Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The Complete Guide to Bible Translation-2

ABBREVIATIONS OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 160 books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

AMP Amplified Bible
CEV Contemporary English Version
ESV English Standard Version
GNB Good News Bible
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
JB Jerusalem Bible
KJV King James Version
MESSAGE The Message
NASB New American Standard Version
NCV New Century Version
NEB New English Bible
NIV New International Version
NIVI New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
NKJV New King James Version
NLT New Living Translation
NLV New Life Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
PHILLIPS New Testament in Modern English
REB Revised English Bible
RSV Revised Standard Verison
SEB Simple English Bible
TLB The Living Bible
TNIV Today’s New International Version
UASV Updated American Standard Version

We are going to take on the blog article In What Beginning?! (Audio Version) Posted on August 7, 2021, by Trent Wilde. I will give you his blog as a whole first and then deal with it thereafter. His material will be indented. In addition, we will be looking at translation philosophy.

Trent Wilde Writes

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” King James Version of Genesis 1:1

Is this the best way to translate the opening clause of Genesis? It’s certainly how the vast majority of English translations have done it since Wycliffe’s translation back in the 14th century. But, of course, the fact that something is standard doesn’t mean it is correct. A few more recent translations have rendered the verse, “When God began to create heaven and earth.” To my knowledge, this first showed up Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures published by Jewish Publication Society (1985), but it is also the wording used by Robert Alter in his The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, which has been considered by some to be the most significant translation of the Hebrew Bible since the KJV.

Obviously, there is no one correct way to translate and it’s extremely difficult (and often impossible) to capture all the nuances of a text in a translation. Thankfully, we aren’t stuck with only one translation and, when translations differ on a phrase, it doesn’t mean that one is entirely right and the other entirely wrong. Differing translations sometimes each capture something in the text that other translations miss while missing something that others capture. But this also doesn’t mean that we can just combine every nuance from every translation and think we better understand the text. The only way to really measure to what extent a translation is accurate is to compare it to the original. Furthermore, comparison to the original is also the only way to know which nuances accurately reflect the text when we have discrepancies in the meaning of different translations.

Take the two main translations we’re looking at:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV – and most other translations)
When God began to create heaven and earth (JPS-1985 and Alter)

Focusing on the first phrase, what is the difference in meaning here? There are several differences. First, “In the beginning” is commonly interpreted as though we have a particular and definite point of time being referenced; that is, “the beginning” (in a cosmic sense) and that in that cosmic beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. On the other hand, the phrase “When God began to create heaven and earth” conveys something quite different. The time being referred to is tethered to an event – the creation of heaven and earth. And the word “began” here is used to refer to the beginning of that event – the beginning of the process of creating heaven and earth. As you can see, these two translations convey two very different ideas regarding the “beginning.” One speaks of “THE beginning” as a distinct period of time that can be referred to merely by saying “the beginning.” The other translation lacks this notion, but communicates that it is the beginning “of” something. Another way to understand this nuance is to take note of the fact that in the KJV-type translation, the creation of the heaven and the earth is something that takes place within a larger time known as “the beginning” while in the JPS/Alter translation, it is just the reverse; the “beginning” is the initial slice of time within the process of God creating heaven and earth.

There are other differences as well, such as the fact that, in most translations (following the KJV), Genesis 1:1 is a complete sentence in itself while in the alternative translation, Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of a sentence that continues on into the next verse. But for this post, let’s just focus on the first phrase. What is the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 describing? Is it talking about a definite period of time called “the beginning” in which God created the heaven and the earth? Or, is it talking about the time when God began to create heaven and earth? (As a side note, there are other issues in translating this verse such as whether the word translated “create” really means “create,” but that’s for another post).

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Let’s look at the Hebrew. And don’t worry if you don’t know Hebrew; I’ll do my best to communicate the issues so that you can understand it even if your only language is English.

Hebrew (it reads from right to left):

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ׃

Transliteration (the sounds of the Hebrew written out in English characters):

bǝrēʾšît bārāʾ ʾĕlōhîm ʾēt haššāmayim wǝʾēt hāʾāreṣ

The first word here is bǝrēʾšît (pronounced “be-ray-sheet” – the “be” having a short “e” sound like “best”). The “bǝ” part is a common prefix that means “in” or “when” (among other meanings). The basic meaning of “rēʾšît” (ray-sheet) is “beginning” but this word is in a construct state, which means that it is describing the beginning “of” something rather than simply being “the beginning” – full stop. This aspect is more clearly captured by the JPS and Robert Alter translations. But if the word means “in the beginning of [something],” what is the “something”? The context makes it pretty obvious that it is the beginning of “God creating the heavens and the earth” (to use terms from common translations). This also means that Genesis 1:1 is not a complete sentence in itself, but is instead the first clause of a longer sentence that continues into the next verse. To illustrate the relationship between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, here is Genesis 1:1-3 in Robert Alter’s translation:

When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. – The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary

There is certainly more to consider, even when translating just the first Hebrew word of Genesis… but this is supposed to be a blog post, not a book… so I should stop here and leave the rest for future posts.

RESPONSE TO TRENT WILDE BLOG ARTICLE

It sounds like he knows Hebrew, but clearly, he does not know Bible translation. There are two basic philosophies. (1) LITERAL TRANSLATION: The primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors. (2) INTERPRETIVE: The translator gives the reader what he thinks God meant in its place.

[בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃] Hebrew reads right to left, but we will put it left to right in an interlinear for you.

1 בְּרֵאשִׁיתIn Beginning בָּרָאcreated אֱלֹהִיםGod אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִםthe heavens וְאֵת הָאָרֶץand the earth

INTERLINEAR: In beginning created God the heavens and the earth

LITERAL TRANSLATION: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

INTERPRETIVE TRANSLATION: When God began to create heaven and earth

LEXICAL VOCABULARY

(בְּ־ be): in, with, at, by

(רֵאשִׁית reshith): beginning, chief, choice, choicest, finest, first, first fruits, foremost

(אֱלֹהִים elohim): God, god, divine, divine being, exceedingly, God’s, goddess, godly, gods, great, judges, mighty, rulers

(אֵת eth): direct object marker

(הַ־ ha): definite article, the

(שָׁמַיִם shamayim): heaven, heavens, atmosphere

(וְ־ w): and, also, then, but

(אֵת eth): direct object marker

(הַ־ ha): definite article, the

(אֶרֶץ erets): earth, world, land, ground, region, territories, people, soil, space

When the author says that the above literal translation is the traditional way of translating Genesis 1:1, he is inferring that it is wrong, and really misrepresenting the translation philosophy being used. It isn’t the traditional way of translating, it is the literal way of translating. The way Mr. Wilde is recommending to translate the passage is an interpretive way. The primary goal of a literal translation is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. The interpretive translator goes beyond what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place. Let’s take a brief moment and delve into the differences between the two translation philosophies and answers some questions with Dr. Leland Ryken, a translator of the English Standard Version.

Questions and Answers about English Bible Translation

LELAND RYKEN (Ph.D., University of Oregon) served as professor of English at Wheaton College for nearly 50 years. He has authored or edited over fifty books, including The Word of God in English and A Complete Handbook of Literary Forms in the Bible. He is a frequent speaker at the Evangelical Theological Society’s annual meetings and served as literary stylist for the English Standard Version Bible.

The issues surrounding English Bible translation are complex. Much of the writing on the subject is so technical that laypeople might well despair of ever understanding the process. In this chapter, I will clarify matters by asking and answering a series of questions that frequently surface in regard to English Bible translation. In answering the questions in my own voice, I have pictured myself as responding to questions posed by an interviewer.

1) Isn’t all translation interpretation? If so, aren’t essentially literal and dynamic equivalent translations basically the same?

The favorite motto of dynamic equivalent translators is that “all translation is interpretation.” The statement is so misleading that an immediate moratorium should be called on its use.

There is only one sense in which all translation is interpretation, and it is not what dynamic equivalent translators usually mean by their cliché. All translation is lexical or linguistic interpretation. That is, translators must decide what English word or phrase most closely corresponds to a given word of the original text. I myself do not believe that “interpretation” is the best word by which to name this process, but inasmuch as it requires a “judgment call” on the part of translators, there is something akin to interpretation when translators decide whether, for example, the Israelites were led through the wilderness or the desert.

NOTE EDWARD D. ANDREWS: So, in our above Genesis 1:1, the translator of the literal philosophy must choose the glosses from the lexicon for each word to be accurate and faithful to the original text and use the grammatical tags to render the verse. Anything beyond that and we are entering into the meaning of a word, which is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. Again, going beyond the literal rendering, it becomes what a translator thinks God meant in place of what God said. Now, we return to Ryken.

All translation is “interpretation” on the lexical level. But this is the least of what excites dynamic equivalent translators. In fact, they are often impatient with finding the right corresponding word and eager to interpret the meaning of a word or phrase for the allegedly ignorant modern reader.

NOTE EDWARD D. ANDREWS: So, Ryken is not calling modern Bible readers ignorant, it is rather the mindset of the interpretive philosophy (dynamic equivalent) translators that say these things. I have spoken with Wycliffe Bible translators, a school for this philosophy, who said, ‘the modern-day churchgoer is too stupid and too lazy to understand a literal translation written on a tenth grade level.” Now, we return to Ryken.

2) What do dynamic equivalent translators primarily mean when they speak of all translation being interpretation?

They primarily mean interpretation of the content of a statement—in other words, exegesis and commentary. For example, lexical interpretation of Psalm 23:5b yields the translation “you anoint my head with oil.” A typical move by dynamic equivalent translators is to translate that statement as “you welcome me as an honored guest” (GNB). What I have labeled lexical interpretation has actually been bypassed in the second rendition, since the translators who produced it make no claim that the words honored guest appear in the original poem. The translators have interpreted the metaphoric meaning of the image of the anointed head. The two types of interpretation that I have noted belong to different realms and cannot accurately be placed on the same continuum.

3) What’s so objectionable about the motto “all translation is interpretation”?

It is objectionable because its effect is to conceal a basic difference that exists between the rival translation philosophies. The sleight of hand that dynamic equivalent translations hope to perform with their cliché “all translation is interpretation” is to conceal the irreconcilable divergence that exists between retaining the words of the original and substituting an interpretation of meaning in place of those words. The hoped-for effect of the motto is to imply something like the following: “See—all translation is interpretation, and the liberties that dynamic equivalent translators take with the original are just part of the normal work of translation.”

