Bible Translations: 2 The Superiority of “Dynamic” 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 15.2

The Superiority of Dynamic Bible Translations

 

Table of Topics

A) Evaluation of the “Literal” Approach to Bible Translation: NASB & ESV

B) Evaluating Bible Paraphrases: The Message

C) The Superiority of Dynamic “Thought for Thought” Bible Translations: NIV & NLT

D) Errors, Exaggerations, & Even Slander by Critics of Dynamic Translations: Piper, Packer, & MacArthur

D.1) The Errors of John Piper

D.2) The exaggeration of J. I. Packer

D.3) The slander by John MacArthur

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points
  • We do not even accept the common notion that a more “literal” translation is the best “study Bible.”
  • “Literal” translations often obscure the meaning.
  • Paraphrases often depart from the original text too far and should be read as biblical sermons or devotions, rather than Scripture itself.
  • Experience in foreign countries and a basic understanding of linguistics will rather immediately convince a person that good translation must be “thought for thought,” rather than “literal.”
  • If this incongruence exists between modern languages that are related to one another (e.g. English, French, Spanish), imagine the disparity between languages that originate in different millenniums and continents like Hebrew, Greek, and English.
  • Dynamic translations are simply better able to bring out the full intended meaning of the original authors of Scripture because the ancient text “said” many things to the original readers which the modern reader cannot infer through a simple replacement of words.
  • Martin Luther’s approach to translation: “I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses.”
  • Advocates of “literal” translations like John Piper seem to claim that they can do a better job of translating the original languages during sermon preparation than teams of the best experts in the world spending days doing the same. We doubt it.
  • What Dr. Piper is advocating seems to put us back to the Middle Ages when the Roman Church insisted that the Scriptures be left in obscure Latin so that only the “experts” could “clarify” what God really said.
  • John MacArthur irresponsibly slanders Evangelical translation committees of “dynamic” translations as having a low view of Scripture and desiring to merely put their own “spin” on what people want to read.

A) Evaluation of the “Literal” Approach to Bible Translation: NASB & ESV

The greatest strength of the more literal approach to Bible translation is that one can get a feel for the actual Hebrew or Greek text. An English word generally corresponds to one Greek word. But if this is desired then it would be even better to use a Greek or Hebrew text, or at least a transliterated text which gives the ancient text with the literal English. [1] Accordingly, we do not even accept the common notion that a more “literal” translation is the best “study Bible.” The best way to study the Bible is to have several translations, the Hebrew and Greek texts, and good commentaries that provide any significant data on the original text. Relatively speaking then, a “literal” translation is not a better “study Bible” than a “dynamic” translation.

In fact, if you can have only one Bible, we would argue that a fuller translation such as the NIV or NLT would be a better study Bible than the more “wooden” NASB or ESV. [2] Along these lines, Drs. Fee and Strauss have written:

Functional equivalent versions are also helpful for detailed study, and especially as a complement to Hebrew and Greek study. This is because while literal versions tend to simply reproduce Hebrew and Greek grammatical forms, functional equivalent versions go further and clarify the “functional” relationships between phrases and clauses. In this way they answer the syntactical and exegetical questions advanced students are asking about the text. [3]

Nevertheless, the goal of following the mere form of the ancient text is the only advantage over dynamic translations that we can think of, and the only real one that its proponents claim. This is not much of an advantage when reflecting the mere form of the base text frequently does not help to accurately convey the meaning in the receptor language. In fact, “literal” translations often obscure the meaning. Accordingly, the weaknesses of a more “literal” approach to Bible translation would seem to far outweigh the advantages. [4]

Accordingly, Dr. Strauss writes:

In general, formal equivalence [“literal” approach] gives greater prominence to the source language [ancient texts], particularly its formal structure; functional equivalence [dynamic approach] gives equal prominence to source and receptor languages, stressing that both the meaning of the original and the perception of the readers are essential components of translation. . . .

[T]here are fundamental flaws with formal equivalence as a philosophy of translation. This is because meaning not form [i.e. sentence structure] is the goal of Bible translation.

The assumption of many practitioners seems to be that . . . if you attain formal equivalence [i.e. in sentence structure] you have reached semantic [meaning] equivalence. But . . . this is far from the case, since the formal structures of Hebrew and Greek are very different than the formal structures of English (or any other language). Even versions which claim to be “essentially literal” are far from formally equivalent. They constantly fall back on idiomatic renderings whenever formal equivalence does not work. In other words function or meaning is given precedence over form.

This is because translators intuitively recognize that in almost every sentence, Greek and Hebrew idioms do not “work” the way English works. Thus, while translators of literal versions may be proceeding with a method of formal equivalence (word for word replacement), their decisions are governed by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain the meaning).

The problem comes when translation decisions are affected by the perceived need to retain form. The result is often barely-comprehensible (or incomprehensible) English rather than a natural rendering which communicates to contemporary readers with the same clarity that the Greek or Hebrew communicated to the original readers. [5]

Drs. Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss give some simple examples of what real “literal” translations would look like:

The Greek text of Matthew 1:18, translated literally, says that before her marriage to Joseph, Mary was discovered to be “having in belly” (en gastri echousa). This Greek idiom means she was “pregnant.” Translating literally would make a text that was clear and natural to its original readers into one that is strange and obscure to English ears.

