Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach

by Leland Ryken

Overview

From the KJV to the NIV, NLT, ESV, and beyond, English Bible translations have never been as plentiful as they are today. This proliferation has also brought confusion regarding translation differences and reliability. This book brings clarity to the issues and makes a strong case for an essentially literal approach.

Taking into account the latest developments in Bible translation, Leland Ryken expertly clarifies the issues that underlie modern Bible translation by defining the terms that govern this discipline and offering a helpful Q&A. He then contrasts the two main translation traditions-essentially literal and dynamic equivalence-and concludes with sound reasons for choosing the former, with suggestions for using such a translation in the church.

This book will appeal to thoughtful readers who have questions about Bible translation; individuals, churches, and ministries in the process of choosing a translation; and college and seminary students and faculty.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781433522758
Publisher:	Crossway
Publication date:	09/02/2009
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	208
File size:	1 MB

About the Author

Leland Ryken (PhD, University of Oregon) served as professor of English at Wheaton College for nearly fifty years. He served as literary stylist for the English Standard Version Bible and has authored or edited over sixty books, including The Word of God in English and A Complete Handbook of Literary Forms in the Bible.

Leland Ryken (PhD, University of Oregon) served as professor of English at Wheaton College for nearly fifty years. He served as literary stylist for the English Standard Version Bible and has authored or edited over sixty books, including The Word of God in English and A Complete Handbook of Literary Forms in the Bible.

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Understanding English Bible Translation

THE TRANSLATION SCENE has been in a state of flux for at least a decade. Important developments have occurred since the publication of my first book on English Bible translation, The Word of God in English, and this book takes those developments into account.

With a suddenness that remains a mystery, in the middle of the last century principles of translation that had been virtually unchallenged for centuries suddenly became passé for a majority of translators. A new "orthodoxy" swept the field, and much of what I say in this book will be a critique of that philosophy.

With the dawn of the current century, the new "orthodoxy" itself lost its position of unquestioned dominance. To many Bible readers it is no longer self-evident that translators should feel free to give English readers a substitute for the actual words of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The premise that readers and market research should determine how the biblical text is translated has become highly suspect for many Bible readers. Even readers who continue to prefer dynamic equivalent translations are generally better informed about what kind of Bible they hold in their hands than they were a decade ago.

The translation scene is not only in transition; it is also highly splintered. On one side, dynamic equivalent translations can be plotted on an arc of increasing boldness in departing from what the original biblical text actually says, starting with the NIV and culminating in The Message. This family of translations is itself so diverse that it has produced the phenomenon of a destabilized Bible.

On the other end of the continuum, several essentially literal translations have recently appeared and have together diminished the stature that the NIV had enjoyed for three decades. D. A. Carson has correctly identified the rise of linguistic conservatism as one of the new developments of the past quarter century.

Defining the Terms of the Debate

The best quick introduction to the issues involved in English Bible translation today is a listing of the concepts that underlie translation, accompanied by definitions of the key terms. Virtually all of these terms originated in the last half century, a fact that signals the degree to which English Bible translation entered a new era in the middle of the twentieth century.

Receptor language: the language into which a text written in a foreign language is translated.

Donor language: the original language in which a text is written.

Native language: synonymous with donor language — the original language in which a text is written.

Dynamic equivalent: a meaning in the receptor language that is equivalent to (but not identical with) a meaning in a native-language text; for example, the "heart" as the modern way of denoting the essence of a person, especially the emotions, which for the ancients was situated in the kidneys.

Dynamic equivalence: a theory of translation based on the premise that whenever something in the native-language text is foreign or unclear to a contemporary reader, the original text should be translated in terms of a dynamic equivalent.

Functional equivalent: something in the receptor language that differs from what the original text says but that serves the same function in the receptor language; for example, "first fruits" translated as "special offering."

Functional equivalence: a theory of translation that favors replacing a statement in the original text with a functional equivalent whenever the original phraseology or reference is obscure for a modern reader in the receptor language; for example, "holy kiss" translated as "hearty handshake" because the latter is how Christians in Western cultures extend greetings to each other today.

Equivalent effect: translating in such a way as to produce the same effect on readers of the translation as the original text produced on its native-language readers; for example, The Message gives the image of "daughters as shapely and bright as fields of wildflowers" as producing the same effect as the original text's image of "daughters like corner pillars cut for the structure of a palace." (Ps. 144:12)

Formal equivalence: a theory of translation that favors reproducing the form or language of the original text, not just its meaning. In its stricter form, this theory of translation espouses reproducing even the syntax and word order of the original; the formula word for word translation often implies this stricter definition of the concept.

Verbal equivalent: a word or combination of words in the receptor language that most closely corresponds to a word in the original, native-language text.

