Customer Reviews

How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Which Bible translation do you use?

In the early years of the Twentieth Century, the answer to that question was simple and obvious: the King James Version. In the middle of the Twentieth Century, however, readers had two major choices: the KJV and the Revised Standard Version. By the early 1970s; they had four: KJV, RSV, the New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version--not to mention Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible paraphrase. Now we have such a proliferation of Bible translations that choosing just one is a real chore.

In How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss give us "a guide to understanding and using Bible versions," as the subtitle puts it. Fee is a world-renowned New Testament scholar and Assemblies of God minister. With Douglas Stuart he authored How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (now in its third edition) and How to Read the Bible Book by Book. Strauss is professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary in San Diego, California. Both are members of the Committee for Bible Translation that produced Today's New International Version.

Let me explain why I am personally interested in this issue. For some time, I have struggled with which translation to use. I grew up with the NIV, but it has a number of features that bug me. One is its persistent translation of Paul's concrete language with abstractions. "Flesh" becomes "sinful nature" in Galatians. "Walk" becomes "live" in Ephesians. The meaning of "flesh" in Galatians is "sinful nature," just as the meaning of "walk" is "live" in Ephesians, but I prefer the concrete metaphor over the abstraction.

Recently, the English Standard Version (basically, a conservative update of the RSV) has been gaining ground among evangelicals. (The preaching team of James River Assembly of God uses it, for example, as does John Piper.) Leland Ryken, my college English professor, has written an extended explanation and defense of the translation theory underlying the ESV in his book, The Word of God in English. For a time, I found his reasoning persuasive. But the ESV doesn't live up to the hype, in my opinion. It retains the concrete images in Galatians and Ephesians, but sometimes it uses clunky syntax and archaic vocabulary. (Instead of "rainbow" in Genesis 9, for example, it uses "bow.")

The TNIV and NRSV follow the translation philosophies of the NIV and ESV, respectively, but with one crucial difference. They are "gender inclusive," "gender neutral," or "gender accurate." So, instead of translating Psalm 1 as "Blessed is the man...," for example, they translate it, "Blessed are they..." Similarly, the New Testament vocative, "brothers" becomes "brothers and sisters." And "man" becomes "human beings" or "mortals." This is either political correctness run amok or accurate translation, depending on your translation philosophy.

The difference between the NIV/TNIV and ESV/NRSV is the difference between "formal equivalence" and "functional equivalence." Formal equivalence translations seek to reproduce the form of the translation at the level of vocabulary and syntax. Functional equivalence translations seek to reproduce the meaning. So, while the ESV/NRSV both translate sarx as "flesh" in Galatians," which is the formally equivalent term, the NIV/TNIV both translate it as "sinful nature," which is its approximate meaning.

Fee and Strauss offer a brief articulation and defense of the functional equivalence theory of translation. They argue: "The goal of translation is to reproduce the meaning of the text, not the form." Furthermore: "the best translation is one that remains faithful to the original meaning of the text, but uses language that sounds as clear and natural to the modern reader as the Hebrew or Greek did to the original readers."

In the course of articulating and defending this theory, Fee and Strauss walk the reader through the thicket of issues translators must face: picking the right words, translating figurative language, dealing with the idiosyncrasies of Greek grammar, bridging cultural gaps between then and now, accurately translating gender, making correct text-critical decisions, and translating for audiences with varying reading levels and vocabularies. I put down this book with a lot more appreciation of what translators do, even if I don't always agree with their specific translations of this or that verse.

While I basically agree with Fee and Strauss regarding the correctness of their translation philosophy (i.e., meaning over form), I do wonder whether some of the translation choices functional equivalence translations make are really necessary. Fee and Stuart regularly write that modern readers just wouldn't understand this or that idiom if it were translated in a formally equivalent way. They have a right to their opinion, but I wonder if fair-minded readers of Galatians are really so confused by "flesh" in Galatians and "walk" in Ephesians. Even if functional equivalence is the right philosophy, in other words, it doesn't always make the right translation. Sometimes, it overinterprets the text for the reader and in doing so misses out on something else the text is trying to communicate. By translating sarx as "sinful nature," for example, the NIV/TNIV misses Paul's word play about the circumcision party. They cut the "flesh" (i.e., the foreskin) in pursuit of a form of justification that is based on the "flesh" (i.e., sinful nature). This wordplay was present to the original Greek readers but is totally absent to English readers today, unless they're reading the ESV or NRSV.

