Our communication is primarily sowing the seed, not transplanting churches. It is lighting a spark, not establishing an institution. This does not mean that the communication of the full revelation of God is unconcerned with the church; but the indigenous church we are committed to, whether in central Africa or central Kansas, is not the church we have structured, but one raised up by the spirit of God… The development of an indigenous church will always be the living response of people to the life demands of the message. The source of the information … is never more than a catalyst. (6)
From this and other similar statements we can see that Nida was concerned with producing versions of the Bible which might be useful outside the context of an established church—outside of or prior to any teaching ministry, that is. Obviously, such a version could not be one which required explanations or any introductory preparation of the readers; the versions would have to be made as simple and idiomatic as possible — not only because of the nature of the languages into which it is being translated, and not only because of the primitive cultural state of the people who spoke these languages, but because the teaching ministry of the Church was simply left out of the equation. The Bible is simply delivered into the midst of a society, in such a form that it may be immediately understood by the common people. Here Nida is making statements as a missiologist, not as a linguist; and he is using a particular philosophy of ministry as the basis for his philosophy of translation.
Although Nida’s primary focus was on foreign missions, he observed that his principles of translation might also be applied in the making of English versions for people in civilized nations. We notice the phrase “whether in central Africa or central Kansas” in Nida’s paragraph above. It was not only the primitive tribes who were to receive the new “indigenous” versions, but all peoples everywhere. Despite the fact that in civilized nations we have a fully-developed Christian ministry, in which a special vocabulary has always been used for theological subjects, the new versions would pretend that none of this existed. This is the attitude towards the Church and its ministry which underlies the “dynamic equivalence” approach.
The remainder of this essay will largely concern itself with the goals, effects, characteristics, and the presuppositions of this method, under whatever name it may be practiced. The Good News Bible (also called Today’s English Version) of the American Bible Society may be taken as the best example of what Nida was proposing. The Contemporary English Version and the New Living Translation are other well-known examples.
We have already brought under discussion the first, and, I believe, the most fundamental presupposition of the method: the idea that the Bible precedes the Church. This is an alluring idea for us Protestants, because it agrees with our idea that the Church is founded on the Scriptures, not the other way around, as in Catholicism; but in fact Nida’s idea represents an extreme position which does not comport with other elements of Protestant ecclesiology. Strictly speaking, the Bible as we have it did not precede the Church. The Church was founded by the oral ministry of the prophets and the apostles, which is incorporated in the Bible; but the writings which we have in the Bible in their present form are addressed to the Church as already founded. This is evident even on a superficial level, in the forms of address used throughout the Scriptures; and it is true at much deeper levels also, in the many things that go unspoken or unexplained in the Bible. There is much in the Scriptures which cannot be understood—not even in a “dynamic equivalence” version—without preparation of some kind.
Historically, at least, Protestants have recognized that the gospel must first be preached, and that people must be introduced to the Christian faith and the Bible by various summaries and explanations, whether they be written out in the form of catechisms, or conveyed from the pulpit, or included in editions of the Bible. The early Protestant translations of the Bible included a good deal of explanatory material in prefaces and marginal notes. Tyndale said he intended to cause “the boy who drives the plough” to know the Scripture better than his Popish adversaries did, but to this end he supplied the ploughboys with prefaces and footnotes. His preface to the Epistle to the Romans (which was for the most part a translation of Luther’s) was longer than the epistle itself! The makers of the Geneva Bible included thousands of explanatory marginal notes. These early versions were in fact “study Bibles.” Luther and Calvin gave much of their time to writing commentaries, catechisms, and theological treatises. The Protestant Reformation came about through much more than the mere circulation of copies of the Bible. No, the Church does not spring from the Scriptures in the simple manner that Nida envisions, and God did not intend for it to do so. The Bible is not a rack of cartoonish tracts, to be picked up willy-nilly by mildly interested individuals who are unwilling to give time and effort to understanding it.
Undoubtedly the reductionistic view of Scripture and the casual denigration of the Church that we see in Nida and other champions of “dynamic equivalence” has much to do with the extreme individualism which has been destroying all sense of community in Western societies for the past century. We are now assumed to be reading the Bible at home alone. And so of course the idea comes that the Bible must be made free of difficulties, easily understood throughout. It should be unambiguous, simple, and clear even to the “first-time reader” who has not so much as set his foot in a church. But however much these versions may smooth the way for such a lonely reader on the sentence level, they cannot solve the larger questions of interpretation which must press upon the mind of any thoughtful reader, such as question asked by the Ethiopian in Acts 8:34. After all the simplification that can be done by a translator is done, there is still the need of a teacher.
The Language of the Bible
Now as we have chiefly observed the sense, and labored always to restore it to all integrity, so have we most reverently kept the propriety of the words, considering that the Apostles who spake and wrote to the Gentiles in the Greek tongue, rather constrained them to the lively phrase of the Hebrew than enterprised far by mollifying their language to speak as the Gentiles did. And for this and other causes we have in many places reserved the Hebrew phrases,(7) notwithstanding that they may seem somewhat hard in their ears that are not well practiced and also delight in the sweet-sounding phrases of the Holy Scriptures. — Preface to the Geneva Bible (1560).
So said the makers of the Geneva Bible in their preface. It is very interesting that the Puritans who gave us this version would find in Scripture itself their guidance for a method of translation. The Apostles themselves were translators, after all. They did not give us a complete translation of the Old Testament, choosing rather to use the familiar Septuagint in their ministry to the Greek-speaking nations; but in a number of places where they quote from the Old Testament they do not use the Septuagint, and give us their own rendering. From these examples we can see readily enough that the inspired authors of the New Testament favored literal translation, with Hebrew idioms and all carried straight over into Greek. And why? Undoubtedly they believed that there was something significant in every word of the Scripture, as do some of us today. In any case, the Bible was certainly not written in idiomatic and colloquial Greek, as some defenders of dynamic equivalence have claimed. A truer estimate is made by E.C. Hoskyns:
The New Testament documents were, no doubt, written in a language intelligible to the generality of Greek-speaking people; yet to suppose that they emerged from the background of Greek thought and experience would be to misunderstand them completely. There is a strange and awkward element in the language which not only affects the meanings of words, not only disturbs the grammar and syntax, but lurks everywhere in a maze of literary allusions which no ordinary Greek man or woman could conceivably have understood or even detected. The truth is that behind these writings there lies an intractable Hebraic, Aramaic, Palestinian material. It is this foreign matter that complicates New Testament Greek … The tension between the Jewish heritage and the Greek world vitally affects the language of the New Testament. (8)
I do not think that the promoters of simple everyday language in Bible translation have any appreciation for the important conceptual differences which uncommon “biblical” phrases and words often serve to convey. In the Good News Bible at 2 Cor.12:2 we read, “I know a certain Christian man.” The expression “in Christ” is often rendered “Christian” in this version. But they are not really equivalent expressions. The phrase “in Christ” conveys a whole package of meaning. It implicitly teaches the relationship of the man to Christ, and emphasizes Christ himself over the man. It makes a metaphysical statement: the man is in Christ. They are in vital union with one another. The man is not merely one of a category of people who go by the name of “Christian” as a descriptive adjective. This is important. It is not trivial. The language teaches us something that cannot be translated into banal newspaper language. This is the kind of thing that is always being discarded in “dynamic equivalence,” and the cumulative effect of so many changes like this is that it prevents us from entering fully into the concepts that are unique to the Scriptures. We are allowed to remain in the newspaper-world of twentieth century America, and this is not for our benefit.
The Scriptures say in several places that God spoke his words through or by means of the prophets. For example, in Matthew 1:22 we read that the Lord spoke dia tou profhtou “through the prophet,” and in Hebrews 1:1, en toiV profhtaiV “by means of the prophets.” This manner of speaking is meaningful. It is not equivalent to the expression, “God’s prophets spoke his message to our ancestors” as in the Contemporary English Version at Hebrews 1:1, or “the Lord’s promise came true just as the prophet had said” at Matthew 1:22. These renderings do not convey to the reader the emphasis on God as the initiator and author of the prophetic message, and it does not convey the concept of mere instrumentality on the part of the prophets. The word “through” is a little preposition which carries a lot of meaning here.(9) But the literal translation was avoided by the CEV translators because they thought it too difficult. Barclay M. Newman explains, “The use of through with persons or abstract nouns has been rejected by the CEV translators because doing something “through someone” is an extremely difficult linguistic concept for many people to process.” (10) Indeed this manner of speaking may seem strange to someone who is unfamiliar with the concept of inspiration which it expresses, but in such a case would not this verse and several others like it, as literally translated, serve well as a means of explaining inspiration?
Now consider Acts 5:30, which in the New Living Translation is rendered, “The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead after you killed him by crucifying him.” (11) Literally Peter’s words are, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.” This expression as literally translated ought to give some pause to the reader. Why does Peter say “hanging him on a tree” (epi xulou) instead of “crucifying him”? Anyone who has read Galatians will know where the unusual phrase comes from, and what it means. It is from Deuteronomy 21:22-23, quoted in Galatians 3:13-14, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.” See also 1 Peter 2:24 and Acts 13:29. And so by this phrase “hanging him on a tree” Peter evokes the whole theology of the cross! But apparently the translators missed it, or found this to be unimportant. By flattening out and simplifying the language they have caused the reader to miss this thought-provoking allusion.
In 1 Peter 1:13 the expression “girding up the loins of your mind” has been rendered “prepare your minds for action” in the New International Version. Peter’s use of the peculiar “girding up the loins of your mind” may at first sight seem clumsy and even a little weird to many people. It certainly is not idiomatic in English. But neither was it idiomatic in Greek. Peter deliberately uses this odd Hebraic expression as a way of bringing to his readers’ minds the words spoken to Israel concerning the Passover: “and thus you shall eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand” (Exodus 12:11). One commentary on the Greek text here states that the reference is “unmistakable.” (12) But readers of the NIV (and most other modern versions as well) will miss it entirely. Instead of an accurately translated verbal allusion, they are given an “equivalent” expression.
Another allusion which will be missed by readers of some modern versions is in 1 Peter 4:12-19. Here the NIV renders the Greek word pyrosis in verse 12 as “painful trial” instead of the more literal “fiery ordeal,” and in verse 17 the word oikos is rendered “family” instead of “house.” These renderings are defensible enough in the immediate context, and we grant that some readers may be helped by a translation which explains that “house” often means “family” in Scripture, but it may be doubted whether any considerable number of Bible-readers really need this explanation, and, as so often happens in paraphrastic renderings, the “helpful” interpretation here really hinders the reader’s ability to discern the correct meaning. As Dennis Johnson points out, “a proper application of the principle of context in word studies must give attention not only to the word’s immediate literary context but also to more distant literary contexts to which the author may be making conscious allusion,” (13) and he convincingly shows that there is an allusion here to Malachi 3:2-6, “… he is like a refiner’s fire … and he shall purify the sons of Levi … that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.” The reader who is familiar with this passage from Malachi will catch the allusion to it in 1 Peter 4 when the phrases “fiery ordeal” and “house of God” are in the translation before him, but who would perceive it in the NIV? The phrase “house of God” may refer to the “family” of God in some contexts, that is true, but here we see that it is probably an allusion to the Temple, with which the Church is being compared.
