In Case You’re Asked……

A question we are asked, especially since we operate the denomination’s Christian Education and Publications Bookstore, is “what translation of the Bible does the PCA or CE&P recommend?” That is a good question because it suggests the inquirer wants to find good, reliable translation of the Bible. However, the answer to that question is not that simple. One of my seminary professors would respond to such a question, “whichever one you are reading at the particular moment.” While I thought that was too simplistic at the time, I am learning that there may have been more truth to that response than I realized.

What I would like to do in this “In Case You’re Asked” column is combine a response to the above question with the review of a challenging book, The Word of God in English, Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation by Leland Ryken (Crossway Books, 2002, 336 pages, $16.00, #6348) My appreciation for this book and my comments on the question will reveal my particular bias and concerns because the answer to that question is so multifaceted.

There are many different philosophies of translation reflected in the plethora of Bible translations, as well as paraphrases, available. I use the word translation loosely in some cases. Some translations and paraphrases use different ancient manuscripts. Translators of the versions known as the New American Standard Bible and J. B. Phillips both claim to be translations yet take two different approaches to the task. A more contemporary contrast and comparison can be seen between the NASB and New International Version, presently the most popular version among evangelicals. The NASB is referred to as a formal correspondence translation while the NIV is considered a moderately dynamic equivalence translation. The NASB attempts to be more literal as a word-for-word translation whereas the NIV translates from the original languages with a bit more freedom. Moses Silva uses an illustration that reflects the two different approaches. He compares a phrase translated from Spanish to English: the literal translation “I have cold in the feet” to the freer translation, “my feet are cold.” “Nothing is gained from the more literal translation as far as understanding.” (From God, Language, and Scripture, page 139)

One of the things that make Bible translation so difficult is that translators must be proficient in both the original languages as well as the present language into which the Bible is being translated. We always lose some things in translation because it is impossible to consistently translate one language into another. Silva wrote, “Translators who view their work as pure renderings rather than interpretations only delude themselves; indeed, if they could achieve some kind of noninterpretative rendering, their work would be completely useless,” (ibid, page 134). Words have meaning in contexts.  Those contexts not only involve the linguistic aspects of the setting but also the emotions of the person using those terms. I do not believe that is a discouragement in trying to find the best translation; on the other hand I believe it keeps us from being naïve in that task. It also reminds us of the importance of the original context, as well as our contemporary circumstance.

The first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith states that the Bible should be translated into the “vulgar” common language of the people. This is so they may read, study, and understand God’s revelation in and through his Book. It also reminds us that divine inspiration was with the original authors of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. The Westminster Divines believed the Bible’s message was not to be hidden from any of God’s people, though some parts of it are more difficult to understand than others. Hence, we need both the Holy Spirit and an accountability structure, such as the church, to help us correctly understand what the Bible says.

One of the things I appreciated about Ryken’s work is that even though he represents a particular bias or philosophy regarding translation, he makes some important points that we need to keep in mind. He opts for the “essentially literal translation” approach. For example: many of the modern versions or paraphrases have attempted to present the Bible in the common everyday language of a good story. While the Bible is certainly the best of all stories, it is not simply a storybook. It is fine literature, but it is also more than that. While the WCF uses the vulgar, everyday language of the people, it is apparent that they were not suggesting that Bible should be so simplified or dumbed down, that it loses its uniqueness as the written Word of God. We should also consider the reading level of the audience, which many translations like the Contemporary English Version (CEV) and others have done. The clarity of Scripture, which we firmly believe, does not necessarily mean that everything in the Bible is easily understood.

The debates and struggles in translation continue between trying to be as literal as possible, representing the original author’s intent with the words or focusing more on the audience to whom the Scripture is addressed today. Another difficulty is how to keep the two audiences, the original and the contemporary, in sync. Trying to understand the words in their original setting, along with the task of putting them into words intelligible to people today, presents no easy task. To be fair to the various parties involved in translation, all want the readers to understand what they are reading. Some believe that requires an exact, literal word translation. Others maintain it is the thoughts and ideas that really matter and whether readers can easily relate to them.

Ryken states that his main objective is to “define principles that make for the best English Bible translation.” He admits to beginning with a literary perspective (after all, he is an English professor). He also wrote that as the task unfolded, his field broadened to include other issues related to translation.

While serving on the team of translators of the new English Standard Version of the Bible, he came to see why so many modern translations were lacking. He states, “ I did not set out to defend the essentially literal theory of translation. I began with the question of what principles should govern what we do with written texts. On the basis of that inquiry, I ended with a belief that only an essentially literal translation of the Bible can achieve sufficiently high standards in terms of literal criteria and fidelity to the original text. Concomitantly, I have ended with a deep-seated distrust of how dynamic equivalent translations treat the biblical text.” (pp. 9 and 10)

You will find a good summary and review of the history of translation in Ryken’s book, as well as his evaluation of the English Standard Version. He writes that he understands that much of the popularity of such translations as The Living Bible (1971) and the New International Version (1978) were a result of the cultural trends of the day plus lack of a better alternative. Ryken has been a long time critic of the NIV but is also aware of the shortcomings of the NASB and the NRSV.  He has found in the English Standard Version an attempt to preserve the “essentially literal Bible in the King James tradition of fidelity to the original text and commitment to literary excellence.”

I believe as you read Ryken’s book, especially part two which deals with five fallacies about the Bible, seven fallacies about translation, and eight fallacies about Bible readers, you will find him to be enlightening and challenging. You will see his background as an English teacher coming through in a helpful and positive way. His conclusion to the entire matter of translation can be a helpful guide in determining which translation you think is best. While offering his criticism of the NIV he also included the NLT (The New Living Translation).

You will also find in this book some of the aspects that have and are going into the modern debates regarding translations.  I appreciated Rykan’s part two of the book where he deals with: Five fallacies about the Bible, seven fallacies about translation, and eight fallacies about  Bible readers.  

Reading this book underscored my already expressed appreciation for the English Standard Version.  I have expressed my gratitude to Lane Dennis and Marvin Padgett of Crossway Books for this monumental undertaking.  While not claiming to be a linguist, I do appreciate what has happened to language both diachronically (the history and development of language) and synchronically (language at a particular point in time) over the years, I believe, given the present linguistic trends, we need a Bible translation about every 25 to 30 years in order to benefit from the movement within language; however, what I appreciate about the English Standard Version, is its attempt to not only to keep the continuity of biblical style of the past but to combine it with good up to date scholarship.

Another thing that helps me determine which translations are preferable is the people involved.  Translation cannot avoid interpretation and choices of words.  Translators must be aware of their opportunities and challenges in translating,  but also of their biases in their work.  And, we must also be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of any translation.  Even the best translations require the inner working of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life in order to understand what God is revealing to us in his Word. And, having the Holy Spirit does not mean that we always understand God’s Word infallibly, hence we continue to study and work within the Christian community because no Scripture is of private interpretation.

Another aspect of Rykan’s work that I appreciated was the reminder than in an attempt to popularize the Bible, again possibly the result of the pop culture trend and the desire for people to read this book, we may have attempted to remove some of the mystery that is also a part of the Word.  The Bible is not like a novel to be read and put aside.  It requires regular and constant reading and study.  

Along with reliability at the top of the list, Ryken offers other criteria for selecting a good Bible translation.  His particular enthusiasm for the ESV grows out of his reference to it as “an essentially literal translation” which he prefers, and so do we.  However, we recommend having several translations available for study because not one translation reflects all that we need to see as we study.

You will have a deeper appreciation for the complexity of the original question regarding which translation is the best and be encouraged to check out the English Standard Version, if you have not done so. You will gain a greater appreciation for those scholars who have labored over the years to do what our WCF says regarding making the Bible accessible to the average person who is without use of the original languages. Those who do will realize their limitations in the translation process.

 Charles Dunahoo

Back to Equip Page