Of course, some figurative language must be explained. Even the ESV flattens out metaphors now and then. And it does not attempt to translate Paul's one-sentence doxology in Ephesians 1:3-14 as one sentence in English. In other words, translations make choices, and unless you expect every parishioner in your church to know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, you'll just have to live with these choices.

The important thing is for all of us to realize that such choices need to be made--trading off literalness here for intelligibility there--and to be gracious when translations make choices different than our own. In pursuit of such grace, Fee and Strauss's book is an excellent resource.

Which type of Bible translation is better: formal equivalent (essentially literal) or functionally equivalent (used to be called dynamic equivalence)? That's what "How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth" is about. It should be mentioned that Fee was on the translation committee for the TNIV (a functionally equivalent version). And I'll also mention that Fee is the author of many superb books, including the excellent volumes on 1 Corinthians and Philippians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) series.

"How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth" comes out swinging as the first four pages of the book contain a series of endorsements by some very respected and beloved authors, including D.A. Carson, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Bruce Waltke, Tremper Longmann III, and Daniel I. Block. With these endorsements, this book couldn't be bad, and it isn't. It's quite good and I really enjoyed reading it.

When you see the title of this book along with its subtitle ("A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions"), you would think that the book is just a guide of the strengths and weaknesses of various Bible versions. But it is more.

Fee and Strauss have a preference. This preference is clearly stated in the conclusion to Chapter 8: "Biblical translation involves the transfer of the meaning of words originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into functionally equivalent words in English." But you don't have to wait until Chapter 8 to learn that. From the beginning of the book they make their case for the superiority of functionally equivalent translations and, while I learned many things, I disagree with their preference.

I own approximately 30 Bible translations, from the KJV to the NCV, from the RV to the NLT. When I study I use many different ones, and the more I study, the more I like formal equivalent translations, and (in my opinion) the more I find that they are more accurate.

Case in point. I am currently reading the New American Commentary (NAC) on Judges by Daniel I. Block (who is one of the endorsers of the book under review). It's interesting that the NAC series prints the NIV (a somewhat functionally equivalent translation, referred to as "mediating" in this book) in the commentaries, but the authors are free to comment on the NIV text and how accurate it is to the original languages. Time and again Block points out where the NIV translates incorrectly and he gives his own translation. When this happens, I look it up in the NASB and ESV and the majority of the time both match Block's translation.

If I was stranded on that proverbial island and could have only one Bible translation, it would be (in this order): the NASB, ESV, and NKJV - all formal equivalent translations. However, since I'm not on that island, after reading "How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth," I went out and purchased a copy of the TNIV. Go figure.

This is an excellent book and I would have given it 5 stars if the title or subtitle accurately described the contents. I would suggest leaving the title as is but changing the subtitle to "The Case for Functionally Equivalent Bible Translations."

If you want the other side of the debate, you can try "Translating Truth; The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translations" by Collins or "The Word of God in English" by Ryken.

Fee and Strauss have hit a home run (idiom) with this book. Translation is hard work and they have demonstrated that well. There are many books out on this subject, but this one will become the standard for many years. While no translation is perfect and all have places where they could be cleaned up, they have demonstrated how the different translational models work in trying to make the Bible understandable. While formal equivalence gives a word for word whenever possible, it does not always give a true meaning where as functional equivalence will get to the meaning behind the words.
I think we tend to spend too much time arguing about words when the meaning behind the words is what really matters.
While Fee was a member of the Committee on Bible Translation which produced the TNIV, he is able to honestly evaluate the others versions as well as the TNIV in a balanced way.
The TNIV is a mediating translation between the two theories seeking to maintain a balance between form and function. I think the TNIV and this book will be a standard in dealing with translation and translation theory for a long, long time.
Thanks to Fee and Strauss for a most helpful and insightful book.