In Isaiah 57:15 there is a striking expression in the Hebrew text: שכן עד (shokeyn ad), lit. “he who inhabits eternity,” which theologians commonly point to as an expression of God’s transcendence. God is not bound by time, nor does he live within time; rather, he transcends time and space. He “inhabits eternity.” (14) D.A. Carson calls this memorable phrase one of Isaiah’s “fine expressions that stretch the imagination” of readers, as they ponder the transcendence of God. (15) Unfortunately, the reader of the NIV will not encounter Isaiah’s expression here. Instead of “he who inhabits eternity” the NIV has a rather unsatisfactory and prosaic rendering, “he who lives forever.” This is certainly easier to understand, but it is not equivalent to the original.
In Mark 1:12 we find a typical example of the NIV’s tendency to turn what is semantically sharp and colorful in the Greek text into something very bland in English: “the Spirit sent him out into the desert.” Here the Greek auton ekballei, lit. “pushed him out,” is translated as “sent him out;” but this is unsatisfactory, because the Greek word carries a connotation of command and compulsion, which is why more literal versions try to express the meaning with “drove him out” (ESV), “impelled him to go out” (NASB), etc. One of the NIV translators later recalled that this expression was the subject of irreverent levity at the committee’s meeting, with some of the editors “facetiously wondering what kind of a car the Spirit used” to “drive” Jesus into the wilderness. (16) But Mark’s word is no joke. Commentators have often observed that it is a strong word, descriptive of our Lord’s “sense of urgency” (Meyer) his “intense preoccupation of mind” (A.B. Bruce), and the “dynamistic” working of the Spirit in Him (F.C. Grant). (17)
Many further examples could be given. Hundreds, in fact. But let these examples suffice for now. The point is, the reader of these versions has not been invited to enter into the conceptual framework of the Bible as it is expressed over and over again in its phraseology; he has been deprived of the opportunity to perceive the network of allusions and verbal associations which give the Bible such richness of meaning; and he is protected from exposure to anything unusual. The reader is left in his own familiar and everyday world of thinking. And this is the whole purpose—and the explicitly stated purpose—of those who are promoting “dynamic equivalence” in Bible translations. The whole idea is to present nothing to the reader which is strange. Nothing evocative. Nothing which requires a pause for reflection, orientation, and discovery. Nothing that stretches the imagination. (18) I submit that this theory of translation is not only unscriptural, but self-defeating and perverse.
Unnecessary Help
In the example of 1 Peter 4:12-19 given above the NIV’s paraphrastic translation of pyrosis may also be put in a large of class of paraphrastic renderings which may be described as “unnecessary help.” Obviously the NIV translator felt that he was helping the reader. But did he suppose that ordinary readers of the Bible are so dense that they are incapable of understanding that “fiery ordeal” here refers to painful trials? Many similar instances could be given. For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:11-13 Paul writes:
… for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the things of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual things with spiritual.
The last clause here, πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες, lit. “combining spiritual things with spiritual,” has called forth various interpretations, and most recent Bible versions offer one of them in the text and the others in a footnote. The New Living Translation, for example, has “using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths,” and its marginal note reads, “Or, explaining spiritual truths in spiritual language, or explaining spiritual truths to spritual people.” There are other interpretations which might just as well have been added to the note. The problem for the interpretive translator is that in the Greek text here Paul is using a terse epigrammatical expression to summarize his theme, an expression which is very comprehensive in meaning and probably deliberately ambiguous. It merely boils down to three words everything he has been saying, stating the general principle that spiritual things must be matched with other spirtual things. There is absolutely no need for a paraphrastic English translation in which the meaning is made to be more specific than it is in the Greek. There is no need to settle upon which of several “spiritual” things or persons he might be referring to. He is likely referring to them all. Why are the translators not content with this? The urge to explain seems to get the better of them, when no explanation is needed. In many cases such as this, paraphrastic translations make the text more specific and less ambiguous than it is in the original languages, and in doing this they not only misrepresent the specificity of the text, but often they interpret wrongly, which prevents the reader from discerning the true meaning for himself.
Sometimes it seems that the advocates of “dynamic equivalence” think that ordinary people are of low intelligence. For instance, Nida in one of his books explained that in Psalm 23 the “old fashioned” rendering, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want,” was unacceptable because “many persons understand this traditional rendering to mean: ‘The Lord is my shepherd whom I shall not want.’” (19) This is the kind of ridiculous misunderstanding that “many” people fall into when the language of colloquial speech is not used, we are told. But perhaps we are entitled to doubt it. As for those few people who really do have such problems, we wonder if it would be wise to encourage them to think they could understand much of anything in the Bible without constant help from teachers.
Dynamic Theology
In the first part of his poem Faust the German poet Goethe gives us a scene full of irony, as Faust sits down to translate a passage of the New Testament.
Our spirits yearn toward revelation
That nowhere glows more fair, more excellent,
Than here in the New Testament.
To open the fundamental text I’m moved,
With honest feeling, once for all,
To turn the sacred, blest original
Into my German well-beloved.
He opens a volume and applies himself to it.
‘Tis written: “In the beginning was the Word!”
Here now I’m balked! Who’ll put me in accord?
It is impossible, the Word so high to prize,
I must translate it otherwise
If I am rightly by the Spirit taught.
‘Tis written: In the beginning was the Thought!
Consider well that line, the first you see,
That your pen may not write too hastily!
Is it then Thought that works, creative, hour by hour?
Thus should it stand: In the beginning was the Power!
Yet even while I write this word, I falter,
For something warns me, this too I shall alter.
The Spirit’s helping me! I see now what I need
And write assured: In the beginning was the Deed! (20)
Scholars who have pondered John’s use of the word logos in the prologue of his Gospel will understand Faust’s difficulties, because the term logos here is so rich in meaning that it seems inadequate to translate it simply, “Word.” What is the full meaning of this first sentence and how can it be conveyed in translation? J.B. Phillips felt that he was helping readers when he translated it, “At the beginning God expressed himself.” But Faust’s dissatisfaction with the literal translation leads him even further from the meaning of the verse, and in the end he sees in it a reflection of his own ruminations on the need to turn away from mere words to the essence of things, and to deeds. The irony is that he imagines the Spirit is helping him, but what spirit is really present? In the room with him is Mephistopheles, the demon to whom he will turn for help at the peril of his soul.
Weighty theological lessons sometimes depend upon having a strictly accurate translation of the Bible. A good example of this may be seen when we compare Bible versions at Genesis 50:20. Here as Joseph comforts his brethren he makes a statement full of theological implications. The ESV gives us a literal rendering of the verse: “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” This is truly an interesting statement, often quoted by theologians in the context of explaining the sovereignty and providence of God behind even those events which seem to be evil. As John Calvin explains in his Genesis commentary here,
The selling of Joseph was a crime detestable for its cruelty and perfidy; yet he was not sold except by the decree of heaven. For neither did God merely remain at rest, and by conniving for a time, let loose the reins of human malice, in order that afterwards he might make use of this occasion; but, at his own will, he appointed the order of acting which he intended to be fixed and certain. Thus we may say with truth and propriety, that Joseph was sold by the wicked consent of his brethren, and by the secret providence of God.
Yet what does the user of the New Living Translation read here? “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people.” Here there are several things that might be pointed out which vitiate the theology implicit in Joseph’s words. We wonder how the phrase “As far as I am concerned” can be justified here, because it corresponds to nothing in the Hebrew text and it makes the statement merely an opinion rather than a statement of fact. This in itself is an important change in the meaning of the verse. We notice that the phrase “He brought me to the high position I have today” has been inserted. So instead of the bald statement that God planned the harmful action of the brothers for the good of many (this is even clearer in the Hebrew than in the literal English), a good thing is inserted, namely Joseph’s prosperity, as the thing that God used as the means of saving people. We see that “so I could save the lives of many people” attributes the good outcome to the will of Joseph rather than attributing it to the will of God alone, as in the Hebrew. But we notice especially the paraphrastic rendering “God turned.” Gone from the verse is the mysterious secret providence of God, expressed in the words “God meant it,” which required Calvin’s explanation, and in its place we see that the NLT has substituted the idea that God afterwards “turned” evil actions to his use. So in at least four ways in this one little verse the use of “dynamic equivalence” has obscured an important theological lesson which shines through in the literal rendering. Probably the NLT translator believed that he was helping the reader to understand the verse with these adjustments, but for all the good intentions we may attribute to the translator we perceive in this officious meddling with the text the hand of someone who is attempting to change not only the verbal form but the very teaching of the verse into something that is easier to understand and accept. (21)
Someone might object to this criticism by saying that the method of dynamic equivalence itself cannot be blamed for misinterpretations. It is the fault of the translator not the theory, because the translator must understand the original text before he can recast it in equivalent English expressions. Yet does it surprise anyone that when so much emphasis is placed upon the ease of the reader, we find not only easy language but also easy theology?
We might as well notice here the role that Nida’s theories have played in recent controversies about missionary “contextualization” of the Christian religion, reconceptualizations of biblical theology according to the worldview and thought-forms of various cultures. In the 1970’s Charles Kraft of Fuller Theological Seminary even used the phrase “dynamic equivalence” in reference to this, urging the creation of “dynamic equivalence churches” in which principles of “dynamic theology” would allow the development of indigenous “ethnotheologies.” (22) Various things which are being done under the banner of contextualization and “ethnotheology” are clearly syncretistic. For example, missionaries may explain the efficacy of prayer in line with Voodoo concepts about magical utterances, or Jesus could be described as being the son of the most powerful deity already being worshiped by a tribe. “Contextualizations” like this are now common on the mission field, even among missionaries associated with reputedly conservative mission agencies such as the Wycliffe Bible Translators. (23) Of course this sort of thing goes beyond what Nida and other linguists have in mind for Bible versions, but there are many programmatic statements in favor of cultural contextualization in Nida’s published works, with extensive discussion of examples, and it is difficult to say where he might draw the line between dynamic equivalence and contextualization. In his books he mixes these things together so much that it is sometimes hard to tell which of the two subjects is under discussion. In any case Nida himself clearly wished to convey the idea that dynamic equivalence and contextualization are intrinsically related, being two aspects of the same principle of immediate “equivalent effect” in communication, and so it is not unfair for us to connect these things also. At bottom they are related, and our attitude toward contextualization will have implications for our evaluation of dynamic equivalence. The root of both is the idea that everything important in the Bible can be so thoroughly naturalized that it does not seem to be foreign to the language and culture into which it is introduced, and that if there is anything that cannot be so naturalized, it must not be important.
The Bible for Children
Much of the support for paraphrastic Bible versions has been due to the desire of some to provide a version which children might be able to understand. This is well-meant, but I think it should be obvious to anyone who is really familiar with the Bible that it was not written for children. Let us be realistic. We have always had catechisms and Bible story books for the children, and anyone who has been involved in teaching the children knows very well that these supply more than enough material for young minds; and they are far better suited for the education of children than any simplified version of the Bible can be. There is only so much one can do with the Bible to make it clear or interesting to children, and in the end a selection of passages is going to be made anyway—which, if it is a good selection, will differ little from the selection in the old Bible Story books. I remember that when I was a child in Sunday school we did have copies of the “Good News for Modern Man” New Testament on hand (I still have the copy that was presented to me one “promotion Sunday”), but I also remember that we did not use it. The catechism took up all of our time. The truth is, there is no good reason why the Bible should be adapted for this purpose. And there is a danger in it. The danger is, the Bible simplified for children will become the Bible of adults. I have seen “Good News” Bibles in the pews of mainline churches. The American Bible Society had removed the cartoons for this “pew bible” edition. And then there is the case of the Living Bible, which Ken Taylor originally meant for children, and yet Billy Graham quickly made it into one of the most popular versions for adults. This was bound to happen, given the mental laziness of so many people, both in the pew and in the pulpit.
The publishers of the “dynamic equivalence” versions have at any rate been very aggressive in promoting these versions as if they were suitable for everyone, young and old, Christian or non-Christian. The New Living Translation now is making much headway in our churches as a version for the whole congregation, being used in the pulpit and in Bible study classes. I wonder how superficial the preaching and teaching must be in such churches, where this simplified version is thought to be adequate or necessary. What if a man who has been under such a steady diet of pablum happens to open an exegetical commentary and read there the comments of a scholar, or visits a church where the Bible is explained in some detail? He will not be long in seeing what a false impression has been given by his easy-reading version. It is not at all as he was led to suppose. The main ideas of the Bible are indeed simple enough, in any version; but it is very far from being true that every verse of the Bible is simple. Moreover, if he reads any moderately detailed treatise of theology he will find that the great theologians of Protestantism habitually call attention to linguistic details that are simply absent from his Bible version. If a man knows the Bible only through such a version, and has been encouraged to think that it is just as accurate as any other, how well has he been served? He has been treated like a child or a simpleton. Is it any wonder that many educated people scoff at Christianity when even our Bibles have been so dumbed down that they offer nothing above the level of a ten-year-old child? Is it any wonder that we have such problems getting the interest of the men (who ought to be the spiritual leaders of their households) when everything is designed for children? In regards to this, perhaps the words of the old Scottish preacher, James Stalker, bear repeating.
Not unfrequently ministers are exhorted to cultivate extreme simplicity in their preaching. Everything ought, we are told, to be brought down to the comprehension of the most ignorant hearer, and even of children. Far be it from me to depreciate the place of the simplest in the congregation; it is one of the best features of the Church in the present day that it cares for the lambs. I dealt with this subject, not unsympathetically I hope, in a former lecture. But do not ask us to be always speaking to children or to beginners. Is the Bible always simple? Is Job simple, or Isaiah? Is the Epistle to the Romans simple, or Galatians? This cry for simplicity is three-fourths intellectual laziness; and that Church is doomed in which there is not supplied meat for men as well as milk for babes. We owe the Gospel not only to the barbarian but also to the Greek. Not only to the unwise but also to the wise.(24)
Stalker’s counsel here is to preachers, who in their sermons must engage the attention of grown men and educated people as well as the simple. He takes it for granted that the reader will agree with him that the Bible itself is not always simple, and is itself “meat for men.”
The Bible for Everyone?
Mention was made above that the publishers of the dynamic equivalence versions have presented them as being for everyone. We have already questioned this claim from one direction, but there is another angle to be considered which is perhaps even more important. Everyone who has had some experience of actually using the Bible in ministry is surely aware of the problems which arise from different people having different versions in front of them. Someone reads a passage out loud, and others follow along in their own Bibles, in whatever version they may be, and the differences between the versions sometimes give rise to difficult questions. This problem is not severe when the different versions are all essentially literal, having only minor differences which are easily taken in stride. I have been involved for many years in group Bible studies, at which various versions were being used, among them the King James, the New American Standard, the New International, the Revised Standard Version, and others, all of which can be read together without much trouble. But when such a version as the New Living Translation is read, it is quite impossible for people to follow along in other versions. They soon lose track and look up from their Bibles in confusion. I have seen this several times in recent Bible study meetings. As a practical matter, then, I find that a “dynamic equivalence” version can only be used very extensively if everyone uses it. This being the case, I think we have a right to ask whether it can ever be appropriate to use such a version for teaching. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to use the same “dynamic equivalence” version. People will have their own Bibles, after all, and they will choose between versions for their own private reading; but a teacher must use a version that is not always going its own peculiar way. (25)
Conclusion
We have shown that the dynamic equivalence method represents a departure from tradition, and from the principles of translation used by the Biblical authors themselves. Its pretensions to “scientific” principles of linguistics are dubious, as has been pointed out by numerous linguists and biblical scholars. It results in a simplification of the text in which important features of the Bible are erased. It proceeds from false assumptions about the relationship of Scripture to the Church and to the reader. Finally, as a practical matter, we have seen that the versions produced with this method cannot “get along” with other versions already in use.
Notes
1. ESV margin, “or, with interpretation, or, paragraph by paragraph. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says the word mephorash here most probably means “distinctly” (which may mean either “clearly” or “in sections”) though it mentions the sense “interpreted” favored by some (page 831). C.F. Keil in his commentary favors “explaining” but rejects “translating” as the meaning here. He writes, “It is more correct to suppose a paraphrastic exposition and application.” (Hendrickson edition, vol.4, p. 145). The Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros (KBL) of Koehler and Baumgartner (Leiden, 1953) favors “divided into parts.” The latest English edition of the revised KBL (Leiden, 2001) favors “making an extempore translation,” so that the meaning of the Hebrew word corresponds to the Aramaic mepharash (Ezra 4:18). But this understanding of the word seems to depend upon a redactional analysis which treats the statement in verse 8 as anachronistic. It seems unlikely that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah themselves would have been written in Hebrew if this language could no longer be understood by most Jews at the time.
2. The BDB Lexicon says that the phrase wesom sekel means simply “set forth (the) understanding.” (p. 968).
3. See Nehemiah 13:23-25. Hebrew, and not Aramaic, is meant by “the Jews’ language” here and elsewhere in Scripture. See Loring Woard Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemia (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1913). Gesenius also (Hebrew Grammar, ed. Kautzsch, §2.t) concludes that “the supplanting of Hebrew by Aramaic proceeded only very gradually” and that Hebrew was still understood by the common people as late as 170 B.C., centuries after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. W. Robertson Smith agrees: “The fall of the Jewish kingdom accelerated the the decay of Hebrew as a spoken language. Not indeed that those of the people who were transported forgot their own tongue in their new home, as older scholars supposed on the basis of Jewis tradition: the exilic and post-exilic prophets do not write in a lifeless tongue. Hebrew was still the language of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah in the middle of the fifth century B.C.,” and in a footnote he adds, “An argument to the contrary drawn by Jewish interpreters from Neh. 8:8 rests on false exegesis.” [W. Robertson Smith, “Hebrew Language,” Encyclodaedia Biblica; a Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archaeology, Geography, and Natural History of the Bible, Volume II, ed. T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (New York: The Macmillan Company; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899), column 1988.] Likewise Gustaf Dalman concludes that “in the time of Nehemiah the Law could still be understood in the original Hebrew in Jerusalem,” but he suggests that its language needed some occasional explanations: “Nevertheless, it required interpretation when read at public services, probably not merely as to the contents (Neh. 8:7f.). Later a full translation into Aramaic was considered to be absolutely necessary, so that the ‘the clear and understandable’ reading (Neh. 8:8) was interpreted as meaning the addition of a full translation.” [Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels (New York: MacMillan Co., 1929), p. 9.] If this is not the case, and if in fact Hebrew was not understood by most Jews in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, this means that the post-exilic parts of the Hebrew Old Testament (1st and 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi) were written in a scholarly language that could not be understood by the people.
4. See Nida’s books Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960); Toward a Science of Translating, with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964); The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1969); and also the book he later co-authored with Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986). I should mention that much of what Nida wrote on the subject does not square very well with the translations which have been produced under the banner of “dynamic equivalence.” Nida himself coined this phrase in an effort to distinguish his method from unrestrained “paraphrase.” Later he complained of abuses of the method he outlined, and for this reason in his later writings he distanced himself from the term “dynamic equivalence,” preferring instead “functional equivalence.” (On this, see the preface of his book, From One Language to Another, in which he says, “Some Bible translators have seriously violated the principle of dynamic equivalence as described in Theory and Practice of Translating [sic] and Toward a Science of Translating.”) Recently some others have preferred to call it “meaning-based translation,” or “closest natural equivalence” — a phrase which Nida also sometimes used in his writings. These shifts in terminology do not represent changes in the method. I use the term “dynamic equivalence” because it continues to be the one most widely used.
5. Toward a Science of Translating (1964), p. 1. A perusal of the essays collected in Douglas Robinson’s Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche (Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997) will reveal just how commonplace the basic ideas about translation usually associated with Nida were, long before his birth. The need for “idiomatic” renderings was emphasized by writers in ancient times, and the desirability and possibility of producing an “equivalent effect” was thoroughly discussed by translators in the middle of the nineteenth century. Nida adds nothing substantial to these old discussions, which were quite sophisticated, and he does not even interact with them in such a way that the difficult problems raised in them are addressed. Other more technical aspects of his theoretical writings are little more than ad hoc applications of various concepts developed by other linguists. See for example chapter four of his book Toward a Science of Translating, in which the special concepts and terminology of Chomsky’s generative grammar are pressed into service in some very questionable ways. (For criticism of Nida’s use of Chomsky’s ideas see V.S. Poythress, “Truth and Fullness of Meaning: Fullness versus Reductionistic Semantics in Biblical Interpretation,” in Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2005].) Nida himself contributed nothing new to a general theory of language, and his use of concepts developed by others is often facile. In short, it seems to me that his contributions to translation theory have been overstated.
6. Eugene Nida, Message and Mission (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960), p. 221. Along the same lines Nida later wrote that translators who rightly discern the “needs of the audience” will see that “Non-Christians have priority over Christians. That is to say, the Scriptures must be intelligible to non-Christians, and if they are, they will also be intelligible to Christians. Not only is this principle important in making the translation of the Bible effective as an instrument of evangelism, but it is also necessary if the language of the church is to be kept from becoming an esoteric dialect … (Theory and Practice of Translation [1969], pp. 31-2.)
7. Addison, English poet and literary critic, described the effect of these idioms with the following words: “There is a certain Coldness and Indifference in the Phrases of our European Languages, when they are compared with the Oriental Forms of Speech; and it happens very luckily, that the Hebrew Idioms run into the English Tongue with a particular Grace and Beauty. Our Language has received innumerable Elegancies and Improvements, from that Infusion of Hebraisms, which are derived to it out of the Poetical Passages in Holy Writ. They give a Force and Energy to our Expressions, warm and animate our Language, and convey our Thoughts in more ardent and intense Phrases, than any that are to be met with in our own Tongue. There is something so pathetick in this kind of Diction, that it often sets the Mind in a Flame, and makes our Hearts burn within us. How cold and dead does a Prayer appear, that is composed in the most Elegant and Polite Forms of Speech, which are natural to our Tongue, when it is not heightened by that Solemnity of Phrase, which may be drawn from the Sacred Writings.” (Spectator, No. 405; Saturday, June 14, 1712). See also Robert Alter, “Beyond King James,” Commentary 102/3 (1996), pp. 57-62. Alter decries what he calls the “heresy of explanation,” the idea that “translation should explain the Bible rather than simply representing it in another language” and laments the general demise of literary translations after the King James Version. He concludes, “There is no good reason to render biblical Hebrew as contemporary English, either lexically or syntactically.” Alter is Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981) The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996).
8. E.C. Hoskyns, The Riddle of the New Testament (1931), pp. 19-20. This opinion of the language of the New Testament is shared by many linguists and other scholars, and in fact there are none who deny that the language of the New Testament often mimics the Hebraistic “translation Greek” of the Septuagint; yet, as Stanley E. Porter observes, “there is no place in Nida’s framework for the language of the New Testament being anything other than the common language that was in use in the Mediterranean world of the first century. Theories regarding the special nature of the Greek … have no place in his analysis” (Porter, “Eugene Nida and Translation,” The Bible Translator 56/1 [January 2005], p. 10).
9. Even if it be regarded as a metaphor. See Michael Reddy, “The Conduit Metaphor,” in A. Ortony, ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, 1979.
10. Barclay M. Newman, Creating and Crafting the Contemporary English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1996. Page 17.
11. In this article “New Living Translation” refers to the first edition of the version, published in 1996. The second edition (published in 2004) makes some improvements. In Acts 5:30 it reads “killed him by hanging him on a cross,” and it gives a literal translation in a footnote: “Greek, on a tree.” Other differences between the editions will not be noticed in this article.
12. J.H.A. Hart, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament vol. 5 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), p. 48. The connection with the words of Exodus is not just literary decoration here. Hart observes that in this epistle Peter “is engrossed with the conception of the Church as the new Israel which has been delivered from idolatry—the spiritual Egypt—by a far more excellent sacrifice.” We grant that the meaning of “gird up your loins” is not obvious to many people in our day, and that it requires an explanation.
13. Dennis E. Johnson, “Fire In God’s House: Imagery From Malachi 3 In Peter’s Theology of Suffering (1 Pet 4:12-19),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29/3 (September 1986) p. 285. In criticizing the NIV along with the other versions mentioned in this essay I do not mean to put the NIV on the same level as the others with respect to “dynamic equivalence.” The NIV is ordinarily more literal. However, many Bible teachers will agree with me when I say that the NIV does too often give paraphrastic renderings. It is not so much a problem of “accuracy” (narrowly defined) as a regrettable loss of imagery, vividness, and allusiveness in this version. As Daniel Wallace has said, the NIV “is so readable that it has no memorable expressions, nothing that lingers in the mind. This is a serious problem for the NIV that is not always acknowledged.” (The History of the English Bible Part IV: Why So Many Versions?) Leland Ryken, who focuses on literary qualities, includes many criticisms of the NIV along with criticism of more paraphrastic versions in his recent book, The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2003).
14. Thus St. Augustine writes concerning God’s omniscience, Quid est praescientia nisi scientia futurorum? Quid autem futurum est Deo, qui omnia supergreditur tempora? Si enim in scientia res ipsas habet, non sunt ei futurae, sed praesentes, ac per hoc non jam praescientia, sed tantum scientia dici potest. “What is foreknowledge except a knowledge of future events? What, however, is future in the sight of God, who transcends all concepts of time? For if he has the events themselves in the scope of his knowledge, they are not future as far as he is concerned but present; and by this very fact it can no longer be called foreknowledge but only knowledge.” (De Diversis Quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, II. ii. 2., cited in Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 401.) Some commentators have doubted whether Isaiah could have intended such an idea of transcendence. Franz Delitzsch assets that this thought is “quite outside the biblical range of ideas,” and so he thinks the expression must mean only “the eternally dwelling one” (Commentary on the Old Testament by C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, vol. 7, Isaiah, translated by James Martin, Hendriksen reprint, 2001, p. 549). Yet the Hebrew text says plainly, “he who inhabits eternity,” and so it is translated thus in essentially literal versions (KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, etc.). We reject the notion that the mind of this great prophet could not have received such an idea of God’s transcendence, and we think it is only a low view of inspiration which will put it “outside the biblical range of ideas.”
15. D. A. Carson, “God’s Love and God’s Sovereignty,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156/623 (July 1999), p. 262. It should be noted that in the current controversies about “Open Theism,” in which some people are even denying that God transcends time, this phrase in Isaiah 57:15 becomes more than a “fine expression” that stretches the mind: it becomes a point of reference for the teaching and defense of orthodox theology.
16. “I can remember times when working on Mark in Cincinnati that the committee spent a half an hour or more deciding on the meaning of one word in a verse. For example, in Mark 1:12 the King James Version says that “the spirit driveth (ekballei) him into the wilderness,” using the first meaning of ekballo given in the lexicons. I can still remember some of our participants facetiously wondering what kind of a car the Spirit used to transport him into the wilderness.” Wesley L. Gerig, “Translating the New International Version,” Reflections, official publication of the Missionary Church Historical Society, vol. 5/2 (Fall 2001), p. 6.
17. It is maintained by some that in the first century the sense of the word ekballo was weakened so much that it meant merely “sent,” without a connotation of command or compulsion, and so this has been given as a meaning of the word in some Greek Lexicons. But the NT citations offered in support of this opinion (Matt. 9:38, John 10:4, Acts 16:37, etc.) fail to establish it, and it is not acknowledged in Lust’s Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2003). In the Septuagint and in the New Testament the word is nearly always associated with commands or the use of force. Probably the NIV translators favored a weakened sense here, against the weight of the evidence, because they feared that ordinary readers would think “impelled him to go out” meant that Jesus was compelled against his own will.
18. Gerald Hammond puts it well: “While the Renaissance Bible translator saw half of his task as reshaping English so that it could adapt itself to Hebraic idiom the modern translator wants to make no demands on the language he translates into … The basic distinction between the Renaissance and the modern translators is one of fidelity to their original. Partly the loss of faith in the Hebrew and Greek as the definitive word of God has led to the translators’ loss of contact with it, but more responsibility lies in the belief that a modern Bible should aim not to tax its reader’s linguistic or interpretive abilities one bit.” (Gerald Hammond, The Making of the English Bible [Manchester: Carcanet New Press, 1982] pp. 212-13).
19. Jan de Waard and Eugene Nida, From One Language to Another (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986), p. 9.
20. English translation from Faust, Parts One and Two, by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, translated by George Madison Priest (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, reprinted from the edition published by Knopf in 1941), from line 1217. Goethe published the first part of his Faust in 1808.
21. Ardel B. Caneday notices the importance of this verse in current debates about “Open Theism.” In a review of John Sanders’ 1998 book The God Who Risks, he describes Sanders’ interpretation: “Gen. 50:20, a verse that affirms that God effectively succeeds at his plans, has consoled innumerable Christians. But it now means something quite different. Sanders explains, ‘I take this to mean that God has brought something good out of their evil actions. God was not determining everything in Joseph’s life, but God did remain with him.’ (p. 55) The subject and its verb—’God intended it for good’—has nothing to do with intention at all, but refers to God’s ability to mop up the mess, which is ‘to bring good out of evil human actions’ (p. 55).” (”Putting God at Risk: A Critique Of John Sanders’s View Of Providence,” Trinity Journal 20/2 [Fall 1999] p. 137.) We wonder if Sanders has been reading the New Living Translation. Is it asking too much of Bible translators that they should avoid giving ‘proof texts’ for such heretical ideas in their versions?
22. See his book Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979) esp. Chapter 15, “Dynamic-Equivalence Theologizing,” pp. 291-312, and his article “Dynamic Equivalence Churches: An Ethnotheological Approach to Indigeneity,” in Missiology, vol. 1 (January, 1973), pp. 39-57. The relationship of Kraft’s missiology to Nida’s theory of translation is not merely verbal. For a good discussion of the matter see Robert L. Thomas, “Dynamic Equivalence: A Method of Translation or a System of Hermeneutics?” in The Master’s Seminary Journal 1/2 (Fall 1990), pp. 149-76.
23. In a conversation with one retired missionary from the Wycliffe Bible Translators I learned that this “contextualization” stategy sometimes has very bad consequences. Before introducing Jesus Christ to one tribe he asked them which of their gods was most powerful, and then proceeded to tell them that this god has sent to them a Son. The tribesmen were not at all receptive. Later the missionary discovered that this god, with whom he had associated Jesus Christ, was the god most feared and hated by the tribe, a malevolent diety more like Satan than God. For the true God of the Bible they had no “equivalent.”
24. James Stalker, The Preacher and His Models (London and New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1891). Rev. James Stalker, D.D. (1848-1929) was best known for his books Life of Christ, Life of St. Paul, and Imago Christi. He was Professor of Church History at Free Church College, Glasgow, and a notable preacher in his day.
25. For a good discussion of other problems presented by dynamic equivalence versions in Bible teaching, see Robert L. Thomas, “Bible Translations and Expository Preaching,” chapter 17 in Rediscovering Expository Preaching, edited by Richard Mayhue (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1992).
http://www.sytra.cn/chinese-translation.html