This is part 4 of a nine-part series on divine authority in Bible translation. The full series can be accessed here:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9
Over the last few decades, highly paraphrastic translation styles have become more popular in Bible translation. This has resulted in a backlash, in which some critics of “dynamic equivalence” or similar translation styles have argued that “literal,” “word-for-word,” or “formal equivalence” translations are required in light of the fully inspired nature of every word of Scripture, or “plenary verbal inspiration.”
These critics make some very helpful and important points, but sometimes their labels, and some of their less–carefully worded arguments, can leave the public with the impression that “literal” is always a good thing in Bible translation. In fact, every translator knows that sometimes being too “literal” means changing God’s Word. As we will see, therefore, a “sola scriptura translation” (one that seeks to function as a faithful representation of the “only infallible rule of faith and practice” for the church) must avoid being overly literal.
In Part 1, I gave the example from Exodus 34:6 of the LORD being called erek appayim, which can be literally translated as “long-nostriled,” but is much better translated as “slow to anger.” The fact that no English translation uses “long-nostriled” here shows that even the strongest “literal” proponents know that sometimes a literal translation is unfaithful to God’s clear meaning. We will explore further examples below.
“Formal Equivalence” is a Misnomer
Sometimes a conservative translation philosophy is referred to by the label “formal equivalence.” This is usually contrasted with “dynamic equivalence.” Both terms come from Eugene Nida, an influential translation theorist who was a founding member of Wycliffe Bible Translators, and who for decades was head of translations for the American Bible Society. Nida used the term “formal equivalence” to critique what he saw as overly literal translation approaches. Ironically, some of Nida’s critics have adopted the label to describe their own translation approach.
Nida used “formal equivalence” to refer to a translation style that aims to keep the words and grammar of the translation as close as possible to the words and grammar of the original language texts. So, for example, if the Hebrew uses a past tense, the English should use a past tense. If the Hebrew uses a word for “house,” so too should the English translation.
There are certainly times where this approach works perfectly well. But as all translators know, languages work differently, and sometimes following “formal equivalence” too strictly will lead to a completely wrong translation. We have already seen the example of “long-nostriled” above.
We can see another from Genesis 1:4, which contains the Hebrew phrase wayyar elohim. Wayyar can be literally translated “and he saw,” and elohim as “God.” Since the word wayyar comes before elohim in this sentence, a strictly formal equivalent translation that did not take into account the difference between word order in Hebrew and English could lead to the translation, “And he saw God.” However, this would be a complete mistranslation, because here “God” is the one who is seeing, not the one being seen. This is perfectly clear in the Hebrew, so it should be clear in translation as well. Insisting on the same word order is foolish if it changes the meaning, as it does in this case.
Of course, no actual Bible translator who adopts for themselves the label “formal equivalence” would actually make this elementary mistake! This shows that they are not actually striving for “formal equivalence” at all—otherwise they would insist on matching the word order in every case, including this. Instead, they want to translate the meaning correctly. They simply believe that the word order, the particular words used, and other features of the grammar and vocabulary of the original language texts often carry important meaning, and should not be dismissed as mere “form” when translating. In an extreme sense, the only “formal equivalent” translation is no translation at all—simply leave the text in the original language! No two languages are fully “equivalent,” so all translators make changes to the forms in order to faithfully preserve the God-breathed meaning.1This is not to say that all translations are free from unnecessary confusion. For example, the American Standard Version of Genesis 1:27 reads, “And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Ironically, the unnatural wording of “created he him” and “created he them” does not even reflect the Hebrew text, which does not have a separate word for “he” in either phrase; instead, it derives from the King James Version. Presumably in 1611 this syntax was more natural in English, but there is no reason whatsoever to keep it today (or even in 1901 when ASV was completed). It is unfortunate that some translators have adopted terms like “formal equivalence,” intended as a criticism, to describe their own work.2Wayne Grudem concurs, saying, “I do not generally use the phrase ‘formal equivalence’ nor do I think it is a useful phrase for describing essentially literal translations…The label ‘formal equivalence’ is often used by defenders of dynamic equivalence theory, perhaps in part because this makes it so easy to caricature and thus dismiss essentially literal translation theory as a theory that places too much emphasis on the order of words in the original language” (“Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God?”, 20).
Languages Have Different Grammar
Besides word order, languages also use different grammatical structures. Ignoring these differences can result either in confusing nonsense or completely wrong meaning. For example, when the LORD God warns Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, he says, “For on the day you eat from it, you will surely die.” The phrase “you will surely die” in Hebrew, mowt tamut, could be literally translated “to die, you will die.” The infinitive mowt “to die” is used to emphasize the certainty of death. This construction is fairly common in Hebrew. Translating it as “to die, you will die,” or even a more grammatically regular “dying, you will die,” would be more “formally equivalent,” but it would not be an accurate translation, because it would miss the way that this construction emphasizes the certainty of death as a consequence for disobedience. An overly literal translation would obscure what God clearly communicated in Hebrew.
Languages Use Words Differently
Languages also use words in different ways. Sometimes a word in Hebrew or Greek overlaps quite closely with a single word in another language; other times the overlap is much less direct. We already mentioned the word appayim, which can mean either “nostrils, nose” or “anger” depending on the context. Another example is the Greek word logos, which has many different meanings in different contexts. It is often translated “word,” for example in John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word”). But it can also mean “account(s),” as in Matthew 18:23, where the king wants to “settle accounts” with his servants. It can mean “statement,” “saying,” or “message,” including a longer unit of language than just one “word” as we usually define it in English. Meanwhile, in places like 1 Peter 3:15, logos is usually translated “reason” (“Always be prepared…to give the reason for the hope that you have”), a meaning that is also found in Matthew 5:32, Acts 19:40, and elsewhere.
The word logos has even more possible meanings than those given above. How could a translation that is actually committed to being “word-for-word” handle this word? To insist on the same translation for logos everywhere is to create strange and often misleading translations. Let’s take this hypothetical sentence:
When giving an account of ourselves to Jesus, the Word of God, could we give any justifiable reason for such a woodenly literal approach to translating this word—an approach that distorts the message he inspired?
If this were a translation from Greek, all of the words in bold above could be instances where logos appeared. A “word-for-word” translation of logos as “word” in every instance is both unnecessary and unhelpful.
Sometimes words carry different meanings based on the social context; this also must be taken into account in translation. For example, in John 2:4 according to the NASB, Jesus says to his mother (Greek below):
Woman, what does that have to do with us?
Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι
For most English speakers, a man using “woman” as an introductory term of address to a woman—especially one’s own mother!—is extremely disrespectful. Such speakers would therefore conclude from the translation that Jesus spoke disrespectfully to his mother, meaning that either disrespecting one’s mother is not a sin, or Jesus was a sinner.
But Greek readers would not have considered γύναι (“woman”) to be disrespectful here at all—a bit formal to use with one’s mother, perhaps, but not rude. The Greek text could support the interpretation, “Jesus spoke respectfully to his mother,” but the NASB text (along with the similar ESV and CSB) would not—at least not for most English readers. A translation such as “dear woman” as the NLT has here, successfully avoids the sense of disrespect and is therefore closer to the actual meaning of Jesus’ words.3It might have been helpful, though, if the NLT translators had informed the readers that a word meaning “dear” is not actually present in the text, which could have been done through a footnote or similar means. After all, Jesus was being polite here, but not necessarily affectionate, as “dear woman” might suggest.
Languages Use Phrases Differently
Languages can also use idioms in quite different ways. For example, Psalm 1:1 is translated in the ESV (Hebrew below):
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners
אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי־הָאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר ׀ לֹ֥א הָלַךְ֮ בַּעֲצַ֪ת רְשָׁ֫עִ֥ים וּבְדֶ֣רֶךְ חַ֭טָּאִים לֹ֥א עָמָ֑ד וּבְמֹושַׁ֥ב לֵ֝צִ֗ים לֹ֣א יָשָֽׁב
The phrase “nor stands in the way of sinners” is a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew. But while a Hebrew reader would have no trouble understanding this phrase (assuming they understood the figurative language), an English reader of the ESV could wrongly interpret the phrase as meaning, “nor prevents sinners from sinning,” since “to stand in the way of someone” in English is an idiom meaning to try to stop them. Of course, context would likely make the meaning clear enough to a reader of the ESV, but other translations modify the wording in order to to avoid this wrong meaning, while still keeping the “stand” and “way” imagery, e.g. “stand in the way that sinners take” (NIV) or “stand in the pathway with sinners” (CSB). These translations seek to maintain the meaning and also stay close to the way that meaning is communicated in Hebrew, but without the potential misunderstanding of the English idiom “stand in the way of,” meaning “try to stop.”
The reverse is also true—sometimes Hebrew or Greek uses an idiom that would be confusing or nonsensical in another language. For example, Genesis 34:26 tells us that Simeon and Levi killed Hamor and his son Shechem by the “mouth of the sword” (Hebrew pi ḥareb). Retaining this idiom in languages where swords are not said to have “mouths” only confuses readers unnecessarily.
Languages Change
Finally, faithful Bible translation does not have to mean archaic or antiquated style. It was perfectly natural in King James’ time to translate Paul as saying, “Be instant in season” (2 Timothy 4:2) or Jesus as saying, “I trow not” (Luke 17:9), but such wording does not faithfully communicate the meaning to readers today. There is nothing inherently “holier” about old or antiquated words or style—just as God ensured on Pentecost that his wonders would be declared to all peoples in their own languages, so too may every generation hear his Word in their own natural way of speaking.
As “Literal As Possible”?
As stated above, every translator knows that true, unbending formal equivalence is a very bad idea in translation. It is therefore common for translators to nuance their support for a more conservative approach to translation by saying, for example, that they are seeking to be as literal “as possible.”4For example, Jakob Van Bruggen states, “Faithfulness to form implies the serious attempt to retain the form as much as possible. But the translator cannot be bound to the author’s form because many languages are not developed enough to retain the forms of the original text. If a particular language does not have relative clauses, one cannot express them by retaining the relative clause form” (104). The problem, however, is not simply that some languages lack certain grammatical features. Two languages can both have a certain feature, but use it differently. The key is always the meaning that a given form carries. But of course, it’s always possible to be more literal than a given translation. Few if any translators would ever intentionally translate in a way that violated the basic grammar rules of a language, but even within the realm of “grammatically acceptable” translation for a given language, translators still have many decisions to make. What should govern these decisions? If we simply say we want to be as literal “as possible” within the rules of grammar, then there is nothing to prevent a translation like “long-nostriled” in Exodus 34:6, which, though completely wrong in meaning, is perfectly normal English grammatically. The only faithful guide for translators in making such decisions is to consider the meaning. That is what all translators, in their different ways, are aiming to preserve—though, as we shall see in Part 5, how one defines “meaning” can have a huge impact on what is actually preserved.
God is the Greatest Translator
As discussed in Part 2, the Holy Spirit at Pentecost enabled the “magnificent acts of God” to be heard about in every language of the people visiting Jerusalem. He created all things, and he used language before any human existed (Genesis 1:3). He has comprehensive knowledge of all languages in the world, past, present, and future. He has authorized his followers to bring his Word to every nation and language group, and he knows quite well that this means we must sometimes adjust the grammar or form in order to accurately translate the meaning. As Bible translator Dave Brunn writes:
When God made his pronouncement at Babel, he knew one result would be that the Scriptures would have to be painstakingly translated, over and over again. He also knew it would be impossible to translate many of the original forms literally in most languages. Yet he chose to confuse the languages anyway. Obviously, God made the right choice because he always makes the right choice.5Dave Brunn, One Bible, Many Versions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 134.
This does not mean we can simply ignore the form and translate however we want, or however our readers want; we have a duty to God to translate what he gave us, and not what we think people “ought” to have instead. But given God’s knowledge of languages, his desire for everyone to be able to understand his Word in their own language, and his authorization of the church to accomplish this task, we should conclude that God expects us to carefully study and understand the differences between the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and the language being translated into, and take these differences into account when translating. Just as Bezalel used his knowledge and skills as a craftsman to help construct the tabernacle in a way that was faithful to the pattern God had given him (see Part 8), translators should use their linguistic knowledge and skill to stay faithful to the meaning of his Word.
This is part 4 of a series on divine authority in Bible translation. Part 5 will use examples of communication in the Bible to discuss to what extent “clarity” is an important value to strive for in Bible translation. The full series can be found here:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9
0 Comments