One of the most controversial topics in modern Protestant Christianity is Bible translations (i.e. those that are good and those not so good). For instance, some believe that one translation is better than another, even possibly more inspired. Others may not care. In this book, Fee and Strauss work well together as they explain the importance on translations and how a Christian can determine what defines a good translation. After all, if God's Word is living and active, reading it in an accurate form using today's language has got to be important. The writing in the book does get a little scholarly in some areas, as the writers use some specific wording and language jargon that can be a little confusing for those not versed in the subject. Hence, I would not recommend this book to most of my high school students because many of them would not find the presentation very interesting. Yet understanding more about the differences in translations is going to take a little work. I recommend mature Bible readers picking up this book to study the 157 pages so, the next time the topic of Bible translation comes up, they will be fully educated on the matter.

My wish would be that every Christian read this book, barring that at least every Minister and Pastor. I was blown away by its easy readability, concise detail of translation issues yet in-depth coverage of such a complicated topic! If only it were possible to give this gem 10 stars!

After reading some negative reviews of this work, I couldn't help but add my own comments. At first I couldn't understand what some of them were complaining about. Then it dawned on me that they had one thing in common: a dislike of dynamic equivalence,thought for thought, translations. As such I felt these negative reviewers missed the point Fee and Strauss are trying to make. First of all, of course they like dynamic equivalence translating. After all they worked on the NIV and TNIV. However, the point of their book is not that dynamic equivalence translations are the only ones to read.

Read what they say carefully and you will see that they find fault with both word for word and thought for thought methods of translation. (See their chart on page 34.)

One reviewer even commented that their preference for thought for thought was in error and cited an example from Romans. He or she got that form a book by Leland Ryken. The example is based on a metaphor where in that culture a sword stood for the power and authority of the political office. One reference that I found even stated that a sword or dagger could be presented to the "governor" when he was officially assigned his office. Given that fact I suspect there is room to translate the thought here. It should also be pointed out that a literal translation could be either sword or dagger. Therefore, I'm not sure you could argue that "sword" is the only translation that should be used in this case. After all Trajan presented a dagger to his appointees, according the source I have.

Fee and Strauss are recommending that one not rely on only one translation or type of translation. Their book provides excellent insight into what problems exist for the translator as he or she attempt to convert Hebrew and Greek into understandable English, and the key word is understandable. In the example above, it is perfectly adequate to translate that word as sword. However,would some miss the point and think Paul is referring to his own pending death sentence? Is Paul even under arrest at the time he wrote Romans? Some scholars think this letter represents an earlier desire to go there that was, ironically, filled when he was arrested and taken before the Emperor. There is even debate about whether or not he was released after the events detailed in Acts.

Besides the point of "How to Choose a Translation...." is that one method is not the only one to use. All translations have their weaknesses. I read Ryken's book too and the striking difference between it and this work is that Fee and Strauss present examples of poor translating form both word for word and thought for thought works. Read carefully and you will find that they even present examples of thought for thought translating in those word for word works, while Ryken can only praise word for word translating and criticize thought for thought work.

Martin Luther once wrote that: The words of the Hebrew tongue have a peculiar energy. It is impossible to convey so much so briefly in any other language. To render them intelligibly we must not attempt to give word for word, but only aim at the sense and the idea.

Luther would have loved what Fee and Strauss are saying in this book. Translating the Bible is a challenge and they have given us insight into that challenge. I have read this book three times and will probably read it again. It is the best work I have read on selecting a translation. It doesn't answer the question about which one is the best one or which one is the word of God. However, it clearly agrees with the translators of the KJV who state in the preface to the 1611 edition:

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

They are all the word of God,even the "meanest" according to the KJV preface. Which is the best to read? All of them. In fact, I remember reading a quote from Billy Graham somewhere. Asked which one is the best to read, Graham is said to have replied that the one you can understand was the best translation to read.

Fee and Strauss do a great job of defining the kinds of problems translators encounter as they try to convert Hebrew and Greek into understandable English. They explain the problem of deciding which words to pick in converting original words into English, problems faced as translators try to deal with figures of speech and problems in what to do in order to convey culturally bound terms into modern English that will give the reader an idea about what the original authors were talking about.

I highly recommend this book. I am sure some will not appreciate what Fee and Strauss have done here. After all, it is like learning what actually goes into a hot dog. Some never want to eat one again. Others will be delighted to know what they are eating. However, if you want to understand why translation is such a complex process that calls for decision making and interpretation on the part of the translator, you will love this book.

If you are looking for a book on Bible translation that is up to date and packed with a wealth of information, your search is over, this is it! This book will give you the skill you need to choose a translation. This is a must read for anyone interested in translation!

but the reviewer who concludes that Fee and Strauss's position is "indefensible" based on one example--Romans 13:4 in the NLT--has really missed the point.

If you want to use Romans 13:4 as a proof-text supporting capital punishment (by the way, I believe in the legitimacy of capital punishment), then this passage in the NLT will disappoint you. But if you want to understand Paul's exhortation to believers that they obey the governmental authorities, which is the point of the passage, then the NLT is perfectly adequate. (If the only governmental punishment that would deter your disobedience is the death penalty, then you probably don't care much what Paul has to say, anyway.)

The reviewer simply hasn't grasped the fundamental difficulty facing the translator, which this book lays out so cogently: the tension between accuracy and clarity. And this is strange, because judging from his spelling and syntax, English is apparently not the reviewer's native language, so he should understand better than most why there can be no such thing as a literal translation.

This book has a broad overview of Biblical translations since the 1600's. It is clearly written, in language of laymen. Perhaps the most valuable information is the de-bunking of many myths of translations, and insight into the practice of creating God's word in English.

This book on biblical translation is co-authored by New Testament scholars Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss. It is the latest in a series of related books: _How To Read The Bible Book By Book_ (2002) and _How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth_ (2003).

In the first two books, Douglas Stuart was co-author with Fee. If numbers tell the whole story, the second book has served the Christian readership best. There are more than half a million copies of this volume in print which, I believe, is in its third edition.

The third offering in the series, _How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth_ (2007), is a primer on biblical translation. The authors come from a conservative Christian perspective. They affirm that the Bible is God's word (p. 20). Yet they do not agree with conservative Christians who may tend to view "literal" translations as the be-all end-all in Bible translation. Say Fee and Strauss, "There is a common perception among Bible readers that the most accurate Bible translation is a `literal' one. By literal they usually mean one that is `word-for-word,' that is, one the reproduces the form of the original Greek or Hebrew text as closely as possible. Yet anyone who has ever studied a foreign language soon learns that this is mistaken." (p. 26) The goal of translation according to the authors is to reproduce a text's meaning, not to duplicate its form (p. 49).

The authors explain the two main approaches to Bible translation: formal and functional equivalence. Formal equivalent translations (e.g., KJV) try to retain the original form of the Bible as found in the Greek and Hebrew texts. They aim to find a form in the receptor language that is equivalent to the form in the source language. Functional equivalent translations (e.g., NLT) are meaning-based. They are more interested in translating the meaning of the original text into the receptor language in a way that is natural to the readers. Mediating translations (e.g., NIV) are somewhere in the middle. In truth, the form-function dichotomy is more of a gradient. All translations lie somewhere between the poles of formal and functional equivalence.

In the process of explaining how Bible translation works, the authors drive a number of helpful points home including the important observation that all translation involves interpretation (p. 31, 49). Translation is, after-all, the transfer of meaning from one language to another, not the transfer of words. Translation and transculturation should not, however, be confused. The former transports the reader to the world of the original text. The latter transports the text to the world of the reader (p. 33).

Another helpful point is that a word does not have a literal meaning. Christians who attend Bible studies have most likely heard a Bible teacher say something like, "The literal meaning of this Greek word is..." Yet a word has a semantic range of meanings that includes a "primary sense" (the word's most common meaning). But a word does not have a literal meaning (p. 47).

The four main criteria that Fee and Strauss believe translations should adhere to are accuracy, clarity, naturalness, and audience appropriateness. This latter criterion refers to things like the reading level and style of the translation (pp. 38-42).

To sum up the authors' translational philosophy in a nutshell, "meaning must take precedence over form" and "...a `literal' translation of words is neither desirable nor possible." (p. 59)

Fee and Strauss use a large number of biblical examples throughout to help readers understand translational principles. There are also brief chapters on textual criticism and the history of English Bibles.

_How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth_ deals with a subject that is cryptic to many Christians, if not plain boring. Yet the book makes translation philosophy accessible to the intelligent and motivated lay reader. The chapters are quite brief and really just wet the reader's appetite. Helpful recommended reading lists appear at the end of each chapter.

I would recommend this book to any Christian with no knowledge of Bible translation theory. A basic knowledge will serve the Christian well in the area of Bible study and apologetics.