinent to the point at hand, cows eat grass.
“In spite of his conservative background, in later years Nida became increasingly ecumenical and New Evangelical in his approach.”
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[JobK]My point is that there is no demonstrable correspondence between the dynamic equivalence theory of translation and new evangelicalism or ecumenism. This is a classic instance of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Nida didn’t adopt the dynamic equivalence model because he was ecumenical or new evangelical. He adopted it because from his standpoint as a trained linguist, that’s how translation works. You can disagree with the substance of his conclusion (and many do), but lobbing the ecumenical label at the dynamic equivalence theory of translation is quite unfair to those who appreciate dynamic equivalence theory despite their resistance to ecumenism.[Mark Snoeberger]As Nida is the creator of the “dynamic equivalence”, it is indeed somewhat more pertinent to the point at hand than cows eating grass. And based on the nature of your reply, you knew this to be true when you responded in the manner that you chose to.[JobK] From Wikipedia:Furthermore, and equally pertinent to the point at hand, cows eat grass.
“In spite of his conservative background, in later years Nida became increasingly ecumenical and New Evangelical in his approach.”
MAS
[Paul J. Scharf] As the Bible was proclaimed in the years following the Reformation, literacy grew both as a by-product and because people wanted to understand the Bible. Then as a result of people holding and reading their very own copies of God’s Word, literal interpretation increased and expositional preaching came into vogue.__________
In other words, the spiral started going up — based on the Bible. I don’t think we can win by chasing the culture with new translations — which Mike is also not saying.
(On the other hand, we have probably all met some Baptist deacons who are “KJV Only” but can’t find many books in the Old Testament or pronounce half the words in the KJV. Not sure what strategy might be needful to reach them… :Sp)
Hey — I have a great idea: How about a new movement called NKJV Only/Preferred??! H:)
[Aaron Blumer] I don’t disagree with that but I think we also need strategies to improve reading levels…. in the long run, I’d put more money there (had I money to put).OK, now. How can I write an article if you all are just anticipating it? Stealing my thunder? I should have kept my mouth shut.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Dave G]
I feel pity for the individual or group who takes liberty with the Word of God, “tugging” it in one direction or the other, practicing a fool’s approach using Dynamic Equivalency. There’s going to be HELL to pay for such gross mishandling of Almighty God’s very words.
/quote]
I have not met a single person, regardless of their degree of religious training or education, who has not ‘mishandled’ God’s words. Many have ‘good intent’ in doing this but the ultimate problem is that it fails in the final analysis.
I have seen people here do it, I have done it (as meaningless as that may be) and i have seen many ‘famous’ and ‘reputable’ evangelists, preachers, etc. who have done this. Dave, I will leave the determination to you as to whether you have done it.
This is always a problem with a translation (much less relaying the message to others) and was the intention of the KJV to attempt to avoid with the large number of people involved. But, then, there is the dispute between the KJV and the Geneva Bible and the reason certain passages have been interpreted in one manner or another.
Jim
I think there are some serious misunderstandings of translation philosophy going around in conservative evangelicalism, and I’m not going to outline them all here. There are accessible works by reputable linguists about the debate. Ryken, however, does not seem to be qualified to speak to this issue. To my knowledge, he has no extensive training in Greek, Hebrew, or linguistics.
For myself, I place less and less trust in the English (or any translation) for in-depth Bible study. For highly technical study purposes, there is no substitute for Greek and Hebrew. For less in-depth research, there’s hardly any difference between the best English versions. My guess is that much of the push for essentially literal translations is from people, including pastors, who want to be Bible buffs without directly engaging with the original languages. As a matter of broader perspective, I’d also like to point out that if anyone suggested that the best translations of Homer, Ovid, Augustine, etc. are “essentially literal” in the sense being argued for I think they would be laughed out of their classics departments. Poetic or highly emotive literature is most faithfully conveyed functionally, not formally, though many times there is no need to choose between the two.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion