Customer Reviews

Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The 5 authors were on the team that produced the ESV. They take a position that their translation method (their term is "essentially literal") is preferred. They show bad examples of translations from paraphrase versions like The Message and good examples from the ESV and others they see as similar. They show a mixed bag from the NIV and TNIV of both good and bad examples, but one should know that the NIV is a main competitor to the ESV. I agree with all the examples they give.

They also claim that ambiguous words should be left ambiguous, which I also agree with. In some sense, this book is an extended (positive) ad for the ESV, or failing that, similar translations like NASB and a (negative) ad for the NIV and anything even less "essentially literal".

A concern I have is that they do not seem to see that even their translation involves interpretation and commentary by the understandings they have and the word choices they make. For example, they are complementarian, so do not expect any verses to use an egalitarian word choice or understanding. One needs to be aware when reading any translation that all translations involve interpretation and should be seen as the translators attempt to get you to more easily agree with their interpretation, whatever it is.

They do not discuss the Concordant Literal Version, which takes their method even further than they do, perhaps because it is not very well known.

Overall, I think it is a great book. One thing that I noticed is that they mostly mention the NIV in a negative way when comparing translations. There are a number of times when the ESV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NKJV and KJV are contrasted to the problems in the NCV and Message, yet if the NIV agrees with the former translations, it is not mentioned. I think in fairness, they should have pointed out where the NIV was correct. I still think it is an essential work on the Bible version debate.

With a discussion format, Translating Truth helps greatly with one of today's problems: wading through all the Bible versions which continue to be produced, and deciding which ones are best. The publisher introduces the theme by saying, "The words of the Bible are the very words of God, and so the work of translating these words is of utmost importance, with eternal consequences." (page 7)

The translations are divided into three categories: (1) word-for-word or essentially literal; (2) thought-for-thought or dynamic equivalent; (3) exposition-for-text or expanded paraphrase. Firmly on the side of essentially literal, several authors consider why this is best discussing such themes as: are only some words of Scripture breathed by God; what readers want and what translators can give; considering different types of translators; truth and fullness of meaning; revelation versus rhetoric. The essayists include theology professors, Christian authors, and Christian historians. More than 20 translations are referred to within. Several chapters end with helpful bibliographies. Closing materials include a general index and a Scripture index.

Translating Truth is an interesting book which whets the appetite for more information on this subject. It engenders thought, debate, and a desire to read and learn from the Bible. - Donna Eggett, Christian Book Previews.com

I long have been a supporter of the literal translation (or as the English Standard Version puts it "essentially literal."). Having been a disciple of Jesus Christ since 1992, I first grew in grace (2 Peter 3:18) using the NIV along with many others. The church I attended, however, used the New King James Version. The NIV and the NKJV were world's apart! Then I attended Bible college where the required Bible was the New American Standard (NASB). Again I found the NIV, the NASB, and the NKJV to be vastly different.

In 1996 the New Living Translation came on the scene. At the time I was a youth pastor and begin to use the NLT to teach the teens. However, I soon found the New Living Transltion to be very free in its translation and it just didn't seem biblical.

Have you felt the way I felt? Many Christians get confused with so many different Bible translations now on the market in the English language. While millions of disciples in China long for one Bible, we have hundreds in many different styles. In fact far too often the Bibles in America represent lifestyles rather than God's truth. We have come a long way from the days of a literal translation such as the King James Version in 1611 to now dynamic equivalent's such as the NIV or the New Living. What we need is some wisdom on what Bible translation is best.

This book is such a book. TRANSLATING TRUTH offers a look not only at the English Standard Version (ESV) but also all literal translations such as the New American Standard, the New English Translation (NET), or the New King James. It helps you to see why an essentially literal Bible is the best. It offers a candid look at the NIV and the New Living and why they simply are not good translations.

Overall this is a solid work and features some great writers such as Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, and John Collins. Your knowledge of the Bible will grow and you will won't to purchase a literal translation when you are done.

If you are interested in Bible translation then this book will be of great interest. Yes the writers firmly have the ESV in mind but i do not think that in any way clouds their argument.
This puts the case for a literal word for word English Bible translation. They use many examples, argue fairly and make many interesting points. The book reads well for such a technical (at times) discussion. They acknowledge that all English Bibles are in some ways interpretations but their case is; lets try and minimize our input and leave the reader to make their minds up as to meanings and ambiguities.

If you are of the opinion that the Bible is the word of God then by the time you have read this book you may have some strong feelings about such translations such as The Message, the NLT and such like. regardless of what "camp" you may be in this is a challenging read and well worth the effort.

This is the clearest, most user-friendly explanation of the differences between Bible translations that I have found. I heartily recommend it. Whatever the reader's background and level of experience, an article here will help them understand how Bible translators work and think, and how that process affects the Bible they read. Beginning with the simplest, easiest-to-understand explanation of the difference between essentially literal and dynamic equivalence translations, the book gradually increases in difficulty, with the final article providing details for those who are already familiar and are more analytical. Of special interest is the case study of the translation of 1 John.

This is worth every word on understanding why literal translations, or even "Essentially Literal" translations are worth our time. They also help in discerning some common misconceptions about the ESV and NIV that enrich our desire to learn from the Bible. It also addresses some common objections in very helpful ways in regards to Paraphrased translations. I would recommend reading this by anyone, especially those who do not care for the ESV, people who burn every bible but the KJV, and those who do not understand why literal or essentially literal translations are worth the library budget.

C. John Collins, Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, Vern S. Poythress, Leland Ryken, Bruce Winter, Translating Truth, The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation, Crossway Books, 2005, 157 pp.

4.5
I ordered Translating Truth expecting a defence of strict literalness in translating the Bible from the original languages into English. When I read the forward by J.I. Packer I feared that the book was only a justification for the newly released (2001) English Standard Version and that it would not address the larger issues of translating the Bible. I was wrong both times; Translating Truth does not defend literalness, nor was just it a justification for the ESV.
Because this book is a compilation of papers presented to the Evangelical Theological Society in November of 2004, there really are five authors, thus a need for five separate reviews of their five separate papers, on five separate topics. Each author addressed topics that bear on biblical translation, but topics that differ from each other.
Dr. Grudem addressed the idea of a "essentially literal" Bible translation from the standpoint of what the Bible has to say about itself in his article titled Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God?. Over and over, the Bible says "God spoke," "God said," "the Word of the Lord," and similar phrases. While Dr. Grudem does not argue for a word-for-word translation, he does argue convincingly for the "essentially literal", vs. the "thought-for thought" method adopted by many modern translations of the Bible. The idea of the thought-for-thought translators is that many of the idioms used in the Bible are no longer used by modern speakers or readers, thus the need for translations that adapt the thought of the author into words that today's readers would use or understand. The essentially literal translations adopt the position that if we do not faithfully render the very words of God as He gave them, how do we have even the thoughts of God?
Dr. Grudem used the Bible to argue for the essentially literal method of translation. Starting with 2 Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" 2 Peter 1:20-21 "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God," and Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is tested; ...," the words of the Bible itself argue for word-for-word rather than thought-for-thought, although there are expressions in the Bible that do not allow word-for word translation, but do require an accurate idiom.
This argument for a literalist translation (not to say wooden, or stilted) is probably the most convincing of all the arguments in the book, and should be so for those with a high view of Scripture. There are other arguments taken up by the other translators for the ESV project, but this is the best of them all.
Leland Ryken wrote the second chapter of the book: Five Myths About Essentially Literal Bible Translation. The first myth (pg 58) Ryken busts is that he and the other translators are guilty of "word worship and idolatry." Because the literal meaning of the words of God are used, the ESV translators were charged by some with bibliolatry and word worship. This idea Dr. Ryken refutes. Then there is myth two, that literalness in translation is naïve. Here the book goes from its high point to its low point. Dr. Ryken picked up the gauntlet of "naivete" (pg. 60, footnote 7) thrown out by D.A. Carson and hurled it back with fullness of force. His basic argument is correct, but he chose to stoop to the ad homonym level of his accusers in refuting this myth. There were three other, similar, myths that Ryken refuted.
The third chapter was written by C. John Collins, What the Reader Wants and the Translator Can Give. Dr. Collins gave First John as a test case for essentially literal translation. Collins noted that the discussion about Bible translation has been vigorous, and said "that is what it should be," (emphasis in the original, pg 77). He cited teaching Latin to his children, and how difficult it is to make the meaning of the original clear to the uninitiated. Collins introduced a triangular paradigm (pg. 84) for the traditional linear model from "literal" to "dynamic" modes of translation, noting that even the terms used will vary by the predisposition of the speaker. Collins then proceeded to point out the weaknesses of the New International Version (NIV) where the translators have made editorial decisions about the meaning of the text and have chosen to eliminate the vagueness and the ambiguity of the Scripture, and choose one meaning from all possible choices. This means that some of the repetitions are eliminated, the parallels are abolished, and the richness of the text is sacrificed (pg 105).
This is the only chapter with a bibliography (I love bibliographies) to point the reader to the sources used, and supplies of wisdom that are available. On a topic of such importance, and considering that these were papers presented to the Evangelical Theological Society (2004), one should expect a good bibliography, in addition to thorough footnotes.
In chapter four, I was surprised that Vern Sheridan Poythress put the translators of the ESV in opposition to Roman Catholicism, saying "We experience such pressure from Roman Catholic interpretation, from historical-critical interpretation, from wildly subjective and fanciful readings of the Bible, and--not least--from comparisons with the rigor, objectivity, and exactitude of modern science," (Pg. 113). There is a need for explaining the reasoning for another translation, and the rigors that modern translation theory place on that process, but why go out of the way to poke a stick in the eye of Catholicism? They could be, should be, our allies in translating truth! We do share a mutually agreed upon Greek corpus: Novum Testamentum Graece, or the UBS The Greek New Testament 4th edition !
Poythress' and Bruce Winter's articles were the most difficult to understand because they are the most theoretical in the treatment of languages and translation. I am sure the articles are meaningful to language specialists, but to a theologian these concepts are obscure; necessary, I am sure, but obscure nonetheless. Poythress went into symbolic logic and simplification in structural linguistics (pg. 116) and the history of philology (pg. 117-134) including the modern work of Eugene Nida in semantic domains. Winter's article (pg.135) defended the simplicity of Scripture, against the complications of inserting commentary into the sacred text. It was partially the harmonizing and inclusion of marginalia into the Textus Receptus documents that inserted errors into the King James Version. Thus the ESV is not a commentary on the meaning of the words of the Bible (like the NIV), but sticks to the essence of giving of the words of God in the best and most readable English possible, the simplicity of the Gospel.
Paul told the Corinthians that he wrote to them in the simplicity of the Gospel, and not with rhetoric or worldly wisdom (2 Cor 2:1-5 [pg. 141]). The rhetoric of the New Testament is not complex or hard to follow; it is the very truth of God, the mind of Christ. Yet we hear the voice of Peter complaining that some of the writings of Paul are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Even the prophets of old enquired and searched diligently the things which the Holy Spirit revealed to them about salvation, and the angels longed to looking the matters concerning salvation(1 Peter 1:10-12).
May we continue to look into the things of God, hear the voice of God, and follow His Word