Psalm 12:2, translated literally from the Hebrew, says that wicked people speak “with a heart and a heart” (or, as some “literal” versions render it, “with a double heart”). This Hebrew idiom means “deceitfully.” Translating literally obscures the meaning for most readers. The form must be changed in order to reproduce the meaning. [6]

We’re going to primarily use the ESV to illustrate the weaknesses of formal (“literal”) translation because it is being so highly touted by men we greatly respect, as the best Bible translation available. Our critiques below will also usually apply to the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and HCSB translations as well.

An example of needlessly sticking to the wording of the base text and obscuring the translation is seen in the common translation of Matthew 23:5, speaking of the Pharisees: “They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries [phlachtērion] broad and their fringes long” (ESV, cf. NIV, NASB, RSV). Obviously, the translators translated the Greek word rather literally, but how many 21st century English speakers know what a “phylactery” is? We know from 1st century Jewish cultural studies that this was the word used to refer to the little boxes containing Scripture verses that were attached to the arm and were prescribed in OT Law (cf. Exod 13:1-10, 11-16; Deut 6:4-9; 11:13-12). Accordingly, a reader of Matthew’s Gospel in the first century would have been familiar with this term. They had seen “phylacteries” being worn by orthodox Jews all over the Roman Empire. But how many American Christians have ever seen a “phylactery” today, or even know what it is?

Therefore, if the goal of a good Bible translation for 21st century English-speaking Christians is that it is in their language and understandable, then a literal “word-for-word” translation of phlachtērion is a mistake. Accordingly, the NLT is a better translation of Matthew 23:5: “Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside.” That is a good translation of Matthew’s Gospel because, as a dynamic translation, it immediately makes the Apostle more clear and understandable than any “literal” translation (cf. CEV, NCV).

An example of needlessly sticking to the syntactical form of the base text and therefore actually obscuring its original meaning is Luke 7:47 in the ESV: “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for [because] she loved much.” And the more “literal” NASB, KJV and NKJV do the same. While this rendering follows the syntactical structure of the Greek text closely, it implies that the woman’s sins were “forgiven” because “she loved much.” Obviously this is not the case, as this would be salvation by works. In fact, Christ’s parable is teaching the exact opposite- we love because we’ve been forgiven. Accordingly, the NLT reads: “I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven, so she has shown me much love.” Likewise, the updated NIV corrects earlier versions here and reads: “Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown.” The NLT and NIV not only use better English in Luke 7:47, but even more accurately reflect the Greek text and what Jesus meant. [7]

Examples of needlessly sticking to the syntactical form of the base text and, therefore, producing awkward Biblish instead of modern English abound in “literal” translations. One of many examples is the ESV translation of Acts 8:23: “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity” (cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV). Again, if modern English useage is an attribute of a good Bible translation for 21st century American Christians and churches, then this is not a good translation. When is the last time you heard someone say, “gall of bitterness”? How many people even know what “gall” is? And for that matter, who would tell someone they are “in the bond of iniquity,” and if they did, would the other person understand them?

“The gall [chole] of bitterness [pikria]” was a Hebrew idiom (saying) referring to the acidic juices or bile produced by the liver for digestion (cf. Job 16:13). Accordingly, to say that a person was experiencing “gall” rather literally meant they were experiencing the bitter taste of acid reflux! Metaphorically, it meant “that is a bitter pill to swallow” or a “bitter, hard experience of life,” [8] or “excessive bitterness.” [9] In other words, while “the gall of bitterness” was a well understood saying in the Apostle Peter’s day who spoke it, it is a dead idiom in 21st century English and should not be used. This is not English for us, but Biblish.

Imagine a Chinese Christian reading a supposed Chinese Bible translation that imposes on him contemporary American idioms and sayings that he is not familiar with and are not used in his culture? It would be a bad and even rather insensitive and perhaps even offensive translation. Thankfully, then, what the ESV translates as “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity,” the NIV renders the Greek simply, clearly, elegantly, and accurately: “For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.” That is a good translation. The NLT is essentially the same: “For I can see that you are full of bitter jealousy and are held captive by sin.” Elsewhere, Dr. Strauss shares several more examples of substandard English particularly in the ESV. [10]

B) Evaluating Bible Paraphrases: The Message

On the other hand, paraphrases often depart from the original text too far, and also end up obscuring the meaning. A good example is the Message Bible, authored by Eugene Petersen. It has sold into the multi-millions, currently the eighth most popular Bible translation just behind the NASB as noted above. Mr. Peterson has received a Gold Medallion Award and an ECPA Christian Book Award for the Message Bible. And if he didn’t call it a “Bible” we would be happy to promote it as provocative devotional reading. Unfortunately, however, “the publisher has advertised it as a “translation from the original languages” that “accurately communicates the original Hebrew and Greek” and brings out “the subtleties and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages.” [11] In many instances throughout the Message, this would not seem to be true.

For example, Mr. Peterson writes Matthew 23:5 as follows: “Their lives are perpetual fashion shows, embroidered prayer shawls one day and flowery prayers the next.” “Flowery prayers” is not anywhere near Matthew’s original intent in using the Greek phlachtērion, nor what Jesus was referring to. While “literal” translators obscure the text for 21st century American readers by using “phylacteries,” the author of the Message Bible obscures the original intent by “translating” the Greek as “flowery prayers.” Therefore, we do not put these phrases from the Message Bible in bold as we do for Scripture quotations because this is not Scripture.

Unfortunately, in light of Mr. Peterson’s claim to be accurately translating Scripture, there are many such examples. In John 3:5 the NIV has Jesus accurately saying: “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.” Even the supposedly more “dynamic” NLT is virtually the same. However, Mr. Peterson relates Jesus’ saying this way:

Unless a person submits to this original creation—the ‘wind-hovering-over-the-water’ creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life—it’s not possible to enter God’s kingdom. 

