weinhold
Puritan Board Freshman
I am interested to know your opinions on translation philosophy, a topic that the most recent conference of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) sparked in my mind. Below are some of my thoughts following the conference. I present them with the hope of generating fruitful dialogue on this board.
The debate over translation philosophy seems to have been instigated by proponents of the recent English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible. In the preface to the ESV, the translation committee includes a statement clarifying their approach to translation:
"The ESV is an "œessentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on "œword-for-word" correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.
In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a "œthought-for-thought" rather than "œword-for-word" translation philosophy, emphasizing "œdynamic equivalence" rather than the "œessentially literal" meaning of the original. A "œthought-for-thought" translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture."
Leland Ryken and Wayne Grudem were two of the more well-known adherents to the "œessentially literal" translation philosophy who spoke at ETS, and both criticized quite candidly "œdynamic equivalence" translations, such as the New International Version (NIV), Contemporary English Version (CEV), New Living Translation (NLT), and The Message (MSG).
While proponents of the "œessentially literal" translation philosophy are certainly well intentioned in their approach to the debate, it seems, at least to some, that they have overstated their case. During sessions that I attended, "œessentially literal" advocates appeared to venture beyond the stated translation philosophy of the ESV toward a more aggressive polemic against "œthought-for-thought" translations. Ryken, for example, charged "œthought-for-thought" translations with being more concerned with reading level than accuracy to the original documents, and Grudem pointed to numerous places in "œdynamic equivalence" translations where the alleged meanings of words were altered dramatically or omitted entirely.
Advocates of "œdynamic equivalence" took issue with the insistence of those in the "œessentially literal" camp, who portray their translations (especially NLT and MSG) as somehow less faithful to an evangelical doctrine of Scripture. "œWord-for-word" proponents may have grounds to criticize more radical translations like MSG, which translates Psalm 51:10-11, "œGod make a fresh start in me, shape a Genesis week from the chaos of my life. Don´t throw me out with the trash, or fail to breathe holiness in me," but those in the "œessentially literal" camp remain guilty of failing to distinguish between radical translations like MSG and more chastened ones like NIV. Indeed, it seems rather obvious that although the translators for MSG and NIV share a vaguely similar translation philosophy, each employs their philosophy to a different extent and toward different ends. In the future, "œessentially literal" advocates would be wise to make sharper distinctions in order to avoid scrunching all "œthought-for-thought" translations into the same category.
The "œword-for-word" approach to translation has produced several excellent English Bibles, and both the academic and church communities have recognized those efforts. I want to underscore my respect for "œessentially literal" translations like the ESV (I bought two at the conference). But I sincerely wish that the same people who worked so hard to produce such excellent Bibles would be comfortable letting their work be an excellent Bible translation without the need for disparaging other translations, a practice that smacks more of an effective sales strategy than responsible academic interaction.
The debate over translation philosophy seems to have been instigated by proponents of the recent English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible. In the preface to the ESV, the translation committee includes a statement clarifying their approach to translation:
"The ESV is an "œessentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on "œword-for-word" correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.
In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a "œthought-for-thought" rather than "œword-for-word" translation philosophy, emphasizing "œdynamic equivalence" rather than the "œessentially literal" meaning of the original. A "œthought-for-thought" translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture."
Leland Ryken and Wayne Grudem were two of the more well-known adherents to the "œessentially literal" translation philosophy who spoke at ETS, and both criticized quite candidly "œdynamic equivalence" translations, such as the New International Version (NIV), Contemporary English Version (CEV), New Living Translation (NLT), and The Message (MSG).
While proponents of the "œessentially literal" translation philosophy are certainly well intentioned in their approach to the debate, it seems, at least to some, that they have overstated their case. During sessions that I attended, "œessentially literal" advocates appeared to venture beyond the stated translation philosophy of the ESV toward a more aggressive polemic against "œthought-for-thought" translations. Ryken, for example, charged "œthought-for-thought" translations with being more concerned with reading level than accuracy to the original documents, and Grudem pointed to numerous places in "œdynamic equivalence" translations where the alleged meanings of words were altered dramatically or omitted entirely.
Advocates of "œdynamic equivalence" took issue with the insistence of those in the "œessentially literal" camp, who portray their translations (especially NLT and MSG) as somehow less faithful to an evangelical doctrine of Scripture. "œWord-for-word" proponents may have grounds to criticize more radical translations like MSG, which translates Psalm 51:10-11, "œGod make a fresh start in me, shape a Genesis week from the chaos of my life. Don´t throw me out with the trash, or fail to breathe holiness in me," but those in the "œessentially literal" camp remain guilty of failing to distinguish between radical translations like MSG and more chastened ones like NIV. Indeed, it seems rather obvious that although the translators for MSG and NIV share a vaguely similar translation philosophy, each employs their philosophy to a different extent and toward different ends. In the future, "œessentially literal" advocates would be wise to make sharper distinctions in order to avoid scrunching all "œthought-for-thought" translations into the same category.
The "œword-for-word" approach to translation has produced several excellent English Bibles, and both the academic and church communities have recognized those efforts. I want to underscore my respect for "œessentially literal" translations like the ESV (I bought two at the conference). But I sincerely wish that the same people who worked so hard to produce such excellent Bibles would be comfortable letting their work be an excellent Bible translation without the need for disparaging other translations, a practice that smacks more of an effective sales strategy than responsible academic interaction.