Timothy Mills
Pastor, Whitton Baptist Church
Tyronza, AR 72386
[...]
Mid America Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000 Alum

Grudem and company, have done us a favor in taking on the issue of correctness and obedience to ethical norms in Bible translations.

The 'dynamic-equivalents', such as The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary Language by Peterson, fall short of the litmus test. They divulge the author's lack of respect for God's inspired Word, and lack of faithfulness to its purity. The literal, word-for-word versions have a strong case for upholding the perfect, completed Word of God.

'And in terms of the history of English Bible translations, dynamic equivalence is almost wholly a modern phenomenon.' p 63

Bruce Winter lays the same charge against the Corinthian leadership: 'By 1st century reckoning Paul had adopted an anti-rhetorical stance, and, in doing so, had clearly bucked the latest fad. To the fastidiously demanding Corinthians, ignoring the grand style would have been unthinkable, but in 1 Cor 1-4 Paul defends his reasons for it as part of a wider critique of the cult of Christian leadership in Corinth.' pp. 142-143 Understanding this rejection as at the heart of Paul's methodology, Winter elsewhere expresses the same conviction: 'To understand this issue in the last four chapters in Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, we need to cast our minds back to a critical discussion in 1 Cor 1-4, where Christians themselves had wheeled into the midst of their church in Corinth a Trojan horse that was the cult of secular leadership.' Preach the Word p 94

Corinthian behavior reveals that they are influenced more by human wisdom than by God's wisdom.

When demonstrating what they consider the inferior translation methodology (dynamic or functional) the writers zero in on the New Living Translation. The problem is that their criticisms (some of which I heartily agree with) applies to the older edition of the text. The NLT was updated in 2004 and this book was released in 2005!! I understand that when the book was authored the criticism applied, but since its publication, the NLT has been replaced in most stores by the 2004 edition. The newer edition has made a number of improvements in light of the criticism when it first appeared. Therefore this book's arguements are already dated when it was released. They should have relized this and went back and changed the references to the NLT. One wonders how much changing would need to be done in order to make their criticisms applicable to the newer NLT. Maybe because the changes would be so extensive that they went ahead and released this book anyway. It is a moot point, the book's criticism's against the older NLT edition is no longer applicable. People are updating their copy of the NLT with the newer 2004 edition!