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.

Linguistic conservatism: as applied to Bible translation, a general orientation toward language that would seek to conserve the actual words of the original text as much as possible; an implied contrast to the "liberalism" of dynamic equivalence, which does not feel bound to reproduce the actual Hebrew and Greek words of the original.

Transparent text: this means two opposite things, and for that very reason the term has become devalued and misleading, even though it continues to be widely used by dynamic equivalent advocates. A text is transparent to the modern or contemporary reader when it is immediately understandable in the receptor language; this is the goal of dynamic equivalent translations. A translation is transparent to the original text when it reproduces the language, expressions, and customs of the original text; this is the goal of an essentially literal translation.

Target audience: the audience that a translation committee and publisher expect to be the chief market for a translation. Translation committees that consciously bring a target audience into their enterprise make translation decisions based on their desire to appeal to the target audience that they envision.

What the Terms Tell Us and Don't Tell Us

The definitions in the preceding section of this chapter provide a good introduction to the field of modern translation theory and practice. The terms do a good job of revealing where we currently stand with English Bible translation.

We should note first the dominance of the word equivalence. This was a brand-new word on the translation scene when it was introduced in the mid-twentieth century. There was no comparable dominating word for translation before Eugene Nida popularized the new philosophy of translation, but it is pretty clear that the word that translators would have used to describe their practice up to that point was correspondence. What translators formerly did was find the correspondent English words for the words of the original.

What is significant about the rise of the word equivalence as the dominant term? The significance lies in the fact that the word was popularized by Eugene Nida and his followers. While the word need not imply license, as used by dynamic equivalent proponents, it does imply a loose attitude toward preserving the words of the original text of the Bible. As used by the people who elevated it to the main term in translation theory, translating the Bible into something equivalent to the original text stands in implied contrast to translating it into something that corresponds to or is identical with the words of the original (subject of course to the changes required by translation from one language into another).

We might ask further what the word dynamic is doing in the formula. The phrase has become so common that we scarcely note what an odd adjective dynamic is in this context. It is mainly an honorific term — dynamic in contrast to the allegedly static or dead products of essentially literal translators. But in this context the word dynamic actually means something in addition, namely, a spirit of freedom or exemption from the need to reproduce the actual words of the original in an English translation.

The terms currently in fashion have the pernicious effect of privileging dynamic equivalence over the rival theory of translation. Consider the formula verbal equivalence. This would be innocuous and even helpful if it meant "finding the equivalent English word for the word in the original." The problem is that the word equivalent has already been co-opted by dynamic equivalent advocates. It carries the connotation of being a substitute for rather than corresponding to the words of the original biblical text.

We also need to note how inadequate — to the point of being misleading — the terms dynamic equivalence and functional equivalence are as descriptors of what translations bearing those names actually do with the original text. In fact, only a small amount — almost a statistically insignificant quantity — of what we find in modern dynamic equivalent translations is a matter of finding an equivalent for something in the original. What these translations mainly do is beyond that parameter, consisting of such things as changing syntax and word order, adding exegesis and interpretive commentary to the text, simplifying the content of the original text, removing figurative language from sight, producing a colloquial style for the English Bible, and adapting the translation to the expectations of a target audience. None of these activities can be honestly construed as finding an equivalent for difficult words and phrases in the original text of the Bible.

Realistically, the prevailing terminology will not change any time soon. So we need to use the terms in a "state of high alert." Many of the terms are misleading. They also stack the deck in favor of modern translation theories and against traditional understandings of what English Bible translation should be.

CHAPTER 2

Questions and Answers About English Bible Translation

THE ISSUES SURROUNDING English Bible translation are complex. Much of the writing on the subject is so technical that laypeople might well despair of ever understanding the process. In this chapter I will clarify matters by asking and answering a series of questions that frequently surface in regard to English Bible translation. In answering the questions in my own voice, I have pictured myself as responding to questions posed by an interviewer.

1)Isn't all translation interpretation? If so, aren't essentially literal and dynamic equivalent translations basically the same?

The favorite motto of dynamic equivalent translators is that "all translation is interpretation." The statement is so misleading that an immediate moratorium should be called on its use.

There is only one sense in which all translation is interpretation, and it is not what dynamic equivalent translators usually mean by their cliché. All translation is lexical or linguistic interpretation. That is, translators must decide what English word or phrase most closely corresponds to a given word of the original text. I myself do not believe that "interpretation" is the best word by which to name this process, but inasmuch as it requires a "judgment call" on the part of translators, there is something akin to interpretation when translators decide whether, for example, the Israelites were led through the wilderness or the desert.

