Bible Translations: 1 Introduction to Bible Translations

Table of Contents

1 Introduction to Bible Translations
2 The Superiority of “Dynamic” Bible Translations
3 The Superiority of Gender-inclusive Translations
4 An Evaluation of Some Bible Translations
5 Recommended Resources for Scripture Study
Appendix A Detailed Contents
Appendix B Some Perspectives on Bible Translations

Chapter 15.1

Introduction to Bible Translations

 

Table of Topics

A) What Makes a Good Bible Translation?

B) Neglecting the second half of Bible translation: Good English

C) Four Types of Bible Translations

Extras & Endnotes

Table 15.1: Popular Bible Translations in Order of Translation Philosophy

Primary Points
  • At a foundational level, the best Bible translation is one that most accurately translates the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts into your language.
  • An English Bible translation should not only be rejected if it erroneously reflects the ancient languages, but it should also be rejected if it uses bad English.
  • We have made incredible advances in the accuracy and understanding of our ancient Scripture texts. But if we want to continue to improve the accuracy and value of English Bible translations, there is something that needs attention far more than any further improvements regarding these ancient languages. What is needed now is considerable advancements in our understanding and communication of the English language.
  • Approaches to Bible translation can generally be categorized on a spectrum in four ways: “literal,” “dynamic,” “mediating,” and paraphrase.
  • “Literal” translations like the NASB and ESV attempt to translate a Greek or Hebrew word with one corresponding English word and follow the original sentence structure as well.
  • Dynamic translations like the NLT attempt a more “thought for thought” approach, reflecting accurately the meaning of the original, but pursuing modern English as well.
  • Translations that claim to be “mediating” like the NIV use both a “literal” and “dynamic” approach.
  • Paraphrases strive for striking English.

A) What Makes a Good Bible Translation?

God did not speak His word to the Apostles and Prophets in every language, but the language of those He was speaking to which included Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Accordingly, it has been the duty of His people to translate these ancient languages into those of people today. This is a monumental task, and one that some claim is impossible.

However, along these lines, Joshua Whatmough pokes fun at linguists when he writes: “Those experts who know Hopi [American Indian], Eskimo, or Aranta, and begin by insisting that this or that feature is incapable of English expression, always ends up by explaining it in English.” [1]

Thank God that He has created both humans and language with a foundation in reason so that the meaning of the thoughts of one race of humans can be fully translated into the language of another. [2]

The English speaking Christian is blessed to have an abundance of translations of the Bible. Below are the top 10 best-selling English translations as of January 2012:

1 New International Version (NIV, 2011 update) [3]

2 King James Version (KJV)

3 New King James Version (NKJV)

4 New Living Translation (NLT)

5 English Standard Version (ESV)

6 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

7 New International Readers Version (NIVr)

8 The Message (Msg)

9 New American Standard Bible (1995 update) (NASB)

10 Common English Bible (CEB) [4]

Which one of these translations is the best? While that is not a simple question, let’s start simple. At a foundational level, the best Bible translation is one that most accurately translates the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts into your language. In other words it is a reliable translation of the original language into a readable version of your language. We like how Mark Strauss, Professor of NT at Bethel Seminary, and a member of several Bible translation committees, puts it:

The best translation should not sound like a translation, but an original composition which has the same meaning and impact upon contemporary readers that the original had on the original readers. [5]

Or as Dr. Strauss with the renowned NT scholar Gordon Fee writes:

The goal of good translation is English, not Greeklish (or Biblish). Biblish results when the translator simply replaces Hebrew or Greek words with English ones, without sufficient concern for natural or idiomatic English. . . . No one speaking English in the real world would use the expression.” [6]

Elsewhere, Dr. Strauss puts it more simply: “Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak [today].” [7] We’ll see numerous examples of this throughout this book.

So, a good Bible translation not only reliably reflects the ancient language, but also reflects common 21st century English useage. In other words, contrary to many Evangelicals, an English Bible translation should not only be rejected if it erroneously reflects the ancient languages, but it should also be rejected if it uses bad English. This is because the best Bible translation is one that most accurately translates the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts into your language.

B) Neglecting the Second Half of Bible Translation: Good English

Over the last many decades there has been an enormous amount of work done on the first half of translation, but many Evangelicals have fallen behind on the second, and equally important half of Bible translation. Hundreds of scholars have meticulously researched thousands of ancient manuscripts to establish our Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture. Likewise, thousands of scholars have invested decades in studying these ancient, even extinct, languages so that we may properly understand the ancient texts. So why do so many Bible translations use lousy modern English?

Because we have focused on the first half of Bible translation and neglected the second half. We have made incredible advances in the accuracy and understanding of our ancient Scripture texts. But if we want to continue to improve the accuracy and value of English Bible translations, there is something that needs attention far more than any further improvements regarding these ancient languages. What is needed now is considerable advancements in our understanding and communication of the English language. Accordingly, Dr. Strauss says something that should be obvious to all:

Asking the simple question, “Would anyone speaking English actually say this?” is a good test for standard English. This simple question could transform our Bible versions and bring them in line with the finest translation practices used around the world. [8]

This is why we applaud the translation committee of the NIV for engaging in unprecedented research on modern English usage. The Chairman of the NIV translation committee, Douglas Moo, Professor of NT at Wheaton, writes:

Prior to the update of the New International Version of the Bible (NIV) for 2011, all previous Bible translation efforts have been hampered by the lack of accurate, statistically significant data on the state of spoken and written English at a given time in its history. . . . Working with some of the world’s leading experts in computational linguistics and using cutting-edge techniques developed specifically for this project, the [NIV translation] committee gained an authoritative, and hitherto unavailable, perspective on the contemporary use of [the English] language. [9]

Nevertheless, many American Evangelicals continue to promote Bible translations that use bad English. And it is a recognition of this defect that has brought the two most heated debates concerning Bible translation to the fore: 1) “literal” vs. “dynamic” philosophy of translation, and 2) Gender-inclusive language. The first issue involves the debate as to whether a more literal (“word for word,” formal equivalence) or dynamic (“thought for thought” functional equivalence) approach to translation is the best. The second debate regards whether or not traditional biblical references to “man” or “men” that actually refer to people in general, including males and females, should be changed. We will discuss both of these issues in chapter 15.2 and 15.3 respectively, and then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various versions in chapter 15.4.

C) Four Types of Bible Translations

Approaches to translating Scripture can generally be divided into two: 1) literal (“word for word,” formal equivalency), and 2) dynamic (“thought for thought,” functional equivalency). Drs. Fee and Strauss explain:

Formal equivalence, also known as “literal” or “word-for-word” translation, seeks to retain the form of the Hebrew or Greek while producing basically understandable English. This goal is pursued for both words and grammar. Concerning words, formal equivalent versions try to use the same English word for a particular Greek or Hebrew word whenever possible.

For example, formal equivalent versions like the NASB [1995 updated NASB] and NKJV seek to translate the Greek term sarx consistently with the English word “flesh.” [even though it can mean several different things]. Formal equivalence [“literal” translation] also seeks to reproduce the grammar or syntax of the original text as closely as possible. [10]

Regarding dynamic or “thought for thought” translation, the authors write:

While formal equivalence [“literal” translation] follows the form of the original text, functional equivalence [“thought for thought” translation], also known as idiomatic or meaning-based translation, seeks to reproduce its meaning in good idiomatic (natural) English. . . .

Advocates of functional equivalence stress that the translation should sound as clear and natural to the contemporary reader as the original text sounded to the original readers. [11]

To illustrate the difference between “literal” and “dynamic” translations we can compare the English Standard Version (ESV) with the New Living Translation (NLT) of Matthew 6:34:

ESV: Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

NLT:  So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today.

Notice how the “literal” translation of the ESV holds closely to the sentence content and structure of the original Greek, even though it produces rather awkward English. Notice as well how the “dynamic” translation of the NLT is more “thought for thought,” which, while representing the meaning of the Greek text accurately, also puts it in better English.

In addition to these two basic categories of approaches to Bible translation, it is helpful to add two others: 1) mediating- using both literal and dynamic approaches, and 2) paraphrase. The first is described by Drs. Fee and Strauss:

Mediating versions like Today’s NIV, NAB, HCSB, and NET are sometimes more literal, sometimes more idiomatic, seeking to maintain a balance between form and function. [12]

Accordingly, the NIV renders Matthew 6:34: “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” In general, “mediating” versions are more “dynamic” than “literal.”

The paraphrase category is more difficult to distinguish from the “thought for thought” approach. We appreciate how the NLT translators have described the difference when they divide the approaches into three:

Essentially Literal (free only where absolutely necessary):
This philosophy is reluctant to “clarify” the meaning of the text, though it is open to doing so when absolutely necessary for understanding.

Dynamic Equivalent (free where helpful to clarify meaning):
This philosophy is open to “clarify” the meaning of the text whenever a literal rendering of the text might be confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader. This does not mean it deviates from the text; on the contrary, it does whatever is helpful to ensure that the text’s meaning comes through in English. In general, such translations try to balance the concerns of both functional equivalence and literal approaches.

Paraphrase (free for clarity and to catch attention):
This method is normally used by an individual translator, while the other methods usually employ committees of scholars. Creativity and style are extremely important here; the translator sometimes tries to catch the attention of readers in a fresh way, seeking to jolt and surprise them into understanding.