For all of his effort to make the Bible understandable, Mr. Peterson obscures the original meaning in several ways. First, and most obvious, the statement doesn’t make any sense. What would it mean if “a person submits to this original creation”? Secondly, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit which is a very integral part of what Christ was saying and the biblical basis for Evangelicals to speak of “being born again by the Spirit.” Thirdly, Mr. Peterson evidently interprets Jesus as alluding to either the “original creation” of Genesis 1, and/or water “baptism.” We have argued elsewhere that the birth from water mentioned here refers to our physical birth into physical life and the birth of the Spirit as our spiritual birth into spiritual life. [12]

Accordingly, it would be better to refer to those who produce paraphrases as authors rather than translators. And such works should be read as biblical sermons, rather than Scripture itself. Interestingly, one critic of Mr. Peterson says:

His method is comparable to that of a preacher in the pulpit . . . The version incorporates a number of interesting but peculiar interpretations that can only be described as homiletic. . . . Peterson’s homiletic method of handling of the text should have been more clearly explained in the introduction, and in the advertising of the version. ” [13]

Eugene Peterson, the author of the Message has said himself:

When I’m in a congregation where somebody uses [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, “Hear the Word of God from The Message.” [14]

If the Message is understood and promoted as a very good and provocative reflection of one man on “the message” of the Bible, then it certainly has its place. A critic has said:

This book should be recognized for what it is. It began as a stimulating paraphrase of the Epistle to the Galatians included in a popular devotional book, and it remains a piece of stimulating devotional literature. But it is not the Word of God. As Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary has put it, “it is freer even than a paraphrase. I think of it more as devotional literature than as a version of the Bible and wouldn’t recommend it for any other role.” [15]

Unfortunately, when it is perceived by many as an accurate translation of God’s word, it is a serious and potentially spiritually damaging mistake. We do not believe Mr. Peterson in any way intended this, nor are we critical of him personally as some are, but we wonder if the publisher, Nav Press, should take some responsibility for both claiming and promoting the deceptive idea that the Message deserves the high title of a Bible. [16]

C) The Superiority of Dynamic “Thought for Thought” Bible Translations: NIV & NLT

Even a little thought and a basic understanding of linguistics will rather immediately convince a person that good translation must be “thought for thought.” In my own visits to minister in Cameroon West Africa, Honduras, and Mexico, one thing that becomes immediately evident is that often in modern languages there is no equivalent for an English word. Accordingly, a “literal” or “word for word” approach is insufficient. [17] As noted above, even the NIV goes awry when they try to be too “literal” in their use of “phylacteries” in Matthew 23:5.

If this incongruence exists with modern languages which have some relationship (e.g. Spanish, French, English), imagine the disparity between languages that originate in different millenniums and continents. Accordingly, David Dewey in his good book, A User’s Guide to Bible Translations, remarks:

[T]he Bible is anything but English, and [its original text] comes from a distant past and a remote culture. The challenges facing the translator cannot be overestimated. [18]

The chronological and cultural gaps are significant between Hebrew, Greek, and English. Hebrew originated some 6000 years ago in modern day Iraq and Iran. Our first examples of biblical Hebrew outside of Scripture occur c. 1200 B. C. [19] In addition, “Hebrew, [was] for a long time a dead language apart from its religious use within Jewish synagogues . . . Very little ancient Hebrew—only a few inscriptions—is found outside the Bible.” [20]

Early Greek cultures are as ancient as Semitic ones. However, while the classic “Attic” Greek that Homer (c. 850 B. C.) wrote with is millennia old, the NT is written in koinē (“common”), the language of the Greek Empire beginning in about 300 B. C., which was centered in southern Europe.

Regarding English, we read:

Historically, English originated from the fusion of languages and dialects, now collectively termed Old English, which were brought to the eastern coast of Great Britain by Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) settlers by the 5th century. [21]

Accordingly, these languages originate from three very different cultures and times: ancient Mesopotamia, 300 B. C. southern Europe, and 400 A. D. Germany. It should not surprise us then that they are very different languages themselves. For example, Hebrew could hardly be more different than English. Up until about 1000 B. C. Hebrew had no vowels, and nearly all of its words derive from a combination of three consonants. And it really doesn’t have adjectives, as nouns are used in descriptive ways. “The Hebrew verbal system is . . . so complicated at the level of semantics [meaning] that tomes are written on the subject, espousing theories that differ one from another.” [22] Remarking on the characteristics of Hebrew compared to English Mr. Dewey remarks:

A Hebrew sentence, especially in poetry, may consist of only two or three words, but eight or nine English words may be necessary in translation. . . . Many sentences have no verb at all; one has to be supplied to the sentence to make sense in English. [23]

Likewise, NT scholar Douglas Moo has said, “The passage of 2000 years has turned ancient Greek and Hebrew from living languages into historical artifacts.” [24] Accordingly, pursuing a translation theory that prioritizes conforming to the literal wording and sentence structure of such languages is misguided. Dynamic translations are simply better able to bring out the full intended meaning of the original authors of Scripture. Along these lines, one of the NIV translators, OT scholar Ronald Youngblood, has written:

To render the Greek word sarx by “flesh” virtually every time it appears does not require the services of a translator . . . But to recognize that sarx has differing connotations in different contexts, that in addition to “flesh” it often means “human standards” or “earthly descent” or “sinful nature” or “sexual impulse” or “person,” etc., and therefore to translate sarx in a variety of ways, is to understand that translation is not only a mechanical, word-for-word process but also a nuanced thought-for-thought procedure. [25]

Likewise, Dr. Strauss writes:

How much of the culture should translators communicate in the translation itself and how much should they leave for commentaries and teachers to explain? Literalist translators sometimes retreat into the axiom, “only say what the original text says; don’t interpret what it means.” But this is problematic, since the text “said” many things to the original readers which the modern reader cannot infer through a simple replacement of words.

Take a passage like Matthew 9:10, where Jesus calls Matthew and then attends a banquet at his home. Compare the following translations.

Closest formal equivalent: “as he was reclining in the house…”

NASB: “as He was reclining at the table [not in original] in the house…”

ESV: “as Jesus reclined at table in the house…”

TEV: “While Jesus was having a meal in Matthew’s house…”

NIV: “While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house…”

NLT: “That night Matthew invited Jesus and his disciples to be his dinner guests.”

Which translation is most accurate? The closest formal [“literal”] equivalent, “reclining in the house,” leaves out much of the meaning. It does not explain that Jesus was reclining on a cushion around a low table or that this posture indicated a formal banquet. Nor does it express the nature of first-century meals as rituals of social status.

Some would argue that these ideas are better left to a commentary, but in fact they are all critical parts of the original meaning which the author intended and which a first century reader would have immediately recognized. None of them would be evident to a modern English reader. Because of the cultural and social differences, a literal translation leaves out much of the content which the original communicated. . . .

Formal equivalent [“literal”] translations may choose to withhold much of the meaning by staying with the structure of the Greek. This does not make them more accurate or precise, nor closer to the meaning of the Greek. It just makes them a different kind of version which allows the reader to better see the formal [structural] characteristics of the Greek sentence. The implications and connotations which these versions withhold were part of the meaning of the utterance intended by the original author and understood by the original readers. . . .

Some Bible versions seem to consider it a virtue to provide as little syntactical interpretation as possible, leaving readers to wrestle with the differences between Greek and English grammar. But who is better able to deal with the idiosyncrasies of Greek grammar, translators with years of experience reading and interpreting Koine Greek, or an English reader who has never even seen a Greek sentence? [26]

Elsewhere, Dr. Strauss has written:

There is an unfortunate tendency among biblical scholars—who live in the world of Hebrew and Greek—to think they are getting it “right” if they mimic the form of the original languages. The unfortunate result is a tendency to create “half-idioms” (half-English/half-Greek), transferring a few words of the original, but missing its meaning in standard English. This is what the ESV does when people speak “with a double heart” (Ps. 12:2), have “news in their mouths” (2 Sam. 18:25), “go in and out among them” (Acts 1:21; 9:28), or “fill up the measure of their fathers” (Matt. 23:32).  These are half-idioms—Biblish rather than English. [27] 

Martin Luther (1483-1546) said the same thing when describing his own translation philosophy for the world-changing German Bible he produced:

I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses . . . Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it—once he understands the Hebrew author—that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, “Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?” . . . Let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows. [28]

As Dr. Carson remarks:

[O]ne cannot responsibly translate a text under some rigid dictum that the same word in the receptor language must always render a word in the donor text. This has been understood for centuries. . . . [I]f one opts for the axiom “as formal [“literal”] as possible,” one frequently ends up with a translation that actually distorts much of the meaning of the donor text. [29]

Accordingly, in the preface to the 1611 edition of the King James Version, the translators write: “We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing [to the original languages] or to an identity of words as some peradventure would wish that we had done.” [30] Evidently, even the rather “literal” KJV translators had their critics. Unfortunately, in our opinion, the same unfounded criticisms of dynamic “thought for thought” translations exist today.

Most conservative, Evangelical, Bible scholars recommend a “dynamic” thought-for-thought philosophy when it comes to translating Scripture. For example, Grant Osborne, Professor of NT at Trinity has written the following in favor of the “dynamic” approach to Bible translation:

The true question is whether formal [“literal”] equivalence or functional [“dynamic”] equivalence, as Bible translation theories, produces the best translation for our day. . . . According to [the dynamic, functional, “thought for thought”] approach, it is not the original terms but the meaning of the whole that is important, asking the question, “How would Isaiah or Paul say this today to get his meaning across?” (the Good News Bible and NLT are examples; NIV and NRSV are sometimes literal, sometimes dynamic). [31]

Likewise, some of the most respected Bible scholars have written endorsements for the book written by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss in support of dynamic translation. D. A. Carson writes of this book:

Yet another book on translation? Yes, and this is the one I shall now recommend to concerned Christians who want to understand what the perpetual flap over Bible translation is all about. Few will agree with every judgment in its pages, but for courtesy to all sides, accuracy in technical matters, clarity of writing, a deep commitment to faithful rendering of the original, and an abundant supply of that least common gift, “common sense,” this is the book on translation that deserves widest circulation. [32]

Another NT scholar, Ben Witherington III writes:

This is the perfect little book to help the student of the Bible understand why different translations of the same verses look so different, and how to decide which Bible translation is right for the student in question. [33]

Darrell Bock, Professor of NT at Dallas Theological Seminary writes:

Finally, a book that translates for the average person what is good about translations and how they work! You can’t tell how good players are without a scorecard. So here is a very helpful scorecard on what to look for in Bibles and why. In sum, well done, much needed, thanks. [34]

OT scholar Walt Kaiser writes of the book:

Gordon Fee has teamed up with Mark Strauss to produce another winner — How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions. . . . . Readers will be more accurately informed on how translation decisions are made and which translations are best suited for which audiences. . . . Fee and Strauss have upheld both accuracy and meaning. [35]

 

Daniel Block, Professor of OT at Wheaton writes:

Lay people often imagine that Bible translation is simply a matter of replacing one word in the original language with one word in the target language. Those involved in such work know that the matter is much more complex and that translation always involves interpretation. . . . Fee and Strauss have . . . provided pastors and teachers who seek to guide their people through the translation maze with one of the finest resources available. [36]

Bruce Waltke, Professor of OT, Reformed Theological Seminary

This book, a must-read for pastors and Christians who love and read the Bible, is sensible (i.e., explains the why, what, and how of translation), sober (i.e., shows the strengths and weaknesses of all the major English versions), simple (i.e., in language a seventh grader can understand, and salted with illustrations), and spiritual (i.e., fills one with praise to God for the work of all translators and stops the unjust demonization of any translation). [37]

D) Errors, Exaggerations, & Even Slander by Critics of Dynamic Translations: Piper, Packer, & MacArthur

Dr. Walke is right to point out the modern “unjust demonization” of particularly dynamic translations of Scripture. And this is unfortunately happening through some of the most respected Bible Teachers in our land.

D.1) The errors of John Piper

All of the above is why we disagree with the rightly respected Pastor John Piper. His recent promotion of the ESV and attack on the NIV are rather well known. [38] In an article entitled: “What does John Piper think about the NIV?” he writes:

My aim . . . is to help you be persuaded that exposing millions of people (pastors, teachers, students, laypeople) to the ESV would undo the dominance of the NIV and put in its place a more literal, and yet a beautifully readable, memorizable Bible—the English Standard Version. And this would be a good thing. . . . [T]here are four convictions at stake.

1. A more literal translation respects the original author’s way of writing. It is a way of honoring the inspired writers.

2. Translators are fallible and they may mislead the English reader if they use unnecessary paraphrases to bring out one possible meaning and conceal others.

3. A more literal translation gives preachers more confidence that they can preach what the English text says with authority and that it reflects what the original Greek or Hebrew text says.

4. A more literal translation which preserves ambiguities that are really there in the original keeps open the possibility of new insight by future Bible readers. [39]

Dr. Piper’s opinions warrant several responses. First, his claim that the ESV represents “beautifully readable” English would seem odd to most and will be proven to be at best an exaggeration, if not plain error throughout this book.

Secondly, the priority of Bible translation is not to “respect the original author’s way of writing” as Dr. Piper contends, but rather, to respect and reflect their meaning. We have demonstrated above with only a few of many possible examples that being confined to the mere form of an ancient language will often actually result in at least bad English, if not an actually deceptive translation. [40] If we truly want to be “honoring the inspired writers,” we will translate their writings as accurately, fully, and clearly in modern English as we can, which will not mean using a formal equivalency approach as Dr. Piper contends.

Thirdly, we have already addressed the claim that, “A more literal translation gives preachers more confidence that . . . the English text . . . reflects what the original Greek or Hebrew text says.” On the contrary, if a preacher really feels the need to seriously question the English translation of the NIV or NLT, or wants to have more access to the Greek text–then use the Greek text! Why promote the idea that the best English Bible translation for Christians in general is essentially a Hebrew and Greek language tool [e.g. NASB, ESV], and not even the best one at that?

Fourth, we confess to not really understand what Dr. Piper means by the idea that “A more literal translation which preserves ambiguities” somehow facilitates “the possibility of new insight by future Bible readers.” The meaning of Scripture does not change, and if one uses multiple translations and good commentaries they will be best assured of grasping that never changing meaning of the biblical authors.

Finally, we would comment on Dr. Piper’s second “conviction” of why the ESV is so superior to the NIV: “Translators are fallible and they may mislead the English reader if they use unnecessary paraphrases to bring out one possible meaning and conceal others.” Likewise, he writes:

In a nutshell, my view of the English language Bible translation enterprise is that the goal should be to preserve the ambiguities [which can be more like obscurities] in good English [which the ESV is not] that are present in the original language. Paraphrasing [as if the NIV is one?] these ambiguities in English to “clarify” them is the role of the preacher and commentator, not the role of the translator. [41]  

We disagree. In fact, while he doesn’t intend to, what Dr. Piper is advocating seems to put us back to the Middle Ages when the Roman Catholic Church insisted that the Scriptures be left in obscure Latin so that only the “experts” could “clarify” what God really said. He surely hasn’t abandoned the historical, orthodox position on the “perspicuity [clarity] of Scripture.” [42] He certainly wouldn’t fault “the [Greek] Bereans [who] were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they . . . examined the [Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew] Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11), probably without any preachers or commentators helping them.

Accordingly, the “Bereans” were completely dependent on the LXX translators to accurately and as fully as possible communicate what the original texts said. And so are any Christians who have not literally spent decades studying extinct, complicated, incredibly unique languages like Hebrew and Greek. Suggesting that we should leave “ambiguities” in Bible translations targeted to the general Christian public is wrong-headed. On the contrary, the role of a translator is to “clarify” as many “ambiguities” as possible- that is what effective translation is.

Of course the difficulty here is that there are legitimate, optional translations/interpretations of many biblical texts. On words and phrases easy to translate even “word for word,” there is no debate, and even more dynamic translations use a single word. But there are places in the Hebrew and Greek text where the meaning of the word or phrase is unclear. Then there is a choice: translate it “literally,” leaving it more unclear, or choose a particular translation/interpretation in order to make it clearer. And what good dynamic translations like the NIV and NLT do is provide many footnotes noting the significant and legitimate options in translation that Dr. Piper is so concerned with communicating.

I understand Dr. Piper’s concern that a whole, united, translation team of people who have devoted much of their lives to studying ancient biblical languages and have more experience than anyone else on the planet for understanding them and translating them into English, and have as great a fear as anyone of dishonoring their Savior and misleading His people by making the wrong translation, might still choose the wrong translation. But why is Dr. Piper so confident that he can consistently do better than those who have translated the NIV, NLT, and other translations that he is so critical of?

As we note elsewhere, the translation committees of these versions reads like a “who’s who” of this generation’s very best Hebrew and Greek scholars in the world. [43] I’d place my bet on teams of ancient language scholars like that, who often spend days discussing a single verse, rather than one intelligent and gifted preacher who might have one hour to do the same in sermon preparation, like Dr. Piper.

D.2) The exaggeration of J. I. Packer

We feel there is a good deal of inaccurate and even irresponsible statements being made by influential people in this area of Bible translation. To understand better what we mean, Dr. Strauss alludes to this when he writes:

Translations which claim to be literal are in fact often quite dynamic. Take for example the ESV, a recent revision of the RSV, which claims in its Preface to be an “essentially literal translation.” [44]

Dr. Strauss goes on to demonstrate that, in fact, there are many places where the ESV practices a very dynamic approach to translation. For example, commenting on Hebrews 1:1 he writes:

Lexically, of course, the ESV has changed all of the words, seeking English lexemes which approximate the meaning of the Greek. Grammatically, the ESV has radically altered the verse, rearranging the word order and changing five of the seven main grammatical forms.

None of this is meant to be critical of the ESV. All of it was necessary. The point is that every word and phrase was first interpreted and then modified and restructured to express the same meaning in English. An “essentially literal” translation – either lexically or syntactically – is a myth.

It is ultimately irrelevant whether an adverb is replaced by a prepositional phrase or a participle replaced by a verb. The question that matters is, “Is the meaning reproduced?” As a method, translators may choose to follow the grammatical forms inasmuch as possible. This often works. But in every case, formal syntactical correspondence must be subordinated to functional correspondence

In light of the significant differences between form and meaning, the ESV sounds oddly contradictory when it claims that “As an essentially literal translation . . . the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language.” We might cynically ask, which are they trying to do, produce an “essentially literal translation” or “carry over every possible nuance of meaning”? Thousands of examples could be marshaled to show that these two goals – which the ESV treats as one and the same – are in almost constant tension. [45]

Elsewhere, Dr. Strauss illustrates this further:

One anecdote may be helpful here. As I was reading through the ESV (in conjunction with another project), I came to the epistle to the Hebrews. Hebrews contains some of the finest literary Greek in the New Testament and can be a very difficult book for my Greek students. I expected to encounter substantial problems in the ESV. Instead, I found that the ESV was quite well translated in Hebrews, with fewer of the kinds of problems I was encountering elsewhere.

Then the reason dawned on me. The fine literary Greek of Hebrews—with radically different word order, grammar and idiom—is simply impossible to translate literally into English. To do so produces gibberish. Ironically, the ESV was at its best when it abandoned its “essentially literal” strategy and translated the meaning of the text into normal English. [46]

With such a background, let’s examine what J. I. Packer has said about Bible translations and seems to exaggerate the superiority of the “literal” approach:

Formal equivalency [“literal”] versions are not, of course, word-for-word in any mechanical sense; they seek simply to catch all the meaning that the text expresses, book by book, section by section, paragraph by paragraph, and sentence by sentence, in a way that the original writer, were he with us today, would recognize as a full and exact rendering of what he sought to put across to his own readership, now expressed in clusters of English words that as far as possible match those that he used himself. [47]

Really? Isn’t that what all conscientious Bible translation teams are trying to do? Is it only the more “literal” translation approach that Dr. Piper is advocating that accomplishes this best? We don’t think so. And contrary to Dr. Packer’s exaggeration, “literal” translation does not “seek simply to catch all the meaning that the text expresses,” but intentionally often leaves things obscure.

Secondly, Dr. Packer apparently and irresponsibly lumps all “dynamic” translations with paraphrases and writes:

The second category [of Bible translations] is usually labeled “thought-for-thought” or “dynamic equivalent” renderings. Here the translators’ avowed aim is to induce, directly and immediately, the same positive complex of compelling interest and intellectual, emotional, and volitional response that the original writers sought to trigger in their own readership [no it’s not- they desire accuracy], and the developed method is to modify the wording and imagery of the text as a means to this end. Lively English covering the semantic field of the original in a consistently colloquial way, bringing out its implications without being bound by its sentence structure, is the goal.

Examples are the Good News Bible, the Living Bible and the New Living Translation (the latter a skillful, scholarly recasting of the former), the Contemporary English Version, the New Century Bible, and God’s Word. All are beamed first and foremost on adolescents and young adults who, so it is hoped, may be newly drawn into Bible reading by the brisk, vivid, even chummy way that everything is expressed. . . . [T]he change is only for warmth and chattiness. . . . [the] focus [meaning?] is blurred. [48]

At best, such slurs may apply to one-man paraphrases, but to lump the New Living Translation into this group is, again, inaccurate and irresponsible. At least he calls it “scholarly,” but those scholars would strongly disagree with how Dr. Packer has described their purpose for the NLT. Evidence of Dr. Packer’s error can be found in how similar the NIV and NLT read in many verses of Scripture.

One more exaggeration. Dr. Packer writes of the “dynamic” translations:

Where the exact meaning of the text is elusive and more than one understanding is possible, this method requires a smooth rendering of the translators’ views that will leave readers unaware that any difficulty and range of options exists at all. [49]

Nonsense. As already noted, the NLT includes copious notes informing the reader of optional translations.

D.3) The slander by John MacArthur

John MacArthur writes in an article entitled “Which Bible translation is best?”: [50]

Since no one language corresponds perfectly to any other language, every translation involves some degree of interpretation. A translation based on formal [“literal”] equivalency has a low degree of interpretation; translators are trying to convey the meaning of each particular word. When faced with a choice between readability and accuracy, formal equivalency translators are willing to sacrifice readability for the sake of accuracy.

Let’s stop there. Essentially, Dr. MacArthur is claiming that those who approach translation from a more “thought for thought” perspective are sacrificing accuracy for readability. That statement is not only untrue but irresponsible. Dynamic translators would say they are sacrificing the exact wording and structure of the original language in order to actually translate it more accurately into the language we speak.

Dr. MacArthur goes on:

By its very nature, a translation based on dynamic equivalency requires a high degree of interpretation. The goal of dynamic equivalency is to make the Bible readable, conveying an idea-for-idea rendering of the original. That means someone must first decide what idea is being communicated, which is the very act of interpretation.

First, as Dr. MacArthur himself stated above “every translation involves some degree of interpretation.” Secondly, the primary “goal of dynamic equivalency is” not “to make the Bible readable” as Dr. MacArthur disparagingly suggests, but to make it a more accurate translation of the original meaning into the recipients language. Thirdly, we find the same disparagement of translators interpreting Scripture that Dr. Piper expressed above. And our question is the same: Who better to interpret and translate obscurities in these ancient languages than the foremost scholars of these languages in the world? Dr. MacArthur? Why would we trust him more than they?

Finally, Dr. MacArthur is irresponsible and unnecessarily slanderous when he writes:

How the translators view Scripture becomes extremely important in the final product. Sadly, there are many in the Bible-translation industry who have a low view of the Scripture. They think the Bible is merely a product of man, replete with mistakes, contradictions, and personal biases. Many translators today have also adopted the postmodern idea of elevating the experience of the reader over the intention of the author. They make the contemporary reader sovereign over the text and demote the intended meaning of the historic human writers who were carried along by one divine author (2 Peter 1:19-21).

Therefore, it’s vital that you find a translation that represents what the Holy Spirit actually said as faithfully as possible. Who’s interested in some contemporary translation committee’s spin on what they think contemporary readers want to read? We want to read what the author intended us to read, which is what the Holy Spirit originally inspired.

Who are we to assume make up the “many in the Bible-translation industry who have a low view of the Scripture?” Apparently, “many” of the “contemporary translation committees,” which would obviously include the NIV, NLT, etc. This is a fine way to argue the issue of “literal” vs. “dynamic” Bible translation—just accuse “dynamic” translators of having a low view of Scripture, thinking Scripture is full of mistakes, elevating the experience of the reader over the intention of the author, and desiring to merely put their own “spin” on what people want to read, rather than on what God said. Like we said, inaccurate and irresponsible. Elsewhere we have quoted other similar statements by Dr. MacArthur regarding gender-inclusive translations. [51]

In summary, we would claim for the reasons above that a “dynamic” “thought-for-thought” approach to translation is generally superior to a more “literal” “word-for-word” approach, despite the opinions of several popular and rightly respected Bible Teachers. And our claim will be further demonstrated in the following chapters as well.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

  1. What do we claim is the weaknesses of a “literal” approach to translation? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  2. What is our recommendation regarding paraphrases? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  3. What are the several reasons we believe “dynamic” translation is superior? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  4. What are John Piper’s four “convictions” regarding the superiority of “literal” translations? How do we answer each? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  5. What is our opinion of John MacArthur’s comments on modern Bible translations? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Recommended Reading

  • See those listed here in chapter 15.1.

Publications & Particulars

  1. An excellent and free interlinear Hebrew and Greek Bible can be downloaded or used online at http://www.scripture4all.org/. A printed example of a transliterated Greek text is the Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (Zondervan, 1993). ↑

  2. Therefore, we would disagree with the distinctions made by Michael Marlowe: “For close study the ESV is less suitable than the NASB or NKJV. These latter versions, despite their difficulties and obscurities, continue to be the most useful for detailed and careful study.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html). No doubt, advocates of the ESV would disagree as well, but for other reasons. ↑

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

  4. Not even the more “literal” translations will reflect the passive or aorist tenses of Greek verbs, or wordplays in the original languages. This is where good commentaries can allow us to see these things in the original languages. ↑

  5. Mark L. Strauss, “Form, Function, and the “Literal Meaning” Fallacy in Bible Translation,” .4-5; online at http://www.bible-researcher.com/ Strauss.LiteralFallacy.pdfform. ↑

  6. Gordon Fee and Mark L. Strauss, “It’s All Greek to Me: Translating God’s Word Into Today’s Language”, 7; online at http://www.biblicadirect.com/p-960-its-all-greek-to-me-leaflet.aspx. ↑

  7. Darrell Bock, a widely recognized expert on the Greek text of the Gospel of Luke writes concerning Luke 7:47:

    The parable explains why the woman acted, and her actions testify to the presence of forgiveness, which produced love. Because the woman was forgiven much, she loves much; her love is demonstrated by her actions, so that her great love reflects the presence of great forgiveness. The forgiveness is not a result of the acts; rather, the acts testify to love’s presence in gratitude for the previous granting of forgiveness. The causal oti clause relates love and forgiveness and makes love the evidence of forgiveness. In fact, the reference to forgiveness in the perfect [completed] sense (apheōntai) stresses that she is in a state of forgiveness. Darrell Bock, Luke (BECNT) (Baker, 1994), 703. ↑

  8. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Leland Ryken, James Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. (Intervarsity, 1998), 315. ↑

  9. Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Acts 8:23; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  10. Regarding several more examples of substandard English particularly in the ESV see For many examples of substandard English in the ESV see Mark Strauss, “Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should Not Become the Standard English Version,” Available online at: http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf. ↑

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

  12. Regarding our interpretation of John 3:5 see “Water Baptism” in the Theological Papers section of TrainingTimothys.org. ↑

  13. Marlowe. ↑

  14. Eugene Peterson, quoted by Doug Leblanc in “’I Didn’t Want to Be Cute’, in Christianity Today (Oct 2002); available online at:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/october7/33.107.html?start=2. ↑

  15. Marlowe. ↑

  16. For a description of the advertising campaign for the Message see Marlowe. ↑

  17. Eugene Nida is especially known as the “father of dynamic translation.” He was the Executive Secretary of the Translations Department of the American Bible Society for more than thirty years (1946-1980). Nida’s principal books are Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960); Toward a Science of Translating, with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964); The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1969); and see also the book he later co-authored with Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986). For biographical information see Eugene A. Nida, Fascinated by Languages (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003). For a complete bibliography of Nida’s writings and a discussion of his influence see Philip C. Stine, Let the Words Be Written: The Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida (American Bible Society, 2004).  ↑

  18. David Dewey, A User’s Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions (Intervarsity, 2005), 30 ↑

  19. L. McFall in the ISBE writes concerning the Hebrew language:

    Relatively few words in the OT do not have their counterpart in some other Semitic language. . . . The languages spoken in the Middle East during the historical period dealt with in the Bible have been called Semitic, after Shem the son of Noah from whom the majority of peoples speaking these languages—Arabs, Hebrews, Arameans, and Assyrians (Gen 10:21-31)—were descended. The biblical record and Jewish tradition imply that Hebrew was the original language of mankind. (“Hebrew Language” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), George Bromiley ed. (Eerdmans, 1988), II:657-661.

    Accordingly, we have examples from about 2500 B. C. However, the Hebrew language as we have it in our earliest OT manuscripts dates from around 1200 B. C. In addition, spoken Hebrew became essentially extinct from the Babylonian Captivity (c. 450 B. C.) onward. Accordingly, “it is very likely that Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the spoken language by the 3rd c. B. C., and “whether Hebrew was spoken in NT times is still debated.” Ibid., 660. ↑

  20. Dewey, 30. ↑

  21. “English language,” online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#cite_ref-28. ↑

  22. D. A. Carson, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker, 1998), 50. ↑

  23. Ibid. ↑

  24. Douglas Moo online at: http://www.niv-cbt.org/niv-2011-overview/video-featuring-dr-moo/ ↑

  25. Ronald Youngblood, quoted in Kenneth L. Barker, Accuracy Defined and Illustrated: An NIV Translator Answers your Questions (International Bible Society, 1995), 54. See also the brief explanation by Herbert M. Wolf, “When ‘Literal’ Is Not Accurate,” in The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, edited by Kenneth L. Barker (International Bible Society, 1991), 130. ↑

  26. Strauss, “Form”, 7, 17. ↑

  27. Strauss, “ESV”. ↑

  28. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (Muhlenberg, 1960), 35:193. ↑

  29. Carson, 63, 70. ↑

  30. Quoted by Carson, 63. ↑

  31. Grant Osborne, “Do Inclusive-Language Bibles Distort Scripture?” Christianity Today, October 27, 1997. ↑

  32. Fee and Strauss. ↑

  33. Ibid. ↑

  34. Ibid. ↑

  35. Ibid. ↑

  36. Ibid. ↑

  37. Ibid. ↑

  38. See for example, John Piper, “Good English With Minimal Translation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV”, online at http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/good-english-with-minimal-translation-why-bethlehem-uses-the-esv

    ↑

  39. Ibid. ↑

  40. For dozens of other examples of how the ESV’s adherence to formal equivalency translation obscures the English translation see Strauss, “ESV”. ↑

  41. John Piper, “What Does John Piper Think About the TNIV?”, online at: http://www.desiringgod.org/ resource-library/articles/what-does-john-piper-think-about-the-tniv. ↑

  42. Regarding the “perspicuity [clarity] of Scripture” see section 3.3.A.3. ↑

  43. For the list of translators for the NIV see section 15.4.B.1. For the NLT see section 15.4.C. ↑

  44. Strauss, “Form,” 16-17. ↑

  45. Ibid. ↑

  46. Strauss, “ESV.”

    ↑

  47. J. I. Packer in foreword to Wayne Grudem and J. I. Packer, Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation (Crossway, 2005). ↑

  48. Ibid. ↑

  49. Ibid. ↑

  50. John Piper, “Which Bible Translation is Best?”; online at http://www.gty.org/resources/Questions/QA167/Which-Bible-translation-is-best. ↑

  51. For other exaggerated and even slanderous accusations regarding gender-inclusive translations see section 15.3.B. ↑