Chapter One: Unity and Divisions: Two Opposite Byproducts of God’s Word
Dave Brunn states that the church is divided over which standard is right in Bible translations. Should the translation be “Word for Word” or “Thought for Thought”? For example, a literal, word for word translation of 2 Timothy 2:5 is “is not crowned” in the NKJV and ESV. A thought for thought translation is “does not win the prize” in the NASB which is considered a literal translation. Brunn provides a chart with 93 examples where the NASB gives a “thought for thought” translation and the NKJV, ESV, NIV, and HCSB give a “word for word” translation. This is surprising because the NASB has been called the “Most Literal.”
In another chart, the NIV gave the essentially literal meaning of Old and New Testament texts where the ESV and NASB gave a thought for thought translation. To be sure the literal translation translate literally more often but as D. A. Carson wrote, “it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation, from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the ‘dynamic equivalent.’”[1]
Chapter Two: Form and Meaning: Innocent Bystanders at the Center of the Debate
Part of the translation debate is between the relationship of form (letters, words, phrases, paragraphs) and meaning or the thoughts associated with the form. The debate is not should translator change the form but how much of the form must be changed. Two different models are used in translating. The first model is the meaning based model which is associated with dynamic equivalence. The meaning of the source language is discovered and conveyed into the receptor language. In the second model used by “formal equivalence” advocates, the form of the source language is conveyed into the receptor language, but never consistently.
This inconsistency is seen in the use of idiom which is an expression which means something different than the usual sense of its individual words. Idioms normally cannot be translated directly from one language to another. One example given by Brunn is the phrase “in my autumn days.” The NASB translates the phrase from Job 29:4 “in the prime of my days.” The KJV using a word for word translation produced the opposite meaning with “in the days of my youth.” Another example is how body parts are translated. The NASB translated the Hebrew word for kidney (kilyah) six different ways and the ESV four different ways (“heart,” “mind,” “inward parts,” “inmost being”). These two literal translation interpreted this word with dynamic equivalence. In these cases keeping the form would change the meaning illustrating that “meaning has priority over form” (page 49).
Often translators must set aside the literal meaning for the dynamics or the subtle nuances or connotations of a word. An example in the KJV is the dynamic translation of the Greek phrase me genoito which is translated word for word as “may it not be” but the KJV with “God forbid.” This is obviously not word for word but thought for thought. This phrase is found fifteen times in the NT as in Romans 6:1-2 “what shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” To express outrage at this idea, the KJV did not translate “No, let’s not do that, okay?” (page 50) but rather “God forbid!” None of the following translation used formal equivalence in this case: NKJV, NLT, NCV, ESV, HCSB, CEV, GW. The NASB translated the most literally “may it never be.”
As far as figurative language is concerned the NIV is the least literal but sometimes is more literal than the literal versions as in Psalm 44:14. The Hebrew figure of speech is “shaking the head.” NASB translated it “laughingstock.” The KJV “shaking the head.” The ESV “laughingstock.” The NIV “shake the head.” Again, the principle is illustrated that meaning has priority over form and this is true with literal versions as well as dynamic equivalent translations.
Chapter Three: Ideal and Real: Where Theory Meets Practice
Translation theorists categorize translations into types of translations. The first is highly literal. Interlinear translations fall into this category. John Beekman and John Callow in Translating the Word of God call this type unacceptable because it is unreadable. The next type is modified literal translation. In the category is the KJV, NASB, and ESV. Since no translation is completely literal or word for word, this type is called modified. The third type is idiomatic translations which is thought for thought, dynamic-equivalent translations such as NLT, CEV, GW, The Voice (VOICE). The fourth type is the unduly free translations, Cotton Patch Version is an example. This translation is considered unacceptable because of the radical changes. All translation fluctuate between these types, some more than others. The ideal is the stated objective of a translation, such as, ESV claiming to be a literal translation. What is real is that sometimes or even often, the ESV practices thought for thought. The example given is the Greek phrase “flesh and blood” in Galatians 1:16 (sarx kai haima). ESV translate this Greek phrase, “I did not....consult with anyone.” The KJV and NASB translated word for word: “flesh and blood.”
All literal translations practice dynamic equivalence but not as frequently as the idiomatic versions or the dynamic equivalence translation do. The ESV and NASB, however, as pointed out by Dave Brunn, over 100 times choose thought for thought instead of word for word translations. The literal translation make this admission in their introductions.
Chapter Four: What Is in a Word? More, and Less, Than Meets the Eye
Brunn contends correctly that there is no such thing as a word for word translation because of the differences between the source and receptor languages. For example, the Greek word agape is usually translated “love” but this translation is not always accurate because this meaning does not work in expressions as “love of baseball” or “love affair” (page 72-73). Another example is the Greek word logos. The KJV translates logos twenty-four different ways. The ESV and NASB translate logos an additional thirty ways.