The most popular paraphrase is The Message Bible (Msg) by Eugene Peterson. Accordingly, someone has described the purpose of the Message Bible as: “to present something new and provocative at every turn, something vivid and unusual, in order to stir up the dull minds of people who have become bored with their familiar Bibles.” [13]

Accordingly, note the differences between the NIV and Msg in John 1:14:

NIV: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

Msg: The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood.

We summarize and illustrate these descriptions, by placing popular Bible translations in the following categories in Table 15.1 below in Extras & Endnotes. The versions in bold text are our favorites for reasons that will be explained throughout this book. Nevertheless, while categorizing translations along these lines is helpful, the difficulties of dogmatically doing so should be recognized. Dr. Strauss comments:

Since all Bible translation utilizes both formal and functional equivalence, it is impossible to simply categorize versions as either one or the other. All translations exist on a continuum between form and function. The New International Version, the most popular version in the English speaking world, claims to be a middle-of-the-road or mediating version between these two translation theories. Indeed, most contemporary English versions profess to seek the perfect balance between accuracy and readability. [14]

Extras & Endnotes

Table 15.1: [15]

Popular Bible Translations in Order of Translation Philosophy

Type

Version

Literal

New American Standard Bible- 1995 update (NASB)

King James Version (KJV)

New King James Version (NKJV)

English Standard Version (ESV)

Revised Standard Version (RSV)

Mediating

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

New English Translation (NET)

New International Version (NIV)

New English Bible (NEB)

Dynamic

New Century Version (NCV)

New Living Translation (NLT)

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Paraphrase

The Living Bible (TLB)

The Message Bible (Msg)

Gauging Your Grasp

  1. What in our opinion makes the best Bible translation? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  2. What aspect of Bible translation do we suggest has been neglected compared to other aspects? Do you agree or disagree and why?

 

  1. What four general categories of translation philosophy have we suggested? Give examples of each.
  2. How do we describe the difference between a “literal” and a “dynamic” translation approach to Scripture?
  3. How do we distinguish “dynamic” translations from paraphrases? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  4. Why do we claim that the more “literal” translations are not even the best “study Bible”?
  5. What do we believe are the advantages of “dynamic” translations? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Recommended Reading

  • How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions, Gordon Fee and Mark L. Strauss, (Zondervan, 2007). D. A. Carson writes: “Yet another book on translation? Yes, and this is the one I shall now recommend . . . this is the book on translation that deserves widest circulation.” Available in Kindle version at http://www.amazon.com/How-Choose-Translation-Worth-Understanding/dp/0310278767/ref=sr_1_1?s= books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327150816&sr=1-1.
  • “It’s All Greek to Me: Translating God’s Word Into Today’s Language,” Gordon Fee and Mark L. Strauss. A shorter version of the book above available free online at http://www.biblicadirect.com/p-960-its-all-greek-to-me-leaflet.aspx.
  • “Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should Not Become the Standard English Version,” Mark L. Strauss, Professor of NT at Bethel Seminary (San Diego). Illustrates many of the weaknesses of the ESV. Available online at:

Click to access improvingesv2.pdf

Publications & Particulars

  1. Language, a Modern Synthesis, (New American Library, 1957), 198. ↑

  2. For further discussion on the rational basis for language and human communication see section 2.4.F. ↑

  3. All quotes and references to the NIV refer to the latest edition rendered in 2011. For more on the history of the NIV see section ? ↑

  4. Source: http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_ Translations.pdf ↑

  5. Mark L. Strauss, “Form, Function, and the “Literal Meaning” Fallacy in Bible Translation,” 30; available online at http://www.bible-researcher.com/ Strauss.LiteralFallacy.pdf. ↑

  6. Gordon Fee and Mark L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions (Zondervan, 2007), 4, 10. ↑

  7. Mark L. Strauss, “Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version”; online at:

    http://betterbibles.com/2008/11/21/why-the-english-standard-version-esv-should-not-become-the-standard-english-version-by-mark-strauss/. ↑

  8. Ibid. ↑

  9. Douglas Moo, “Summary of Collins Corpus Report,” online at

    http://www.niv-cbt.org/information/collins-corpus-report/. ↑

  10. Fee & Strauss, Translation, Kindle Locations 298-299. ↑

  11. Ibid. ↑

  12. Gordon Fee and Mark L. Strauss, “It’s All Greek to Me: Translating God’s Word Into Today’s Language”, 9; online at

    http://www.biblicadirect.com/p-960-its-all-greek-to-me-leaflet.aspx. ↑

  13. Michael Marlowe online at http://www.bible-researcher.com/ themessage.html. ↑

  14. Strauss, “Form”. ↑

  15. Basic source for table information is Fee & Strauss, “Greek,” 9. ↑