There has been a great deal written lately comparing the ESV and NLT translation philosophies [see Tim Challies, Keith Williams and TC Robinson]. Much is repetition from earlier formal vs. functional debates, but it’s always interesting reading for translation junkies.
That said, I want to draw your attention to a post on the blog “Church Discipline” that predated these exchanges by a few weeks. Titled Is the ESV “essentially literal”?, the author writes to counter the claim by ESV promoters that [1] there is little difference from the original languages to an “essentially literal” translation like the ESV, and that [2] there is a chasm of difference between “essentially literal” translations and median or dynamic translations like the TNIV, REB and NJB.
It has been noted by many before that the ESV incorporates many aspects of dynamic translation, as do all English translations, no matter how literal they suppose to be. After demonstrating that, despite how they are marketed very differently, both the ESV and TNIV translations are pursuing a similar balance of accuracy, beauty, clarity and dignity, the author states that the ESV is neither “essentially literal” by an accurate definition of the phrase nor fully dynamic and that better examples of each approach exist.
It has also been noted that most critics of dynamic translation tend to focus on the “easy English” translations like the CEV and NLT, as is the case in Challies’ original article linked to above, rather than “tight dynamic” translations like the REB . As such, the critique of dynamic equivalency from the position of something like the ESV or NASB tends to be a comparison of complexity vs simpleness with the regrettable implication being that the more complex or foreign a translation, the closer to the original texts it is.
The author claims that if ESV apologist Leland Rykan were truly “interested in an honest debate on dynamic translation he would be addressing the REB and places where the REB differs substantially from the ESV.” (No, I did not slip anyone cash under the table!) The author promises a future post that will “show how the REB/NEB by using dynamic translation philosophy are able to capture meaning lost to the ESV, which is precisely the point of dynamic translation.”
The author concludes the article by stating that “readability kills literal accuracy. Literal accuracy kills meaning. So [with the ESV] you end up with a bible you can trust neither to be accurate in the text nor in the meaning.” Inflammatory to be sure, but some good points to think about.
Thanks for the link, El. I’ve never heard of a “tight dynamic” before, but I think I know what you mean. I’ve not been reading the REB for long, but so far I’ll considered it a “mediating” version, along the line of the NIV/TNIV.
Yes, both the ESV and the NLT follow different translation philosophies. Mr. Challies failed to point this out to begin with. And because of this, he missed his target, the NLT and the verses he aimed at.
There’s definitely a place for the NLT. As I’ve argued on my blog, it should be a person’s third Bible, but some have made it their second and even first (the guy at the NLT blog).
I still think the ESV is a fine translation, but some of its advocates are engaging is some battles that they’re not prepared to handle.
“Tight dynamic” was coined by the article’s author, I assume, as I’ve not heard it before either, but it’s a fair enough micro-label and allows a distinction between the REB and freer NEB.
Yeah, I agree as a “micro-label” to make a distinction with certain revisions. I believe the freer NLT96 and tighter NTL2004 would also fit this “micro-label.”
Part of the problem is what’s being communicated to uninformed believers from those that create and print the ESV Bible. In the intro for the ESV Study Bible, it has a section called ‘A User’s Guide to the ESV Study Bible’. In the chapter ‘Divine Words and Merely Human Words’ it states, “The ESV Study Bible contains two kinds of words. The first is the actual words of the Bible, which are the very words of God to us.”
The statement “actual words” bothers me in that it’s just simply not true. With this falsity believed, enter Tim Challies. His views seem similar to King James Bible adherents.
Views from the “essentially literal” crowd divide believers and they create a straw man (dynamic equivalence) to beat up on that waste the energies of those having to respond.
Luv your blog ElShaddai.
Thank you for this thoughtful post. I do not enter the debates, but do enjoy reading thoughtful bloggers. I have recently moved from the ESV and now primarily use the TNIV. This move has been made mainly because of accuracy issues. It is sad to me that we must draw such “lines-in-the-sand” regarding translations. They all have some insight for us. My words to my students, “Do not get stuck in reference to English Bible Translations. Use all freely and you will understand more.”
Blessings!
Iris, thanks for those thoughtful words. We’ll all do well to pay attention.
@Byron: The tendency of literal translation users to equate their translations with the “actual words of God” is one of my primary motivators to keep studying functional translation. I am firmly convinced that God’s message transcends the limitations of any language, even the originals.
@Iris: Thank you for your comments. I’ve chosen to sit most of this current ESV debate out for the “line in the sand” reason that you mentioned. However, I do enjoy discussing translation *philosophies* and hope that there can be fruitful discussion there beyond the product of individual translations.
You give very wise advice to your students…
Thanks for the referral! In terms of the comments above regarding the use of “word of God” to refer to translation and not original I agree 100%. Mark D Roberts did an excellent discussion on the TNIV vs. ESV where he picks several examples from ESV literature where this term is used for propaganda purposes.
One of the criticisms of dynamic translation is that it is too loose. That is, that words are being and added and removed at the whim of some (untrusted) translator. I have heard it from both trained and untrained persons in Bible translation. But the fact is, Dynamic Rendering as defined by Eugene Nida, NEVER advocates such deletion or addition to the thoughts of the source language. In “The Theory and Practice of Translation” (Nida & Taber, 1982, Brill) he states, (1982:7ff) that we can assume the writers of the Bible were expected to be understood, that they intended only one meaning (unless expressly “marked” by the language) and not several, and “the translator must attempt to reproduce the meaning of a passage as understood by the writer.” furthermore, “Not only must we avoid going behind the writer; we must also avoid going ahead of the writer….”
This chapter in this book shows clearly that dynamic translators must reproduce, as clearly and accurately as possible the meaning and message of the writers of the Scripture–not more and not less. In this sense all dynamic translation is “tight.” All other so-called dynamic translation is really exegetical commentary. As far as I know (and I have been around this now for decades) only the New World Translation in selected passages (most of John’s Gospel, et al) SEEKS to distort God’s Word. Occasionally, some other versions do so occasionally as well, to their peril (cf. NEB “once upon a time” in Gen 11:1 for Hebrew’s wayahi, is egregious. But I RARELY find such examples in my decades as a full time Bible researcher and lexicon maker.
But for the most part one must assume that the translator is doing his very best to rendering the meaning, whether trying to give priority to the form of the source language, with less focus on the readers understanding of the source forms (popularly called “literal rendering”), or giving priority to the contextual meaning and thought (and more focus on the readers understanding of the source meanings)
as an aside,
Persons that often advocate “literal” translations often cannot define what it means. In fact a particular critic, at an Evangelical scholars conference, thought it was a “trick” question, when I asked it. But it is not a trick question. A person should be able to quantify and limit what a literal translation is, or continue his investigation until he/she has found a working definition. Allow me to offer this working definition.
“A literal translation is the attempt to render in a concordant manner a word or a limted number of words in a target language (e.g. English) for any given word or words in the source language (e.g. Greek). Usually single-word to single-word is preferred. An example would be Greek “sarx” and English “flesh.” In an interlinear (cf. the Brown/Comfort interlinear) there would be a very high correspondance between the use a the single greek word to the concordant gloss “flesh.” In the NASB, ASV 1901 I would guess would the two with less one-to-one correspondence. And so translations are on some relative dot on a line of least-to-most “literal.”
But aside from my definition above, “literal” often is defined as “pertaining to that rendering which is most accurate to the “meaning” of the source (e.g. Greek) language. (my definition). But this kind of talk becomes quite circular. For example the “literal” (formally-based) meaning of protokotos, can be glossed in English as “first-born, firstborn.” Yet in Colossians only translations that render it as “supreme” (et. al.) are giving the actual contextally-based meaningful translation. This at times is not crucial, yet Colossian 1:15 (CEV, GNT, NLT (with “literal” note) gets it right as a dynamic rendering “supreme” and (so-called) literal (“concordant”) renderings limit the Son of God to being primary, yet “born” (created?); cf. NRSV, RSV, ASV, ESV, God’s Word, KJV, NKJV, NET (with extended note), NASB, NAS, NIV, NJV.
Those concerned more with the form of the word in the original language may render the (mis-leading?, [but not because of malware motives]) notion that Jesus is “first” in some temporal sense, and other less “literal” renderings (such as CEV, GNT, NLT) are giving the actual literal meaning, and some noting its form in the footnote. Let’s find a new word for a “literal” translation; how about “a concordant method” translation ?
Jim – Thank you so much for adding your voice to the discussion, I really appreciated your thoughts. I agree that “literal” is a loaded term that can be defined from both formal and functional perspectives. I suspect that the apparent terminology shift from “literal vs. dynamic” to “formal vs. functional” is perhaps a response to this issue. I know that I grew up under the “literal is best” banner and understood that in terms of formal equivalency.
Do you consider concordance to be a part of “formal equivalency” (or vise versa), or a related but separate issue?
I liked your Nida quote that “Not only must we avoid going behind the writer; we must also avoid going ahead of the writer….” It seems that concordant ambiguity is often held up as a desirable outcome when a particular passage can seemingly be interpreted in multiple ways. Yet if we “assume the writers of the Bible were expected to be understood” and that “they intended only one meaning [...] and not several”, then the ambiguity is being added to the text where it did not originally exist. A “dynamic” translation may get the wrong meaning of a passage, but at least they have tried to fulfill the responsibility of translation.