Sometimes logos refers not to just one word but to a statement as in Galatians 5:14: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word (Gr. logos) ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Here logos refers to a statement and for this reason the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) translates logos as “statement.” This is not a word for word translation. The KJV used “saying” in a similar situation in Romans 13:9. In Acts 1:1, logos refers to the entire book of Luke where the KJV translate logos as “treatise.”
Chapter Five: Criteria for Adjustment: Intentionality Safeguards the Message
Brunn gives “four basic reasons why translators make adjustments in their translations, causing a verse or passage of Scripture to reflect less of the original form” (page 85).
1. Adjustments required by the grammar of the target language, English, for example. This is the axiom: “grammatical correctness has priority over literalness of form.”
The NASB, called the most literal translation, translated the Greek of Mt. 1:6 “David fathered the Solomon by the of Uriah” and added “wife” to go with the feminine article because of the grammar and translated Mt. 1:6 this way: “David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.”
2. Adjustments required for correct meaning. No translator translated literally “in my autumn days.” This is the axiom: “Meaning has priority over form.”
The NASB left out the article before Solomon and Uriah because English does not use the article this way.
3. Adjustments required for clarity of meaning. The meaning must not only be correct but clearly understood.
The NASB added the words “who had been” to the wife of Uriah, because at this time Uriah was dead. These words are not in the original. Meaning had priority over form.
4. Adjustments required for stylistic naturalness or readability. The NASB added the word Bathsheba which is not in the original for readability. Even NIV did not add Bathsheba. Also, NASB left our “and” 26 times in genealogy whereas ESV and KJV included the “and.” In this case ESV and KJV were truer to the text. The NASB changed a verb to a noun for readability. They changed “David begat Solomon” to “David was the father of Solomon.” The HCSB is the most accurate with the fewest changes: “Then David fathered Solomon by Uriah’s wife.” Yet the HCSB still added one word and omitted three words.
Chapter Six: Divine Inspiration: Do Not Judge the “Logos” by Its Cover
What kind of questions should we ask to determine if the translator believed in inspiration? Here are some questions suggested by Dave Brunn.
Did the translators translate word for word?
This is almost impossible. The KJV, NASB, and ESV together translated the Greek word logos more than fifty times (page 101). Brunn expressed two more axioms from this reality. 1) “Translating the correct thought in each context often takes priority over the ideal of giving a transparent, word-for-word rendering.” 2) “It is standard practice to translate some Hebrew or Greek words dozens of different ways in English, sometimes changing them to a noun, a verb, an adjective, and adverb or a multiple-word phrase” (page 104).
Many times one English word in an English translation represents many Hebrew and Greek words. For example, the English word destroy in the KJV represents at least forty different Hebrew words.
Did the translators omit some of the original words from their translations?
The HCSB and KJV left out the word “soul” (psyche) in 2 Corinthians 12:15. In John 10:24 all of the following translations left out the word “soul” (psyche) and translated the figurative thought instead. The Greek wording is “How long do you hold our souls?” The ESV, NASB, HCSB, and KJV translated it figuratively. “How long will You keep us in suspense?” (HCSB). These translators left out the word “souls” because it is not natural in contemporary English. In Genesis 35:5, the NASB omitted Elohim whereas RSV, KJV, NIV, and NLT included it. The only other major translation to include Elohim is the MESSAGE which is the least literal of popular English Bibles. Brunn notes another axiom: “The translators of these versions concluded, at least in these cases, that naturalness and appropriateness have priority over the ideal of seeking to give a transparent, word-for-word view into the original text” (page 114). “So while every word of Scripture has been breathed out by God, that does not mean they are all directly reflected in any of our English versions” (page 114).
Did the translators add words that do not represent words in the original?
Generally, meaning-based translations like the NIV add more words than literal versions. But there are exceptions. In Matthew 10:25, the NIV did not add words to “how much more the members of his household” but NASB and ESV added words not in the original: “how much more will they malign the members of his household.”
Did the translators replace single words with phrases?
Sometimes the translators had no single word in English to translate the word or meaning of the word in Greek. For example, all translations used a phrase to translate theopneustos. Brunn notes that the idiomatic or dynamic equivalence NIV came closest to producing a literal, formal equivalent of theopneustos with “God-breathed.”
Did the translators translate concepts (or thoughts) in place of words?
Sometimes translators were forced to translate the concept behind the word. For example, the Hebrew word barak is found over three hundred times in the OT and most of the time it is translated “bless.” In Job, however, barak, can mean “to curse.” Four out of the five times in Job barak means “to curse.” In 1:21, Job’s wife told Job to “barak God and die.” The translator had to translate the concept according to this context which was “to curse” not “to bless.”
