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
… in essence, it’s NOT God’s Word, but man’s word stuffed in God’s mouth…that is what Dynamic Equivalency is, some bunch of people getting together who THINK they know what God’s Word says and publishing it.Well, no, that’s not what it is really. It is a good deal more complex than that.
If it’s done any other way than Formal Equivalency IMO, then it’s unfaithful and inaccurate.Actually, a formal equivalent translation can be very faithful and inaccurate. It’s the way language works.
But I do wonder if you reject dynamic equivalence when the KJV uses it.
“…My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me…”said the Lord.Do you think that was talking about which translation method a person prefers?
BTW, hopefully the implication you zeroed in on, Larry, wasn’t the only thing you got out of my “wall of text”…heheh.There was more that almost as troubling as the statement I zeroed in on. But I don’t want to get involved in that issues because I am not sure that it would be profitable.
Here’s a few highlights though:
1. The KJV is copyrighted, though that doesn’t really matter anyway..
2. The electic text does use all extant manuscripts. It simply weighs them differently than HF or RP or MajT. In essence, with the exception of the TR, these Greek texts consider all available evidence and simply choose different variants based on their critical philosophy.
3. The 400 years since the KJV was translated has brought numerous advances in textual study, linguistics, grammar, lexicography, etc. We should probably take advantage of that in the interest of knowing what God’s word says.
4. As for “most accurate only,” I think the almost universal view is that the NASB is the most literal translation among the common ones. Most seem to dislike it because it is too wooden in its devotion to formal equivalence.
So I’m just saying that it sure looks to me like he’s on to something. Aside from the fact that he shouldn’t know what he’s talking about—lacking the proper credentials—what reason do I have to believe he is wrong?
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.
Even the review, though, makes some unfortunate and unsupportable leaps. His use of Eugene Nida is irresponsible. For one thing, readers should keep in mind that Nida has devoted much of his life to working with unreached people groups who are getting Bibles in their language for the very first time. Much of his translation philosophy stems from his experience with languages that bear far less resemblance to Greek and Hebrew than English does. When he asserts “the priority of the needs of the audience over the forms of language,” he really just means forms of language. So, participles don’t need to be rendered by participles, subject-verb-object order doesn’t always need to be kept intact, etc. His whole point is about how to faithfully communicate meaning from one context to another, not being distracted by mechanical features. So, when I translate “What’s your name?” into French, I say, “Comment vous appelez-vous?”, which would be woodenly rendered into English, “How do you call yourself?” Now, there are French equivalents for “what,” “is,” “your,” and “name,” but they don’t add up to the same meaning. Not only do the French and English differ as to the (again woodenly speaking) words used, they also use different sentence structures for the same question. The English uses an equative (linking) verb with a predicate nominative, whereas the French has an active verb with a direct object. But who would object that rendering “What is your name?” by “Comment vous appelez-vous?” is being unfaithful to the original speaker?
Quickly, Nida’s point that the language of the median age should be preferred is virtually common sense. I hope no one would translate the foreign language equivalent of “movie” into English as “moving picture” (an example a bit dated, but I hope still clear). In less literate/educated cultures, language change is much more rapid, so there may be a noticeable difference between generational speech patterns. In summary, people should actually read Nida and others for themselves. Nida for one is both accessible and informative. Ryken comes close to positing a “dynamic equivalence” conspiracy theory, and it simply isn’t there. There are wretched Bible translations, but there isn’t some supra-philosophy connecting the NIV, NLT, CEV, etc.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] So, when I translate “What’s your name?” into French, I say, “Comment vous appelez-vous?”, which would be woodenly rendered into English, “How do you call yourself?” Now, there are French equivalents for “what,” “is,” “your,” and “name,” but they don’t add up to the same meaning. Not only do the French and English differ as to the (again woodenly speaking) words used, they also use different sentence structures for the same question. The English uses an equative (linking) verb with a predicate nominative, whereas the French has an active verb with a direct object. But who would object that rendering “What is your name?” by “Comment vous appelez-vous?” is being unfaithful to the original speaker?Sorry for the subject line, it’s late and the terms struck me as funny at the time.
But really, are you saying your French example here is Dynamic Equivalence? Wow, I think you need to read your linguists again if you think so. That is Formal Equivalence as far as I can see.
I think you need to come up with a better example to make your case.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Charlie] Well, if his definition and understanding of DE/FE is wrong, then all of his examples are meaningless.Charlie, I see where you are going with this, and I agree that Ryken is NOT dealing with some big underlying philosophical issues in this debate, some of which have theological implications. And they should be dealt with.
I am a little more at peace with some Dynamic Equivalence than most here would be. For instance, I am frequently OK with the NIV handling of a passage. I am only troubled by it once in awhile. The KJV has some glaring Dynamic Equivalence renderings itself. Sometimes, such a translation choice is required by the nature of the differences between the source language and the receptor language.