All translation is "interpretation" on the lexical level. But this is the least of what excites dynamic equivalent translators. In fact, they are often impatient with finding the right corresponding word and eager to interpret the meaning of a word or phrase for the allegedly ignorant modern reader.

2)What do dynamic equivalent translators primarily mean when they speak of all translation being interpretation?

They primarily mean interpretation of the content of a statement — in other words, exegesis and commentary. For example, lexical interpretation of Psalm 23:5b yields the translation "you anoint my head with oil." A typical move by dynamic equivalent translators is to translate that statement as "you welcome me as an honored guest" (GNB). What I have labeled lexical interpretation has actually been bypassed in the second rendition, since the translators who produced it make no claim that the words honored guest appear in the original poem. The translators have interpreted the metaphoric meaning of the image of the anointed head. The two types of interpretation that I have noted belong to different realms and cannot accurately be placed on the same continuum.

3)What's so objectionable about the motto "all translation is interpretation"?

It is objectionable because its effect is to conceal a basic difference that exists between the rival translation philosophies. The sleight of hand that dynamic equivalent translations hope to perform with their cliché "all translation is interpretation" is to conceal the irreconcilable divergence that exists between retaining the words of the original and substituting an interpretation of meaning in place of those words. The hoped-for effect of the motto is to imply something like the following: "See — all translation is interpretation, and the liberties that dynamic equivalent translators take with the original are just part of the normal work of translation."

Well, those liberties are not a necessary part of translation. Dynamic equivalence introduced a new type of interpretation into the translation process — a type that essentially literal translators regard as license. To remove the imagery of the statement "he who has clean hands and a pure heart" (Ps. 24:4, esv and others) and replace it with the statement "those who do right for the right reasons" (cev) is to do something with the text that was never regarded as normal translation practice until the appearance of dynamic equivalence. All translation is emphatically not interpretation as we find it in the second translation quoted above.

4)Are the labels "dynamic equivalence" and "functional equivalence" good descriptors?

No; they are as misleading as the motto "all translation is interpretation." The newer term functional equivalence is even more deceptive than its predecessor, and it is no wonder that enthusiasts for that approach have latched onto the new label.

Both labels name a process of finding an equivalent in the receptor language for a statement composed in the donor or native language. Functional equivalence seeks something in the receptor language that produces the same effect (and therefore allegedly serves the same function) as the original statement, no matter how far removed the new statement might be from the original.

For example, in searching for a metaphor to express how delightful he finds God's law, the poet in Psalm 19:10 landed on "sweeter also than honey / and drippings from the honeycomb" (most translations). A dynamic equivalent translator asks, now what does someone in modern Western society find as tasteful as the ancient poet found honey to be? What in modern experience serves the same function as honey in the category of "something that tastes sweet?" One translator's answer: "You'll like it better than strawberries in spring, / better than red, ripe strawberries" (message).

In slight contrast, dynamic equivalence widens the scope beyond functional equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is not primarily interested in corresponding effect. Instead, dynamic equivalence is interested in finding equivalent words or expressions for the original even while departing from the terms used by the biblical author. For example, if the original says "Lord of hosts," dynamic equivalent translators judge that "Lord Almighty" is an adequate lexical equivalent for the original. If the original says "the hearts of the people melted and became as/like water" (all translations that render Joshua 7:5 literally), the other philosophy thinks that a suitable equivalent of the metaphor is "the Israelite army felt discouraged" (cev) or "the Israelites ... lost their courage" (NCV) or "their courage melted away" (NLT).

(Continues…)

---

Excerpted from "Understanding English Bible Translation"
by .
Copyright © 2009 Leland Ryken.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Preface,
Part One: Overview of Issues,
1. Understanding English Bible Translation,
2. Questions and Answers about English Bible Translation,
Part Two: The Story of English Bible Translation,
3. Laying the Foundation,
4. Building on the Foundation,
5. Building on Another Foundation,
Part Three: The Two Main Genres of Modern English Bible Translation,
6. Divergent Goals for Bible Translation,
7. Divergent Views of the Bible,
8. Divergent Views of the Bible's Authors, Readers, and Translators,
9. Divergent Methods of Translation,
10. Divergent Styles of Translation,
Part Four: The Ideal English Bible Translation,
11. Fullness Rather Than Reductionism,
12. Transparency to the Original Text,
13. Preserving the Literary Qualities of the Bible,
Part Five: The Bible in the Church,
14. Oral Reading of the Bible,
15. The Need for a Translation That People Can Trust and Respect,
16. Teaching and Preaching from the Bible,
Appendix A: Statements from Preachers and Bible Study Experts,
Appendix B: Ten Reasons You Can Trust an Essentially Literal Bible Translation,
Notes,
Permissions,