Did the translators replace biblical terms with present-day equivalent terms?
Brunn added in this section the fact that translators, literal and idiomatic, changed questions into statements. For example, the NASB changed “Was he the most renowned?” (2 Samuel 23:19) into “He was the most honored” while the NIV kept the question.
In Luke 12:6, the KJV used the present-day equivalent “farthing” which was a coin used in England from the thirteenth century to the twentieth. The word in the Greek is assarion which was a Roman coin.
Translation and Inspiration
Dave Brunn concludes “If the doctrine of verbal inspiration requires consistent word-for-word translation, then every English version is disqualified.” We would add, some are more disqualified than others and so would Brunn.
Brunn concludes asserting “that it is impossible for any Bible version to be literal in every context. We have also seen that the translators of every version sometimes chose not to use a literal rendering even though one was available” (page 129).
Chapter Seven: The Babel Factor: God Speaks In Languages Other Than English
Translating Greek into English is easier than into Lamogai which is the language of Papua New Guinea because both Greek and English are Indo-European. It is nearly impossible to translate word for word in non Indo-European languages. For example, the one word kusik in Lamogai means “the day after the day after tomorrow.” There is no one word equivalent. There are ambiguities or double meanings in Greek such as in Matthew 6:13 “Deliver from evil.” The two possible meanings are reflected in different translations even translations that claim to be literal. The KJV translates this phrase deliver us from evil. The NKJV translates this phrase deliver us from the evil one. The Babel Factor just illustrates how difficult it is to translate word for word consistently.
Chapter Eight: First-Century: Setting Precedents for Future Translators
The first translation happened three hundred years before Christ when the OT was translated into Greek in the Septuagint (LXX). There were many languages in use in the first centuries. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Hebrew was used in the synagogues. Aramaic was translated into Koine Greek was lingua franca of the Roman Empire by writers of the NT. Latin (John 19:20) was still spoken by ethnic Romans. NT writers sometimes translated OT Hebrew into Greek and sometimes they used the Septuagint translation of the OT. According to 2 Peter 1:21the NT writers were also translators who were “moved by the Holy Spirit.”
The three Greek verbs for “translate” are hermeneuo, diermeneuo, and methermeneuo. Hermeneuo is translated in John 1:42 in NASB “translated” and KJV “interpretation.” When Paul wrote Romans 4:3 and quoted Genesis 15:6, he quoted the Septuagint which changed Abram to Abraham. Paul also quoting the Septuagint changed “the LORD” to “God.” In the translation debate, the form was changed but the meaning was not and God approved the form change. God allowed a translation that was not word-for-word. Paul made another change with Genesis 15:6. The Hebrew construction is active: “He counted it to him as righteousness.” Paul quoting the Septuagint used the passive: “It was counted to him as righteousness.”
Brunn concludes with this observation: “The New Testament writers and speakers sometimes changed the forms when they translated from one language to another” (page 158).
Chapter Nine: The Pursuits of Faithfulness in the Eye of the Beholder
The weakness of Robert Young’s word for word translation (Young’s Literal Translation) is examined. Young’s goal was to find one English word for each Hebrew and Greek. Young strongly criticized the KJV for not more consistently translating word for word. Yet, Young also inconsistently translated word for word just more consistently than the KJV. Young went so far as to accuse the KJV translators of rejecting verbal inspiration when they did not follow his word for word translation philosophy. Young, however, did not consistently follow his own philosophy and therefore indirectly incriminated himself of rejecting verbal inspiration. For example, Young criticized the KJV translators for omitting the definite article (“the”) about two thousand times. Yet, in Mt. 1:1-16, Young omitted the definite article forty-one times.
Brunn makes a great point when he compares the different translations to our use of the telescope, microscope, and the wide-angle lens. Which is better? Neither. They are all useful and complement each other. The formal and functional translation can also work as a team in helping us understand God’s Word. The example Brunn gives is the different translations of the Greek words iota and keraia (“jot” and “tittle”). The ESV translates these words “iota” and “dot.” KJV translates them “jot” and “tittle.” NASB translates them “the smallest letter.” The NLT translates them the “smallest detail” (of the Law). All of these together aid our understanding.
Brunn’s conclusion on the gender interpretation issue is that every translation practices gender interpretation some of course more than others. We should read translations that more consistently translate masculine nouns and pronouns.
Chapter Ten: The Heart of Unity Embracing God’s Principles of Interdependence
Brunn’s plea in the last chapter is that the body of Christ would be interdependent even as the human body is. The members of the human work together without envy or pride or division. So should the body of Christ even when it comes to using the highly literal and the equally highly idiomatic versions. They balance each other. Brunn quotes D. A. Carson who stated an obvious truth that could help us use and appreciate the different translations rather that being divdied2: “No translation is perfect.”
[1] D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House) 1979, 90.