Nevertheless, your statement above is not really correct. The examples show the result of the extremes of DE translation philosophy. Even if Ryken doesn’t frame the debate adequately, some of the examples Ryken gives from the more out-there DE translations are blood-chilling. The NIV is not the problem (except for a few isolated passages), but translations like “The Message” are dangerous. Years ago, publishers were responsible to call such works “paraphrases”. We distinguished between a paraphrase and a translation by saying something like “paraphrases put it in different, easier words, whereas translations directly convert the words from the original language.” The more modern and extreme DE translations blur this line.
I was troubled by Ryken’s book, though I get his point. In dealing with the translation philosophy debate, he spends much time dealing with it from a standpoint of the “literary qualities” that are being lost in the DE translations. But there is a loss of God’s intended Biblical meaning in some of these translations. Our doctrine of Verbal inspiration must have implications for our translation philosophy, though the particulars need to be hashed out.
@Don, my point was that the English/French example points us beyond caricatures. I’m not tackling the issue of translation philosophies, but focusing narrowly on Ryken and the reviewer. Ryken does not express himself well when he says, “Translators must decide what English word or phrase most closely corresponds to a given word of the original text” (Understanding English Bible Translation, 23-24). In my English/French example, none of the 4 words in English have any direct lexical relation to the 4 words in French (maybe half a point for your/vous). Also, the whole structure of the sentence is transformed. The most important point, though, is that you could woodenly translate that sentence into French as “Quel est votre nom.” That sentence is grammatically acceptable, but it is clearly not the best choice for translation. You can look at the example backwards. Would you recommend to a French person learning English to say, “My name is Pierre, what is your name?” or “I call myself Pierre, what do you call yourself?” Both may be intelligible, but the first is superior. Ryken, on account of his superficial framing of the issue, cannot explain why the less formally similar translation is preferable to the formally equal one, as it obviously is in this case. So yes, Don, my example does express functional equivalence.
A quick note: I didn’t think this thread was going to get technical, but I may as well head off further comment by saying that the term DE is a bit dated and some of the ideas originally connected with it have been discarded. Most translation experts now are going to use the terms “formal equivalence” and “functional equivalence.” See the Rod Decker article about that (also posted above). Decker also heavily criticizes Ryken: http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2006/Decker.pdf
Here is a quick post on what functional equivalence means: http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/linguistic-functions-in-transl…
Here is a review of Ryken from a translator and linguist: http://goddidntsaythat.com/2009/09/30/review-understanding-english-bibl…
Finally, my point is not that the more formal translations are bad. I just think Ryken is a poor guide into this issue. However, the Ryken Bible Handbook is still one of my favorite reference works.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] Both may be intelligible, but the first is superior. Ryken, on account of his superficial framing of the issue, cannot explain why the less formally similar translation is preferable to the formally equal one, as it obviously is in this case. So yes, Don, my example does express functional equivalence.Well, your comment struck me as funny since you are criticizing Ryken yet I can’t imagine Ryken disagreeing with your example. (I do have to note that I haven’t read his second book, just the first one.)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I don’t think he has written against the sort of equivalence that Charlie described in asking “What is your name?” in French. Didn’t see that, myself.
I’m sure several of his positive examples involve exactly that sort of thing, comparing the Greek to the English.
I’ll grant the point about Nida, though. I’ve picked up enough just reading the Bibles International newsletters over the years to understand that the problems involved in going to a non-Latin based language are sometimes huge. You have whole concepts that simply do not exist in a language sometimes, and they are not always “higher” concepts either. (Example, read of a language recently where the way you say “go fishing” is “go kill fish.” The writer observed how do you render “fishers of men” in that language? The nearest equivalent is going to be significantly different. But this is not the same thing as saying “Let’s take large quantities of interpretive work out of the hands of readers and do it for them by paraphrasing.”)
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.
[Aaron Blumer] Sounds to me like, at worst, Ryken’s terminology is confusing to some.No one that I know has accused Ryken of being confusing; just inaccurate, simplistic, and unhelpful. At least, that’s what people actually trained in the field are saying. The Decker article is the best, since it defines terms, discusses context, and then brings in Ryken at the end. Also, he prefers more formal equivalence. I’d like your thoughts on it if you get the chance.
Don, the point is not that Ryken would disagree with my translation. No one with the barest familiarity with French and English would disagree. The point is that I don’t see that he would get to the right answer by following his translation philosophy as he has expressed it. It simply exposes that there is something wrong with the way the issues are being framed.
Ryken does make a lot of good points about individual translations and translation choices. Almost all of his reviewers grant him that. His problem is that the larger framework he builds to discuss the issue does not conform to the reality of the situation.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion