Customer Reviews

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

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

 

 

When it comes to the Bible, we, in the English-speaking world, are profoundly blessed for we have at our disposal scores of translations of Scripture. While they range from excellent to abysmal, in many cases even the worst of them is far superior to the best available in any number of other languages. And, of course, we acknowledge that multitudes of languages remain which still have no access at all to God's Word. Certainly we have little cause to complain and every cause to express gratitude to God. We have the luxury and responsibility even, of not just studying the Bible, but of first seeking out the best translation available. And that is increasingly becoming a daunting task as each seems to have its strengths and its weaknesses. Meanwhile, the translation philosophies that bring about such strengths and weaknesses remain hidden to most readers who prefer to leave such discussions in the hands of the academics.

In 2002 Leland Ryken wrote The Word of God in English, a book that laid out the criteria for a superior translation of the Bible into the English language. Though not quite an academic book, neither was it particularly easy reading. Still, it did a good of presenting arguments for what Ryken calls an "essentially literal" approach to translating the Bible. An essentially literal translation is one that strives to translate the exact words of the original-language text but not in such a rigid way as to violate the normal rules of language and syntax in the receptor language. The Word of God in English cemented in my mind the importance of selecting an excellent translation of Scripture and of having confidence that the words we read in the Bible are the words the Author intended for us to read.

Seven years later, Ryken returns with Understanding English Bible Translation. It is shorter and more streamlined than its predecessor and is written for more of a general audience. Also, it is updated, reflecting new realities that have come about even in the past seven years. It is a book that any Christian can read and understand, avoiding the more difficult nuances and focusing primarily on the big-picture. Ryken's purpose is to show once more the superiority of the essentially literal approach to translation and to display the negative consequences of depending upon lesser translation philosophies such as dynamic equivalence or paraphrasing.

Ryken launches a five-pronged attack. In the book's first part, he provides an overview of the issues related to translation and provides answers to common questions associated with translating the Bible. In part two he briefly tells the story of English Bible translation, starting with Wycliffe and continuing to Eugene Peterson and beyond. The third part looks to the two main genres of Bible translation, showing how the two genres are, foundationally, vastly different. They have divergent goals for translation, divergent views of the Bible, divergent views of the Bible's authors, reader and translators, divergent methods of translation and divergent styles of translation. In the fourth part he provides a vision for the ideal English Bible translation before, in part five, showing how an accurate, high-quality translation of the Bible is of critical importance to the life of the church.

Throughout, he argues well. I must say, though, that a weakness remains that, in my mind, threatens to undo his argument and it is this: his definition of an essentially literal translation remains just a little bit too nebulous, a little too subjective. I realize that a brief definition can hardly capture all of the complexities of a translation philosophy, but still, I do wonder at times whether perhaps the lines are just a little too hazy. It seems that any translation is only as strong as its greatest compromise and every translation must in some way compromise the original words. Though this does not hamper the book itself or the issues it introduces, I do feel that it is often lingering in the background but that it goes largely unaddressed.

I am of the opinion that every Christian can benefit from reading a good book on the subject of Bible translation. When we understand the issues faced by translators, and when we then turn to a sound version of the Bible, we have renewed confidence that the words before us are the very words of God. And this, really, is the core of most of Ryken's arguments. He wants Christians to have before them a Bible that accurately conveys the words that God has spoken--not a paraphrase of those words, not an interpretation of them, but simply a translation that, as much as possible, takes the exact words of the original and carries them over to English. One would think that this would not be difficult to come by, but the modern history of English Bible translation shows few versions that adhere to this philosophy.

In Understanding English Bible Translation Ryken argues persuasively that there is much to gain in depending upon an essentially literal translation of Scripture and he argues equally well that there is potential for great loss if we turn instead to dynamic equivalents or other less-stringent translations. The book is suitable for any Christian reader and whether you choose to read this book or another like it, I am convinced you will benefit from understanding the distinctions between the genres and from grappling with the larger issues. In the end I hope, I trust, you will have greater confidence in the Bible you read.

Yes,the title of my review is correct. This is actually an interesting and engaging book about English Bible translation. Ryken has written an accessible volume arguing for a translation which attempts to render in English a translation that stays close to the wording and grammar of the original languages of Scripture. Ryken is at the same time making the case against the dynamic equivalence approach to translation which has grown in popularity through the past several decades. Ryken points out the ways that dynamic equivalence translations, while seeking to be clear to the modern reader, can actually obscure, soften, or oversimplify the text. I was most persuaded in reading this book by Ryken's argument that the culture of the Bible should not be modernized for the sake of clarity, as is often the case in dynamic equivalence translations. Figures of speech and cultural idioms that are simplified often take away much of the richness of the text. Ryken's arguments for the Bible as a literary work befitting its subject matter were also persuasive. The Bible in its original languages does employ exalted language quite often because of its subject matter and Ryken argues that this should not be diminished in our translations.

Where Ryken falls short in this book, in my opinion, was in saying that the line between formal and dynamic equivalence puts all translations into one of two camps. I think a case can be made that the NIV and the HCSB walk a line between the two camps that is a third way in Bible translation. I certainly believe that there is more distance between the NIV and the Message (two dynamic equivalence translations according to Ryken) than between the NIV and the ESV (an essentially literal translation). I personally am more likely to use the NIV or HCSB than the NASB (which I find to be so grammatically unclear that I have trouble reading it). So all dynamic equivalent translations are not created equal and the same is true of essentially literal translations. I am not persuaded that there are two camps. I am convinced that, contrary to Ryken, there really is a continuum or range of translations which value accuracy and clarity to greater or lesser degrees.

With that said, Ryken is a thoughtful and skilled writer and I believe that whether one buys into all of his conclusions or not, this is a worthwhile book which will deepen one's understanding of English Bible translation.

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

By

Leland Ryken

ISBN-10: 1433502798

ISBN-13: 9781433502798



The one who avoids this book due to a fear of it being overly scholarly and hard to understand will certainly make a mistake. While the book is indeed well researched and intelligently written, it is also easy to read and to understand.

Ryken deals with the differences between dynamic equivalent translations of the Bible (those that translate in a more thought by thought manner) and formal equivalent translations (those that attempt to translate word for word).

Ryken claims that an essentially literal translation, or a formal equivalent translation is more to be desired than a dynamic equivalent.

Why? He gives a number of reasons. Two of these reasons stand out to me above all others. One is that the dynamic equivalent translations are not consistent. They vary from one translation to the other so that one is not sure which translation is correct. This leads to a destabilized text. It leads people to wonder which is correct. Another reason is that dynamic equivalent translations often present commentary instead of translation. Thus the reader gets the understanding of the translator, but doesn't always get the understanding of the underlying text.

An essentially literal translation, however, seeks to translate word for word the original language into the receptor language. For the subject at hand, that language is English, because that is the language with which Ryken deals. (As an aside, I read one person who took issue with Ryken because things don't always work as well when translating into languages other than English. Ryken specifically states, however, that he is only dealing with English and understands that other languages present significant challenges in this respect.) With an essentially literal translation, there may be variance in the words used to translate, yet they will still yield basically the same understanding when compared one to the other. An essentially literal translation will also present essentially the same words and phrases as the original texts so that the reader will be reading basically the same thing that the Biblical writers presented to their original readers.

In a day when there is much confusion over Bible translations and translating philosophies this book is a breath of fresh air. I believe it also brings some needed clarity to the debate. I could only wish that everyone saw the need for an essentially literal translation.



(This book provided for review by Crossway Publishers.)

A line of reasoning from Proverbs highlights the importance of Understanding English Bible Translation by Leland Ryken: "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17 ESV). After reading the Essential Guide to Bible Versions (2000) by Philip W. Comfort, I was persuaded about the merits of the translation method known as dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence. Eugene Nida defines this as "the reproduction in a receptor language [i.e. English] of the closest national equivalent of the source language [i.e. Hebrew or Greek] message, first in terms of meaning, and second in terms of style (italics added)."

The difference between dynamic equivalence and the essentially literal philosophy advocated by Ryken is the former seeks to translate "meaning" while the latter is concerned with translating "into something that corresponds to or is identical with the words of the original (subject of course to the changes required by translation from one language into another.)" Whereas the former finds meaning in phrases (thought-for-thought translation), the latter is concerned with preserving the meaning found in the actual words (word-for-word translation).

This may seem rather technical, but it marks a significant change in translation philosophy. As Ryken points out, "The mid-twentieth century saw a paradigm shift in the theory and practice of English Bible translation." Prior to this, the publication of the King James Version, marked "the culmination of nearly a century of profuse Bible translation activity in England." Not only did the KJV translators build upon previous work, they "strove to find an English equivalent for the actual words of the original Hebrew and Greek texts."

Thankfully, the author does not assume a King-James only position, but he does extol it as one of the finest examples of an essentially literal translation. Though it is not the author's primary intent, this is the best defense of the King James Bible that I have read.

The shift in theory from translating words to translating meaning is the foundation of many modern Bibles. What makes this book essential reading is that Ryken shows clearly and convincingly what is lost. It stems from what dynamic equivalent translators do, "consisting of such things as changing syntax and word order, adding exegesis and interpretive commentary to the text, simplifying the content of the original text, removing figurative language from sight, producing a colloquial style for the English Bible, and adapting the translation to the expectations of a target audience."

Ryken does a masterful job of concisely going into detail. His arguments are scholarly but readable. He illustrates changes with specific examples.

He is also charitable to the point of recognizing common ground and recognizing that dynamic equivalent translations have value as commentaries.

This should be required reading for translators and all in Christian leadership. Anyone interested in this subject will profit from this volume. If those on the other side want to defend the thought-for-thought theory of translation, they must convincingly answer the issues raised here.

This has given me new respect for the King James Version and other essentially literal translations. I also see the limitations of translations based on functional equivalence. I welcome the opportunity to read further on this important and fascinating subject, remembering the importance of weighing both sides of an argument.

As I am writing this, Tyndale House is sponsoring a contest to promote the sale of their New Living Translation (NLT). Among the giveaways are several ipads, an ipod, a kindle and a trip to Hawaii! This "Bible Contest and Giveaway" is called "Breakthrough to Clarity." Of course, I entered. I may not be a fan of the NLT, but I am of Apple and Hawaii.

To various degrees marketing influences us all. How healthy an impact it has had on modern society is not for this discussion. However, marketing does enter into our consideration of the history of Bible translation. Marketing puts the emphasis on the consumer. It makes the audience supreme. It was this attention to the audience that led to the great divide between translation theories.

Next year, the King James Version (KJV) will celebrate its 400th birthday. For over 360 years the KJV reigned unrivaled. This changed in 1978 with the debut of the New International Version (NIV). The NIV quickly became a best seller. Leland Ryken, in his book Understanding English Bible Translation suggests the "NIV cornered the market because (a) it was the only viable alternative to the obsolete King James Bible, and (b) marketing and advertising made it irresistibly attractive to the masses" (p. 65).

The Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had the audience in mind from the outset.
A sensitive feeling for style does not always accompany scholarship. Accordingly the Committee on Bible Translation submitted the developing version to a number of stylistic consultants. Two of them read every book of both Old and New Testaments twice--once before and once after the last major revision--and made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various kinds of people--young and old, highly educated and less well educated, ministers and laymen.1

What the NIV did in moderation, later translations did in spades. Are all translations created equal? Obviously, translators take different approaches to the text. Are all these approaches of equal value?

In Understanding English Bible Translation author Leland Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College since 1968, lays out The Case For An Essentially Literal Approach. Understanding English Bible Translation is a follow up to his earlier book The Word of God in English. If you choose to read just one, I suggest reading Understanding English Bible Translation, a more enjoyable, though not as in-depth, read. Be advised, having served as literary stylist for the ESV and as coeditor of the ESV Literary Study Bible, Ryken is not an impartial observer. He states right up front this "is a book about the theory and practice of English Bible translation. Its aim is to clarify the current English Bible translation scene and to present arguments in favor of an essentially literal translation philosophy as being better than dynamic equivalence" (p. 13). I believe he accomplishes what he set out to do.

In Bible translation work, there are two extremes. The King James tradition (starting with Wycliffe and Tyndale and including Cloverdale and Rogers and the Geneva Bible) uses an essentially literal approach to translation known as "verbal equivalence or formal equivalence" (p. 49). This formal approach was continued with the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New King James Version and the English Standard Version. The other end of the translation spectrum is known as "dynamic equivalence" (p. 57). This began with the work of Eugene Nida and is seen first in the Good News Bible, then the New International Version, the New Living Translation, the New Century Version and other more recent translations.

One way Ryken sums up these two extremes is whether the goal of translation work is allegiance to the audience or the author. Eugene Nida is the developer of the dynamic equivalence theory of Bible translation. "One of Eugene Nida's translation principles is `the priority of the needs of the audience over the forms of language.' Nida then caters to readers even more specifically: `the use of language by persons twenty-five to thirty-five years of age has priority over the language of the older people or of children'; `in certain situations the speech of women should have priority over the speech of men'" (p. 74). Here the audience reigns supreme. In a more literal approach, the translators instead strive to find an English equivalent for the actual words of the author (or should we say Author?).

This contrast between formal and dynamic equivalence is clearly demonstrated throughout the book. Ryken builds a very strong argument for the formal approach, demonstrating that many dynamic equivalent translations are essentially paraphrases.

Ryken often backs up his statements by referring directly to the prefaces of the dynamic equivalence translations, thus avoiding putting words in their mouths. He also repeatedly provides examples of dynamic equivalence verse translations and how they differ from the original words of the authors. Using Matthew 6:22-23 as a test case, Ryken quotes from a number of dynamic equivalent translations. His conclusion:

Even a cursory reading of the passages leaves us with an accurate general impression: the translators are continuously nervous about the possibility that readers will be unable to handle the passage accurately and/or easily in its untouched form. As a result, the translators have become commentators as well as translators, constantly tugging at the original text to make it something different from what the original text says: "sunshine into your soul"; "plunges you into darkness"; "dark with sin"; "a window for your body"; "all the light you need"; "open your eyes wide in wonder and belief"; "pull the blinds on your windows." (p.102)

Boxes scattered throughout the book contain very informative quotes from others who have something important to add to the discussion.

Ryken believes that the reader ought to be able to trust a translation to give us an English version of what the original author wrote. An essentially literal translation labors to do just that. He agrees with biblical scholar Raymond Van Leeuwen who states "It is hard to know what the Bible means when we are uncertain about what it says" (p.28).

I recommend this book, especially to those who stand in the aisle at the bookstore agonizing over which translation to choose.

Look in the religious section of any book store and you will generally see multiple translations of the English Bible. Look online and the list of choices is daunting. Do a little research and you will find literally dozens of translations of the English Bible in the 20th century alone, and the list continues to grow. How is a person to choose?

Leland Ryken's "Understanding English Bible Translation" can help.

This is not a book that evaluates individual translations, but rather, translation methods. Ryken's makes the technical process of Bible translation understandable for the non-scholar. He defines terms used in the area of Bible translation that are unfamiliar to most people. These terms that are often found in the preface to Bibles as an explanation of the translation process.

Ryken reduces English Bible translation into two basic approaches: Essentially literal translation and dynamic equivalence. He describes the "essentially literal" approach to translation as one that preserves the literal text of the Bible, yet without without being so rigid that it violates the rules of the English language. He describes the contrasting "dynamic equivalence" approach as one in which equivalent meanings are transferred from the original language into English. Throughout the book he demonstrates how an essentially literal approach stays closer to the original text, while a dynamic equivalence approach allows for broad interpretation on the part of the translator(s).

There is no mystery that Ryken 'believes in' an "essentially literal" approach to Bible translating. In fact, the subtitle of his book is "The Case For An Essentially Literal Approach."

In this book you will find helpful explanations of terminology relating to Bible translating. In addition, you will learn the difference between two basic translation approaches mentioned above. Many examples are used from various translations to illustrate those differences. An added bonus is a survey of the history of English Bible translating. Naturally, this is done in the context of the translation methods used. Even if you favor a departure from the old King James Version (KJV), you will gain an appreciation for a true literary masterpiece.

To make a recommendation for a book such as this I have asked the simple question: Did the author make his case? After all, that is his stated purpose in the subtitle. I considered whether his case was objective, believable, and thorough.

I believe the author was essentially objective. He explained both translation approaches objectively, giving the reader a full understanding of each in multiple areas. Examples from translations were used where appropriate. I did not find an overt preference for or against any particular translation. He kept his attention on the translation approaches.

However, I felt there was an overall bias for the KJV as the base translation for newer translations. Ryken explained that the vast majority of translations begin with an existing English translation as a foundation. The goal is then to make a better translation for today's English reader.

His description of the KJV as a literary masterpiece is not disputed. Yet, I am not convinced that the KJV and its effect on the English-speaking community in the 17th century is the standard by which we are to judge a modern translation in our century. Ryken explained how the KJV elevated the English of its day and was itself instrumental in bring about a more enlightened society of people. While that may be true, I do not believe that is the stated goal of scripture within scripture. I am not sure that we can place such a burden on any modern translation regardless of our current societal status. If the KJV is the English Bible standard, at what point will we simply be translating the KJV and not the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of scripture?

Even with this bias, I believe Ryken was objective and the reader cannot possibly read his book and then sneer at the KJV simply because the English language has changed.

Ryken's book was believable. His credentials clearly qualify him. His writing was well-organized and his reasoning sound throughout. He maintained respect as he made a number of references to individuals who promoted opposing views. He indicated that his examples were limited in number and simply provided an illustration of the points being made. Overall, I believe the examples accurately illustrated his points. However, on a few occasions I found myself re-reading the examples multiple times and ultimately concluding that the example was, at best, weak. Again, this was only a few times and I would certainly admit that it was perhaps due to my own lack.

I believe that Ryken was quite thorough even though the book is relatively short. However, there was one glaring exception. Ryken failed to address the importance of the 'essential literal' translation in the area of prophecy. Let me explain.

One of the strongest points in the book is the idea that a more literal English text allows the reader of the Bible to stay close to what the writers actually wrote. The English reader is given "full exegetical potential." In contrast, translators using a dynamic equivalence approach often remove the exegetical potential by providing an 'interpretation' instead of a translation. The English reader has no real potential for knowing the actual expressions written by biblical writers, only the translator's interpretation.

Ryken makes this point vividly with examples from both the Old and New Testaments. However, he fails to develop his case based on the Old Testament prophets. Some terminology used in the New Testament can only be understood in light of its usage in the Old Testament. A dynamic equivalence approach can easily mask or loose this critical connection. I was disappointed that Ryken did not address Old Testament prophecy as I believe it would have made his case even stronger.

In the end, did the author make his caes? Yes, I believe he did, though it could have been stronger.

Will he convince every reader? No, but even those who favor the dynamic equivalence approach to translating will benefit from the information presented in this book.

Overall, I benefited greatly from Ryken's book. I can highly recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about translation methods. It will equipped the reader to make his/her next translation choice with greater knowledge and wisdom.

His new tome might be called How to Find the Best Bible Translation for the Confused, but Leland Ryken - a topnotch scholar (he is not a biblical language scholar; James White is such and authored a book that may interest readers) - is on to something extremely important. Exhortations and directions on handling the Word of God are useful and necessary. Ryken delivers the evidence and the arguments for the case of a literal translation of the Greek text to English. With the overabundance of English Bibles, many pastors and lay people are often confused when shopping for a Bible.

The author is committed to Scripture as God's Word and offers engaging, rational, historical, and scriptural evidence to utilize for discernment in selecting an English Bible to read and study.

Powerful, yet appealing and very readable. I commend the author and recommend this work for all believers including ministers and bible teachers.
God Does Exist!: Defending the faith using presuppositional apologetics, evidence, and the impossibility of the contrary