Well, those liberties are not a necessary part of translation. Dynamic equivalence introduced a new type of interpretation into the translation process—a type that essentially literal translators regard as license. To remove the imagery of the statement “he who has clean hands and a pure heart” (Ps. 24:4, esv and others) and replace it with the statement “those who do right for the right reasons” (cev) is to do something with the text that was never regarded as normal translation practice until the appearance of dynamic equivalence. All translation is emphatically not interpretation as we find it in the second translation quoted above.

4) Are the labels “dynamic equivalence” and “functional equivalence” good descriptors?

No; they are as misleading as the motto “all translation is interpretation.” The newer term functional equivalence is even more deceptive than its predecessor, and it is no wonder that enthusiasts for that approach have latched onto the new label.

Both labels name a process of finding an equivalent in the receptor language for a statement composed in the donor or native language. Functional equivalence seeks something in the receptor language [e.g., English] that produces the same effect (and therefore allegedly serves the same function) as the original statement [what the Bible author wrote], no matter how far removed the new statement might be from the original.

For example, in searching for a metaphor to express how delightful he finds God’s law, the poet in Psalm 19:10 landed on “sweeter also than honey / and drippings from the honeycomb” (most translations). A dynamic equivalent translator asks, now what does someone in modern Western society find as tasteful as the ancient poet found honey to be? What in modern experience serves the same function as honey in the category of “something that tastes sweet?” One translator’s answer: “You’ll like it better than strawberries in spring, / better than red, ripe strawberries” (message).

In slight contrast, dynamic equivalence widens the scope beyond functional equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is not primarily interested in corresponding effect. Instead, dynamic equivalence is interested in finding equivalent words or expressions for the original even while departing from the terms used by the biblical author. For example, if the original says “Lord of hosts,” dynamic equivalent translators judge that “Lord Almighty” is an adequate lexical equivalent for the original. If the original says “the hearts of the people melted and became as/like water” (all translations that render Joshua 7:5 literally), the other philosophy thinks that a suitable equivalent of the metaphor is “the Israelite army felt discouraged” (CSV) or “the Israelites … lost their courage” (NCV) or “their courage melted away” (NLT).

5) What makes the labels “dynamic equivalence”and “functional equivalence” objectionable?

Those labels cover only a fraction of what the translators actually do during the process of translation. Correspondingly, the activities that fall into these two categories constitute a relatively small part of what I discuss in this book. Dynamic equivalent translators smuggle in a huge agenda of further activities that have little to do with finding an equivalent for something in the original text. Here is a list of activities that make up the major portion of what dynamic equivalent translators do:

make the style of the English Bible as contemporary and colloquial (or nearly so) as it is possible to make it;
change figurative language into direct statement;
add interpretive commentary in an attempt to make the Bible immediately understandable to a modern reader;
replace theological vocabulary with everyday vocabulary (true of some but not all dynamic equivalent translations);
reduce the vocabulary level of the original and of traditional English translations;
shorten the syntax of the original and/or traditional English translations;
bring masculine gender references into line with modern feminist preferences.

Very little of the process I have just described involves finding equivalent terminology or “functions” for the original text. My objection to the labels dynamic equivalence and functional equivalence, therefore, is that they are misleading and deceptive as descriptors of the phenomenon that they are designed to name.

6) Is the claim true that essentially literal translation is no more than transliteration?

The claim was made in print by Mark Strauss in a review of my earlier book. (Strauss coauthored a book that makes the opposite claim that all translation—even literal translation—is a form of paraphrase.) A transliteration of Psalm 32:1 reads, “Blessedness of forgiven of transgression, covered of sin.” An essentially literal translation is totally different: “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” The charge that essentially literal translators “forget that [the process involves] translation rather than transcription” should be labeled for what it is—frivolous and irresponsible.

7) Is it true that linguistic theory has made it obsolete to speak of the difference between what the original text “says”and what it “means?”

No, linguistics has not proven that. The only kernel of truth in the statement is that meaning is ordinarily embodied not in individual words but in more complex word combinations such as phrases, clauses, and sentences. The exception would be in a one-word communication, where the single word embodies the meaning.

The attempt to discredit the distinction between what a passage in the Bible says and what it means is yet another way in which dynamic equivalent translators attempt to phrase the issues in such a way as to make it appear that all translation is really a version of dynamic equivalence. To clarify the matter, we can compare the two columns in Chart 2.1. The left column translates the words of the original into English, while the right substitutes something in place of the words of the original.

Chart 2:1 What a Text Says vs. What It Means

“my joy and crown” (Phil. 4:1)

“how happy you make me, and how proud I am of you” (GNB)

“the keepers of the house tremble” (Eccl. 12:3)

“your body will grow feeble” (CEV); or“your limbs will tremble with age” (NLT)

“set a guard … over my mouth” (Ps. 141:3)

“take control of what I say” (NLT); or “help me control my tongue” (NCV)

It does not take the proverbial rocket scientist to see that the left column gives us what the original text says: crown, keepers of the house, guard. It is equally clear what the original does not say: happy, proud, body, limbs, grow feeble, control, what I say. Well, then, what do the terms used in the right column represent? They are translators’ interpretations of the meanings of the words and/or statements in the right column.

The commonsense distinction between what a passage says and what it means is completely valid, and we should not allow the high-flown technical jargon of linguistics deter us from seeing what is plain to us. The relevance of this to Bible translation is that essentially literal translations give us what the original text says (to the extent that translation into English allows), while dynamic equivalent translations regularly remove what the original text says in deference to an interpretation of what it means. As biblical scholar Raymond Van Leeuwen states, “It is hard to know what the Bible means when we are uncertain about what it says.”

In making the distinction between what a text says and what it means, I need to guard against leaving the impression that what a text says is not laden with meaning. I am talking about what a translation committee puts before its readers. Essentially literal translators expect readers to determine the meanings that are present in what the original text says. Dynamic equivalent translators sometimes sneer at essentially literal translations as being unconcerned with meaning. The issue rather is that essentially literal translations expect readers to do what the original authors expected them to do—ascertain the meaning from the data that the original text provides.

8) What is the most commendable thing that can be said about dynamic equivalent translations?

The most commendable thing is the goal of the translators to render the Bible understandable to modern readers. We need to give credit where credit is due: dynamic equivalent translators want readers to understand the content of the Bible.

9) Isn’t that a sufficient reason to endorse dynamic equivalent translation?

It is not. The goal of being immediately understandable to a modern reader is inevitably in competition with other goals. Another way of saying this is that dynamic equivalence comes laden with problems that offset the exemplary goal of being easily understandable to a modern reader.

To begin, the readily understandable text is often not even what the Bible says. As the era of dynamic equivalence continues to unfold, the Bible-reading public is farther and farther removed from the biblical text. Many regular Bible readers do not know what the original text of the Bible says because they have used a translation that shields them from encountering what the original text says. They have accepted a substitute. Of course these readers do not know this. They think that Luke 1:69 reads, “He has sent us a mighty Savior” (nlt), whereas it actually reads, “He has raised up a horn of salvation for us” (literal translations).

In many quarters, readability has been elevated to an importance that it should never be accorded. What good is readability if the result is not what the biblical writers said?

10) What is the most objectionable aspect of dynamic equivalence as a method of Bible translation?

There are actually two “strongest” cases against dynamic equivalence. The first is the syndrome of variability among translations and the destabilized text that results. When a dynamic equivalent translator shows us just his or her preferred translation, the case is so plausible that it seems perverse to object to it. But problems set in when we start comparing that preferred translation to other things.

The first of these things is what the original text of the Bible actually says. If a dynamic equivalent translation differs from the original text (as it often does), we have a problem with accuracy. The second broader context that is often damning for dynamic equivalence is the variation that exists within the dynamic equivalent family of translations.

Psalm 78:33 can serve as an illustration. Suppose we read the first line of that verse in the NLT: “So he ended their lives in failure.” That would seem to be innocuous. But suppose we want to make sure that this is what the original text says. If we consult English Bibles that give us that, we have every reason to be worried. What the poet said was that God ended the days of the wicked “like a breath [or vapor]” (esv, amp). Well, which is it—“in failure” or “like a breath”? In a situation like this, a reader ought to be able to trust a translation to give us an English version of what the original author wrote.

If, in turn, we consult other translations, we find our problem multiplied: “cut their lives short” (CEV); “in futility” (NIV, NASB, NKJV); “come to nothing” (NLT); “in calamity” (NEB); “in emptiness” (REB). Failure, futility, emptiness, calamity, cut short—I myself cannot conceive of how someone can look at such variability and conclude that it is an acceptable state of affairs for Bible translation. There are two problems here: (1) most of the translations do not give us the original author’s image of breath or vapor, and (2) what they substitute in place of it is contradictory to other translations, not all of which can be accurate.

The variability that I have noted gives the lie to a dynamic equivalent argument that seems plausible until we look at it more closely. Dynamic equivalent translators feel entitled to change what the biblical authors wrote because they know more than most Bible readers know. As Eugene Nida put it, “The average reader is usually much less capable of making correct judgments … than is the translator, who can make use of the best scholarly judgments.” But the experts’ superior scholarship does us absolutely no good when it comes to producing a reliable translation if the experts cannot agree among themselves as to what the original text means!

11) What is the other major case against dynamic equivalence?

It is that in the overwhelming number of cases where dynamic equivalent translators change what the biblical authors wrote, the authors of the Bible could have phrased it that way but did not. The writer of Ecclesiastes had the resources to say “your teeth will decay” (Eccl. 12:3, CEV), but instead he wrote, “The grinders cease because they are few.” Amos could have said, “I gave you empty stomachs in every city” (Amos 4:6, NIV) or “hunger” (NLT), but instead he said “cleanness of teeth” (literal translation).

Dynamic equivalent translators do not set out to be arrogant vis-à-vis the authors of the Bible, but we need to be forthright. In their actual practices, dynamic equivalent translators show that they think they can do a better job of communicating God’s message than the original authors did. When translators remove a biblical author’s metaphor, in that very act they show that they believe the biblical author did not “get it right”: the author used a metaphor and should not have. When translators add interpretive commentary to what the original text says, they show that they believe the biblical author should have done more than he did. Whatever we might call this, it is not humility before the biblical authors and text.

Neither do dynamic equivalent translators show humility toward their readers. I am offended anew every time I read the statement in the preface to the NIV that “for most readers today” the phrases the Lord of hosts and God of hosts “have little meaning.” I find those two epithets for God hugely evocative. But even if I did not, it is presumptuous for a translation committee to decide whether something in the Bible is meaningful for a reader.

12) Does any usefulness remain for dynamic equivalent translations?

Yes. I use them as commentaries instead of translations. When I explicate a text, I first consult the ESV, then the NASB, then the NKJV. Those translations give me confidence that I know what the original says. If I find a given statement difficult to understand, I have a look at dynamic equivalent translations to get a feel for what the text might mean. Sometimes the dynamic equivalent translations are in general agreement, and sometimes they differ widely. But this degree of variance is what I am likely to find among commentators, too, so I do not find the variance unsettling if I put the translations into the category of commentaries, whereas that same range is very unsettling to me if I am looking for a translation that is supposed to inform me of what the original actually says.

I sometimes encounter the viewpoint that when a dynamic equivalent translation offers a good interpretation of a biblical passage, it has been “a good translation” in that particular instance. This is an incorrect verdict; it has been a good commentary in that instance. To the extent that the translation has prevented a reader from seeing what the biblical author actually wrote, it has been a bad translation.

13) Is it possible to highlight the differences between the rival translation philosophies at a glance?

Chart 2.2 names the points on which the two kinds of translation differ and then gives an illustration of the difference. The left column gives essentially literal renditions, while the right column illustrates dynamic equivalence. Since I want the emphasis to fall on the type of translation, I have not given the specific translations from which my examples come.

Chart 2.2 How the Rival Translation Philosophies Differ

1) Fidelity to the words of the original vs. feeling free to substitute something inplace of those words (Ps. 90:17):

“Establish the work of our hands upon us.” (What the verse actually says.)

“Give us success in what we do”; or “Let all go well for us.”

2) Limiting the process of translation to translating the words of the original vs. addingexplanatory commentary beyond what the original authors wrote (Ps. 23:5):

“You anoint my head with oil, my cup overflows.”

“You honor me by anointing my head with oil.

My cup overflows with blessings.”

(Italics show what the translators have added to the biblical text.)

3) Retaining the concrete vocabulary of the original vs. replacing the concretion with an abstraction (Luke 22:42):

“Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me.”

“Father, if it can be done, take away what must happen to Me.”

4) Retaining a figure of speech in the original vs. removing a figure of speech (Col. 3:9):

“Seeing you have put off the old self … and put on the new self.” (Garment metaphor retained.)

“You have left your old sinful life … and begun to live the new life.” (Garment metaphor removed.)

5) Passing on to the reader the ambiguity/multiple meanings of the original vs.resolving the ambiguity/multiplicity in a single direction (2 Thess. 3:5):

“The love of God …” (Can be both the believer’s love for God and God’s love for the believer.)

“God’s love …” (The double meanings reduced to one.)

6) Producing a relatively high level of vocabulary and syntax vs. producing a simplified level of vocabulary and syntax (Eccl. 3:11–12):

“He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.”

“God makes everything happen at the right time. Yet none of us can ever fully understand all he has done, and he puts questions in our minds about the past and the future.”

7) Producing an English Bible that possesses a dignified and relatively formal style vs. producing a colloquial Bible (Eccl. 11:9):

“Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes.”

“Young people, it’s wonderful to be young! Enjoy every minute of it. Do everything you want to do; take it all in.”

8) Retaining traditional theological vocabulary vs. avoiding traditional theological vocabulary (1 Tim. 2:6):

“Who gave himself as a ransom for all.”

“He gave his life to set all men free.”^[1]

PART TWO OF THIS ARTICLE WILL INTERACT WITH A
BILL MOUNCE ARTICLE

William D. Mounce is a scholar of New Testament Greek. William Mounce is the son of noted scholar Robert H. Mounce. He lives as a writer in Washougal, Washington. He is the President of BiblicalTraining, a non-profit organization offering educational resources for discipleship in the local church. Bill is the founder and President of BiblicalTraining.org, serves on the Committee for Bible Translation (which is responsible for the NIV translation of the Bible), he was the chief translator for the English Standard Version (ESV) and has written the best-selling biblical Greek textbook, Basics of Biblical Greek, and many other Greek resources. He blogs regularly on Greek and issues of spiritual growth. Mounce is a proponent for dynamic equivalent (interpretive) Bible translations.

Education: Ph.D. 1981, in New Testament. Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, Scotland. M.A. 1977, in Biblical Studies. Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California. B.A. 1975, in Biblical Studies, minor in Greek. Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota; Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, 1971-74.

Below we are going to interact with one of Mounce’s internet articles on this subject matter, literal vs dynamic equivalent (interpretive) translation, specifically, his article Literal Translations and Paraphrases. Let us just say at the outset that Mounce likely believes what he is saying is true, but this simply does not make it so. I would also mention that I am the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV) for Christian Publishing House. Our primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place. Our primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. First, Mounce begins his article with Romans 3:22. We will add one of our own from Westcott/Hort Nestle-Aland Greek Text and United Bible Society Greek Text. (WHNU).

I will do a back and forth with Bill Mounce and Edward Andrews being headers that give you what they are saying beneath. Also, at times, within square brackets [ … ] I will interject some brief thoughts into what Mounce is saying.

Romans-3.22 — Taken from Bill Moune’s article Literal Translations and Paraphrases

ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 3:22 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU)

22 δικαιοσύνηrighteousness δὲbutθεοῦof God διὰthrough πίστεωςfaith Ἰησοῦof Jesus Χριστοῦ,Christ, εἰςinto πάνταςall τοὺςthe πιστεύοντας,(ones) believing, οὐnotγάρfor ἐστινthere is διαστολή.distinction.

Romans 3:22 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

²²even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Bill Mounce

Without being simplistic, I have learned that translation is not translating words; it is translating meaning. To put it another way, translation is the process by which we reproduce the meaning of the text; translation does not replicate the form of the text.

Edward Andrews Response

What Mounce is really saying here is that he believes that the translator should interpret the meaning of the text and this is what is to be given to the Bible reader as a translation. Words carry the meaning of a text, so words are to be translated. When you interpret a verse, you want to express what the author meant by the words that he used. Mounce will want you to believe that it is an either-or. However, it is not as you will see.

Bill Mounce

To explain this, I need to talk about what I have learned about translation theory in general, and it will take four more posts to complete the topic. Most people say there are two basic approaches to translation.

Formal equivalence says that the purpose of translation is to adhere as closely as possible to the grammatical structures of the original language, altering the translation only when necessary to convey meaning. “Word-for-word” describes this approach.
The functional (dynamic) view of translation uses the words (along with other things like grammar and context) to discover the original meaning — the “authorial intent” — and then conveys the same meaning in the target language. [“Interpretive” describes this approach]

Translations do not fit neatly into one of these approaches or the other; they fit along a continuum with significant overlap. For example, the same translation can be formal in one verse and functional in the next. However, most people think in terms of these two basic approaches.

Edward Andrews

This is true to a degree. In dynamic equivalent (interpretive) translations though there is a tendency to go to the extreme. They want to interpret far more than is required. One basic thought to share at this point is, what if the interpretation of the translator is wrong, as some dynamic equivalent disagrees on interpretations because their translations interpret differently? Interpretation is the responsibility of the reader.

Mounce was the chief translator for the English Standard Version (ESV), by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Crossway has published several books to focus on the importance of literal translation over the dynamic equivalents. The 2006 (Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation), the 2002 The Word of God in English by Leland Ryken, and the 2009 Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach by Leland Ryken. All three of these books are very beneficial, a must-read. However, notice that the ESV is not a literal translation, it is called an essentially literal translation. The question is, so is it essentially the Word of God? And if an almost literal translation is essentially the word of God, what does that make the dynamic equivalent translations? (NIV, TEV, GNT, CEV, etc.)

Bill Mounce

I have come to see that this is not accurate; there are at least five categories of translation theory. I will talk about the first two of them in this post.

Literal

Although I have already expressed my dislike of this term, I will use it here to make a point. If someone wants a “literal” translation, using the term “literal” in its improper sense, there is only one example of a “literal translation”: the interlinear.

Edward Andrews

No, this is not true. Mounce is trying to redefine translations by calling a Bible study tool (interlinear) a translation like J. Scott Duvall and J. Danial Hays in their 2012 Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible

There has become a pattern for those who favor a dynamic equivalent translation, to use an interlinear Bible, which is not a translation, and refers to it as a word for word translation, because they know that this phrase is tied to translations like the KJV, ASV, RSV, ESV, and NASB. Below is an example from Duvall and Hays in the third edition of Grasping God’s Word (GGW).

Grasping God’s Word by J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays is a great book, so please take what is said with a grain of salt. However, what is quoted below is very misleading, and shows the length one will go to, to biasedly express their preference in translation philosophy. Within the table below are the egregious words from GGW.

Approaches to Translating God’s Word

The process of translating is more complicated than it appears. Some people think that all you have to do when making a translation is to define each word and string together all the individual word meanings. This assumes that the source language (in this case, Greek or Hebrew) and the receptor language (such as English) are exactly alike. If life could only be so easy! In fact, no two languages are exactly alike. For example, look at a verse chosen at random–from the story of Jesus healing a demon-possessed boy (Matt. 17:18). The word-for-word English rendition is written below a transliteration of the Greek:

18 καὶAnd ἐπετίμησενhe admonished αὐτῷhim ὁthe Ἰησοῦς,Jesus, καὶand ἐξῆλθενwent out ἀπ’from αὐτοῦhim τὸthe δαιμόνιον·demon; καὶand ἐθεραπεύθηwas healed ὁthe παῖςboy ἀπὸfrom τῆςthe ὥραςhour ἐκείνης.that.

Should we conclude that the English line is the most accurate translation of Matthew 17:18 because it attempts a literal rendering of the verse, keeping also the word order? Is a translation better if it tries to match each word in the source language with a corresponding word in a receptor language? Could you even read an entire Bible “translated” in this way? – Duvall, J. Scott; Hays, J. Daniel (2012-05-01). Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Kindle Locations 494-507). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Because these authors, like Bill Mounce, favor the dynamic equivalent translation philosophy, they misrepresent the literal translation philosophy here, to the extent of being disingenuous. They give you, the reader, an interlinear (study tool) rendering of Matthew 17:18, and then refer or infer that it is a literal translation, which by association would include the ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, and the UASV. Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek. What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays are being sly at best, let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translation.

ASV	NASB	UASV
¹⁸ And Jesus rebuked him; and the demon went out of him: and the boy was cured from that hour.	¹⁸ And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.	¹⁸ And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.
RSV	ESV	CSB
¹⁸ And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.	¹⁸ And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly.	¹⁸ Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and from that moment the boy was healed.

As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations (ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV) and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally literal CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays tried to pawn off on us as a word-for-word translation, i.e., a literal translation.

Bill Mounce

An interlinear will list the Greek words in Greek word order, and under each Greek word there will be a gloss for its meaning. See Romans 3:22 in the graphic above.

Edward Andrews

Here it is again for your convenience

ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 3:22 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU)

Bill Mounce

Is it understandable? Barely. Is it translation? No. As much as I would like the word “literal” to go away, I doubt it will. Will people start to use the word accurately? I hope so. But please, do not believe the marketing hype: there is no such thing as a “literal” translation. The very idea is linguistic nonsense.

Edward Andrews

Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek. What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that Mounce is moving the translation goal post like J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Mounce used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translation.

ASV	NASB	UASV
²² even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction;	²² even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;	²² even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
RSV	ESV	CSB
²² the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;	²² the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:	²² The righteousness of God is through faithin Jesus Christ to all who believe,since there is no distinction.

As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations (ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV) and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally literal CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Mounce is trying to pawn off on us as a word-for-word literal translation, i.e., a literal translation.

Bible Study Tool

Interlinear Bible Study Tool: WH, UBS, NA, etc.

Literal Translations

Literal Bible Translations: KJV, YLT, ASV, RSV, NASB, UASV
Semi-Literal Translations: ESV, CSB

Interpretive Dynamic Equivalent Translations

Hyper Interpretive Dynamic Equivalent Translations: CEV, GNB, TEV, ERV, SEB, NIRV
Interpretive Dynamic Equivalent Translations: NLT, ICB, ISV, GW
Moderate Interpretive Dynamic Equivalent Translations: NIV, NRSV, NET, NABRE

It would seem that the Bible scholars who favor the interpretive dynamic equivalent translations are making a joint effort to redefine the spectrum of Bible translations, which will aid their cause of trying to move publishers away from producing literal Bible translations. We have gone from the conservative historical-grammatical interpretation (objective) to the liberal-moderate historical-critical method of interpretation (subjective), from the conservative goal in textual studies of getting back to the original words to the liberal-moderate getting back to the earliest text possible, and from conservative literal translation to the liberal-moderate interpretive translations.

Returning to Trent Wilde and Genesis 1:1

TRENT WILDE: Obviously, there is no one correct way to translate and it’s extremely difficult (and often impossible) to capture all the nuances of a text in a translation.

EDWARD D. ANDREWS: Yes, there is but one correct way if your goal is to get at what God said as opposed to what a translator thinks God is saying.

TRENT WILDE: Thankfully, we aren’t stuck with only one translation and, when translations differ on a phrase, it doesn’t mean that one is entirely right and the other entirely wrong. Differing translations sometimes each capture something in the text that other translations miss while missing something that others capture.

EDWARD D. ANDREWS: As we showed above, interpretive translations alter what God said for what they think God meant, and in many cases they differ. They also conceal what was said from the reader, preventing the reader from making their choices. Every word, phrase, clause, sentence in the Bible has but one meaning, what the author meant by the words that he used. And if we do not have the words that he used, the reader is prevented from getting at what the author meant. Yes, when you have dozens of interpretive translations of one verse, you are going to get different interpretations, different nuances, different senses of what was meant. The problem is, this is not a good thing, this is a bad thing, a problematic thing. There is only one meaning, only one sense, only one nuance that the author intended, not multiple. The literal translation gives you what God said, and it is up to you, the reader, to determine that ione meaning.

TRENT WILDE: But this also doesn’t mean that we can just combine every nuance from every translation and think we better understand the text. The only way to really measure to what extent a translation is accurate is to compare it to the original. Furthermore, comparison to the original is also the only way to know which nuances accurately reflect the text when we have discrepancies in the meaning of different translations.

EDWARD D. ANDREWS: This is the only close to accurate thing said in the entire article. Here you have just openly admitted that multiple interpretations with different meaning cannot be right, we are looking for one meaning. The only mistake in your thinking is that the reader has to go investigate the original to determine what the author meant, or to weed out which of those dozens of interpretive translations are correct, if any. The literal translation will give you the original in English, which will allow the reader to get at what the author meant. Certainly, going and looking at the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek will at times give you the sense of what was meant that may be a little more involved than what the literal English can give.

TRENT WILDE: Focusing on the first phrase, what is the difference in meaning here? There are several differences. First, “In the beginning” is commonly interpreted as though we have a particular and definite point of time being referenced; that is, “the beginning” (in a cosmic sense) and that in that cosmic beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. On the other hand, the phrase “When God began to create heaven and earth” conveys something quite different. The time being referred to is tethered to an event – the creation of heaven and earth. And the word “began” here is used to refer to the beginning of that event – the beginning of the process of creating heaven and earth. As you can see, these two translations convey two very different ideas regarding the “beginning.” One speaks of “THE beginning” as a distinct period of time that can be referred to merely by saying “the beginning.” The other translation lacks this notion, but communicates that it is the beginning “of” something. Another way to understand this nuance is to take note of the fact that in the KJV-type translation, the creation of the heaven and the earth is something that takes place within a larger time known as “the beginning” while in the JPS/Alter translation, it is just the reverse; the “beginning” is the initial slice of time within the process of God creating heaven and earth.

EDWARD D. ANDREWS: When God created the literal heavens and earth, he did not use preexistent material. This is what Genesis 1:1 makes clear, which says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If matter had always been in existence, it would have been improper to use the term “beginning” with reference to material things that was to follow. In the beginning refers to the time when God began to create matter that had not existed before that moment. In the beginning is a statement that establishes the creation of space, matter, and time.

ASLEEP IN DEATH

Both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament render the original language words as “sleep” and “fall asleep,” which refer to a sleeping body and a dead body. Below, we can see from the context of Matthew 28:13 that this is the physical sleep.

Matthew 28:13 (UASV)

κοιμωμένων koimōmenōn

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be or become asleep

Matthew 28:13 Updated American Standard Version

¹³and said, “Say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’

However, in the verses below the context is to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep so it will be true for those who are asleep in death.

Acts 7:60 (UASV)

ἐκοιμήθη ekoimēthē

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

Acts 7:60 Updated American Standard Version

⁶⁰Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep in death.

1 Corinthians 7:39 (UASV)

κοιμηθῇ koimēthē

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep, so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

1 Corinthians 7:39 Updated American Standard Version

³⁹A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband falls asleep in death, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 (UASV)

κοιμωμένων koimaōmenōn

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

1 Thessalonians 4:13 Updated American Standard Version

¹³But we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about those who are sleeping in death, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

Here Paul is addressing the issue of those “who are sleeping” in death (koimaōmenōn). Koimaō is a common word for sleep that can be used as “to sleep,” “sleep,” or “fall asleep.” However, it is also used in Greek, Jewish, Christian writings, and the apostle Paul’s letters as a figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being asleep in death. Paul is not using the common sense of the word here, but rather he is using it to refer to the condition of the dead between death and the resurrection.

Psalm 13:3 (UASV)

פֶּן־אִישַׁ֥ן הַמָּֽוֶת׃ pen-išān

Lexical: lest I sleep the death

Literal Translation: lest I sleep in death

Psalm 13:3 Updated American Standard Version

³Consider and answer me, Jehovah my God;
give light to my eyes
lest I sleep in death,

1 Kings 2:10 (UASV)

שְׁכַּ֥ב šāḵǎḇ

Lexical: lie down; rest; sleep

Literal Translation: slept

1 Kings 2:10 Updated American Standard Version

¹⁰Then David slept in death with his forefathers and was buried in the city of David.

Some have argued that the dynamic equivalent thought-for-thought translations (Then David died and was buried, NLT) are conveying the idea in a more clear and immediate way, but is this really the case? Retaining the literal rendering, the metaphorical use of the word sleep is best because of the similarities that exist between physical sleep and the sleep of death. Without the literal rendering, this would be lost on the reader. Retaining the literal rendering, “slept,” and adding the phrase “in death” completes the sense in the English text.

A VERY TIRED ARGUMENT THAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE MADE ANY LONGER

Common Argument: There are plenty of good reasons why English Bible translations differ, ranging from different manuscript traditions, different translation philosophies, and the simple fact that there is no such thing as a perfect word-for-word translation between any two languages. Even Mr. Wilde makes a similar claim. He says, “Obviously, there is no one correct way to translate and it’s extremely difficult (and often impossible) to capture all the nuances of a text in a translation.”

Response: Now, if you had made these claims 400 years ago or 250 years ago, it would be fine, but to make them now is just tiring and a bit disingenuous. Illustration Comment: in 1611, when the Bible is 70% reflective of the original, the claims are why we do not have a perfect Bible are manuscripts, translation philosophies, lack of understanding of the original languages, and so on. Then over the next 400+ years, we get the Bible to 80% reflective, 85%, 90%, 92%, 95%, 98%, 99%, 99.5%, and the same argument is being made. Really? Come on, people, let’s try talking about what we have, what we do know, and how we got here.

⁠We have had hundreds of men and now women over the past 400+ years, who have given their entire life (Bruce M. Metzger 70+ years, from his 20s into his 90s [1914-2007]), working hundreds of thousands of hours each, with an intellect in their specialized fields at the genius level: textual, translator, languages, and so on.

⁠We now have manuscripts like no other ancient book with tens of thousands of manuscripts, many dating within decades of the originals for the NT. We have had the Masoretes for the restoration of the OT up unto our day, where we now can restore the OT text to a mirror-like reflection of the original. We had in the WH Greek text of 1881 for the NT a critical text that was 99.5% reflective of the originals. When we combine the work with hundreds of other scholars over the last 140 years to the Nestle-Aland critical text, the find of 140+ NT papyri manuscripts, we have a text that is 99.99% reflective of the original. Think of that people.

⁠Now, we have not even delved into the translators, the thousands of translators. The literal and semi-literal translations since 1881 have been done by literally thousands of specialized scholars, who bootstraps I am not worthy to tie. My good, think of what we have in the ERV1811, ASV1901, RSV1952, 1961-2020NASB, the ESV2001, 2012LEB, the CSB2017, and soon UASV2021, and we could mention more.

⁠Anyone of these translations is giving you, in essence, what God said. Any difference is really a lexical choice difference and is fine, with maybe ten verses that are actual translation differences. And you might have a few dozen textual differences, but you have the alternative reading in the footnotes.

⁠Now, let’s talk about the original languages. We have NEVER had a better understanding of any ancient language. No other is close. The scholars in these fields might as well have been there for the original. I could list a thousand ways to Sunday as to why that is so.

⁠So, let’s dispense with this tire old argument that belongs in 1611 that we cannot have perfect translations because of manuscripts, languages, philosophies, etc. Let’s bury it and allow no room for those making such an argument.

^[1] Leland Ryken, Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 23–35.