Understanding English Bible Translation E-Book

Leland Ryken

• Herausgeber: Crossway
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 264

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2009

Beschreibung

From the KJV to the NIV, NLT, ESV, and beyond, English Bible translations have never been as plentiful as they are today. This proliferation has also brought confusion regarding translation differences and reliability. This book brings clarity to the issues and makes a strong case for an essentially literal approach. Taking into account the latest developments in Bible translation, Leland Ryken expertly clarifies the issues that underlie modern Bible translation by defining the terms that govern this discipline and offering a helpful Q&A. He then contrasts the two main translation traditions-essentially literal and dynamic equivalence-and concludes with sound reasons for choosing the former, with suggestions for using such a translation in the church. This book will appeal to thoughtful readers who have questions about Bible translation; individuals, churches, and ministries in the process of choosing a translation; and college and seminary students and faculty.

Leseprobe

“When I received my first Bible, the King James Version was recognized as the standard translation of Scripture. Things have changed considerably during my lifetime. Developments in Bible translation theories and the proliferation of versions and paraphrases necessitate that those committed to the authoritative Word of God carefully compare and contrast translation theories. Leland Ryken’s passionate defense of essentially literal translations and his polemic against dynamic equivalence is one readers of the English Bible should carefully consider. Ryken persuaded me that, as a pastor, this is an area I must monitor more carefully.”

—Chris Brauns, author, Unpacking Forgiveness; Pastor, The Red Brick Church, Stillman Valley, Illinois

“When it comes to the Word of God, I feel very childlike, almost naïve. I believe the Bible is what is says it is—words breathed out by God. Consequently I need to live by every word that comes from his mouth. So why would this book hold a valued place in my library? Because it affirms to me the absolute necessity of translations that not only respect each inspired word but also trust that our omniscient, omnipotent God is able by his Spirit to help his people understand what it means. Through his scholarship Ryken’s work affirms to me what I know by faith: that if I am to truly honor God as God, I must have and study a Bible translated by scholars who not only tremble at his every ‘purified’ word (Ps. 12:6) but also do not assume they know better than God how to speak to his people today. Ryken gives me the facts, the fuel, and the fire I need to continue to charge others to use a Bible translation that honors God by hanging on his every word. God has spoken. God can make it understood. We simply need to be faithful to handle it accurately. As his slave, I am to serve him, not help him! I do not think I could say with the psalmist, ‘For you, yourself have taught me’ (119:102), if I didn’t use a Bible that honors God’s word and his style and will not violate it, and consequently him, by playing God in an attempt to translate for the reader.”

—Kay Arthur, Cofounder, Precept Ministries International

“This is an important book for anyone who reads the Bible in English. Ryken clarifies recent dramatic evolutions in translation theory, offering a distinct contrast between the centuries-old stream of essentially literal translation and the decades-old stream of dynamic equivalency. Ryken does not ignore nuances, but with clarity and wit he offers every person the chance and the responsibility to grasp the issues at stake at a crucial time in the history of these issues. Not only does Ryken urge respect for the biblical text, with its original words intended by the authors and inspired by God the author; he also encourages respect for the Bible’s readers, who deserve the privilege of reading and studying this God-given text, loving and penetrating its literary beauty, and being enlarged by words and worlds outside of their own knowledge and experience. Ryken helpfully debunks many current myths—like the one that mistakes essentially literal translation for transliteration or the one that claims all translation is essentially interpretation. Most of all, Ryken’s call to is to guard and treasure a stable biblical text, which has for centuries clearly spoken God’s truth into his world, so that we will hear no our own voices but God’s.”

—Kathleen B. Nielson, author; speaker

“Leland Ryken, in this scholarly yet understandable volume, exposes the dynamic equivalence theory of Bible translation as not only insufficient but counterproductive in that it of necessity moves its practitioners from being translators of the Bible to interpreters, commentators, and even editors of the Bible. In staking out a return to literal equivalence, he not only reclaims the translator’s priority commitment of faithfulness to the divine Author’s words but simultaneously affirms a high view of Scripture and an invigorating encouragement to Bible study as well as expositional preaching.”

—Harry L. Reeder III, Senior Pastor, Briarwood Presbyterian Church, Birmingham, Alabama

Crossway titles by Leland Ryken:

ESV Literary Study Bible

The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation

Choosing a Bible: Understanding Bible Translation Differences

Preach the Word: Essays on Expository Preaching: In Honor of R. Kent Hughes (co-editor)

Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach

Copyright © 2009 by Leland Ryken

Published by Crossway Books a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers 1300 Crescent Street Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law. Crossway® is a registered trademark in the United States of America.

Interior design and typesetting: Lakeside Design Plus Cover design: Studio Gearbox First printing 2009 Printed in the United States of America

All emphases in Scripture references have been added by the author.

Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-4335-0279-8 ePub ISBN: 978-1-4335-2275-8 PDF ISBN: 978-1-4335-1261-2 Mobipocket ISBN: 978-1-4335-1262-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ryken, Leland.      Understanding English Bible translation : the case for an essentially literal approach / Leland Ryken.           p. cm.      Includes index.      ISBN 978-1-4335-0279-8 (tpb)      1. Bible—Translating. 2. Bible. English. 3. Bible—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title.

BS449.R949 2009 220.5'2001—dc22

2009007850

For Kent and Barbara Hughes

CONTENTS

Preface

Part One: Overview of Issues

1. Understanding English Bible Translation

2. Questions and Answers about English Bible Translation

Part Two: The Story of English Bible Translation

3. Laying the Foundation

4. Building on the Foundation

5. Building on Another Foundation

Part Three: The Two Main Genres of Modern English Bible Translation

6. Divergent Goals for Bible Translation

7. Divergent Views of the Bible

8. Divergent Views of the Bible’s Authors, Readers, and Translators

9. Divergent Methods of Translation

10. Divergent Styles of Translation

Part Four: The Ideal English Bible Translation

11. Fullness Rather Than Reductionism

12. Transparency to the Original Text

13. Preserving the Literary Qualities of the Bible

Part Five: The Bible in the Church

14. Oral Reading of the Bible

15. The Need for a Translation That People Can Trust and Respect

16. Teaching and Preaching from the Bible

Appendix A: Statements from Preachers and Bible Study Experts

Appendix B: Ten Reasons You Can Trust an Essentially Literal Bible Translation

Notes

Permissions

ABBREVIATIONS OF BIBLETRANSLATIONS

AMP

Amplified Bible

CEV

Contemporary English Version

ESV

English Standard Version

GNB

Good News Bible

HCSB

Holman Christian Standard Bible

JB

Jerusalem Bible

KJV

King James Version

MESSAGE

The Message

NASB

New American Standard Version

NCV

New Century Version

NEB

New English Bible

NIV

New International Version

NIVI

New International Version Inclusive Language Edition

NKJV

New King James Version

NLT

New Living Translation

NLV

New Life Version

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

PHILLIPS

New Testament in Modern English

REB

Revised English Bible

RSV

Revised Standard Verison

SEB

Simple English Bible

TLB

The Living Bible

TNIV

Today’s New International Version

PREFACE

THIS IS A BOOK about the theory and practice of English Bible translation. Its aim is to clarify the current English Bible translation scene and to present arguments in favor of an essentially literal translation philosophy as being better than dynamic equivalence.

From the very beginning, English Bible translation has existed within definite cultural situations. The current context is one of controversy and debate to a degree that did not characterize earlier eras of Bible translation. Both sides of the current debate have evolved arguments in favor of their positions and counter-arguments against criticism of them. Regardless of what side a person takes, much is to be gained by having the arguments laid out to view. I hope that my book will clarify the issues, even for readers who do not agree with my viewpoint.

One of the good effects of the current debate is that Bible readers are more aware of the issues of Bible translation than they were a decade ago. Before a backlash arose against dynamic equivalence, most people who read the NIV or NLT, for example, did not have a clue as to what they were holding in their hands. Today many of these readers do know what they are holding.

Furthermore, anyone who reads the blogs dealing with Bible translation issues cannot help but be struck by how often the word literal appears. This is one evidence among several that the tide of unquestioned acceptance of dynamic equivalence is ebbing. My earlier book on Bible translation, The Word of God in English,1 was a comprehensive exploration of the whole field. My current book argues for the same translation philosophy and practice that my earlier book did, but it does so within the altered landscape that now exists.

This is a shorter, more streamlined book than my earlier book. In the interests of readability, I have provided selective illustrations from various translations in support of generalizations that I make. I want my readers to see what I am talking about, but I have made no attempt to be exhaustive. Also, I want my claims to be understood as applying to the Bible translation into English, specifically; I am not qualified to speak to the special issues that arise in translating the Bible into a newly codified language on the mission field.

I have tried to avoid the repetitions that reviewers noticed in my first book (generally not in a critical way). However, I also need to record that a philosophy of translation is a whole system of interlocking components. If one starts with the premise that the actual words of the Bible do not need to be reproduced in translation, a host of additional characteristics follows from that premise. It is not surprising, therefore, that the issue of retaining or departing from the words of the original surfaces in a number of the chapters of this book.

No outcome for my authorial efforts would be more welcome to me than to see many readers reach the position of an e-mailer who wrote the following in response to my first book on Bible translation:

When I bowed to the pressure of friends to use a dynamic equivalent translation, I felt that my confidence in the scriptures was ripped away. Your book made me think about things I had never thought about before. . . . This may seem like a strange statement, but I feel like someone has literally given my Bible back to me and given me confidence that I can know what the scripture says.

PART ONE

Overview of Issues

The issues underlying Bible translation have always been momentous, technical, and complex. But until the mid-twentieth century, English Bible translators worked within a consensus regarding the goals and methods of Bible translation. Translators had a clear and relatively simple picture in their minds of what they wanted to achieve. Certainly they did not operate in a context of two rival translation philosophies that prevails today.

Everything changed with the advent of dynamic equivalence as a theory and practice of English Bible translation. Part 1 of this book provides initial clarity to a complex field.

1

UNDERSTANDING ENGLISH BIBLETRANSLATION

THE TRANSLATION SCENE has been in a state of flux for at least a decade. Important developments have occurred since the publication of my first book on English Bible translation, The Word of God in English, and this book takes those developments into account.

With a suddenness that remains a mystery, in the middle of the last century principles of translation that had been virtually unchallenged for centuries suddenly became passé for a majority of translators. A new “orthodoxy” swept the field, and much of what I say in this book will be a critique of that philosophy.

With the dawn of the current century, the new “orthodoxy” itself lost its position of unquestioned dominance. To many Bible readers it is no longer self-evident that translators should feel free to give English readers a substitute for the actual words of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The premise that readers and market research should determine how the biblical text is translated has become highly suspect for many Bible readers. Even readers who continue to prefer dynamic equivalent translations are generally better informed about what kind of Bible they hold in their hands than they were a decade ago.

The translation scene is not only in transition; it is also highly splintered. On one side, dynamic equivalent translations can be plotted on an arc of increasing boldness in departing from what the original biblical text actually says, starting with the NIV and culminating in The Message. This family of translations is itself so diverse that it has produced the phenomenon of a destabilized Bible.1

On the other end of the continuum, several essentially literal translations have recently appeared and have together diminished the stature that the NIV had enjoyed for three decades. D. A. Carson has correctly identified the rise of linguistic conservatism as one of the new developments of the past quarter century.2

Defining the Terms of the Debate

The best quick introduction to the issues involved in English Bible translation today is a listing of the concepts that underlie translation, accompanied by definitions of the key terms. Virtually all of these terms originated in the last half century, a fact that signals the degree to which English Bible translation entered a new era in the middle of the twentieth century.

Receptor language: the language into which a text written in a foreign language is translated.

Donor language: the original language in which a text is written.

Native language: synonymous with donor language—the original language in which a text is written.

Dynamic equivalent: a meaning in the receptor language that is equivalent to (but not identical with) a meaning in a native-language text; for example, the “heart” as the modern way of denoting the essence of a person, especially the emotions, which for the ancients was situated in the kidneys.

Dynamic equivalence: a theory of translation based on the premise that whenever something in the native-language text is foreign or unclear to a contemporary reader, the original text should be translated in terms of a dynamic equivalent.

Functional equivalent: something in the receptor language that differs from what the original text says but that serves the same function in the receptor language; for example, “first fruits” translated as “special offering.”

Functional equivalence: a theory of translation that favors replacing a statement in the original text with a functional equivalent whenever the original phraseology or reference is obscure for a modern reader in the receptor language; for example, “holy kiss” translated as “hearty handshake” because the latter is how Christians in Western cultures extend greetings to each other today.

Equivalent effect: translating in such a way as to produce the same effect on readers of the translation as the original text produced on its native-language readers; for example, The Message gives the image of “daughters as shapely and bright as fields of wildflowers” as producing the same effect as the original text’s image of “daughters like corner pillars cut for the structure of a palace.” (Ps. 144:12)

Formal equivalence: a theory of translation that favors reproducing the form or language of the original text, not just its meaning. In its stricter form, this theory of translation espouses reproducing even the syntax and word order of the original; the formula word for word translation often implies this stricter definition of the concept.

Verbal equivalent: a word or combination of words in the receptor language that most closely corresponds to a word in the original, native-language text.

Essentially literal translation: a translation that strives to translate the exact words of the original-language text but not in such a rigid way as to violate the normal rules of language and syntax in the receptor language.

Linguistic conservatism: as applied to Bible translation, a general orientation toward language that would seek to conserve the actual words of the original text as much as possible; an implied contrast to the “liberalism” of dynamic equivalence, which does not feel bound to reproduce the actual Hebrew and Greek words of the original.

Transparent text: this means two opposite things, and for that very reason the term has become devalued and misleading, even though it continues to be widely used by dynamic equivalent advocates. A text is transparent to the modern or contemporary reader when it is immediately understandable in the receptor language; this is the goal of dynamic equivalent translations. A translation is transparent to the original text when it reproduces the language, expressions, and customs of the original text; this is the goal of an essentially literal translation.

Target audience: the audience that a translation committee and publisher expect to be the chief market for a translation. Translation committees that consciously bring a target audience into their enterprise make translation decisions based on their desire to appeal to the target audience that they envision.

What the Terms Tell Us and Don’t Tell Us

The definitions in the preceding section of this chapter provide a good introduction to the field of modern translation theory and practice. The terms do a good job of revealing where we currently stand with English Bible translation.

We should note first the dominance of the word equivalence. This was a brand-new word on the translation scene when it was introduced in the mid-twentieth century. There was no comparable dominating word for translation before Eugene Nida popularized the new philosophy of translation, but it is pretty clear that the word that translators would have used to describe their practice up to that point was correspondence. What translators formerly did was find the correspondent English words for the words of the original.

What is significant about the rise of the word equivalence as the dominant term? The significance lies in the fact that the word was popularized by Eugene Nida and his followers. While the word need not imply license, as used by dynamic equivalent proponents, it does imply a loose attitude toward preserving the words of the original text of the Bible. As used by the people who elevated it to the main term in translation theory, translating the Bible into something equivalent to the original text stands in implied contrast to translating it into something that corresponds to or is identical with the words of the original (subject of course to the changes required by translation from one language into another).

We might ask further what the word dynamic is doing in the formula. The phrase has become so common that we scarcely note what an odd adjective dynamic is in this context. It is mainly an honorific term—dynamic in contrast to the allegedly static or dead products of essentially literal translators. But in this context the word dynamic actually means something in addition, namely, a spirit of freedom or exemption from the need to reproduce the actual words of the original in an English translation.

The terms currently in fashion have the pernicious effect of privileging dynamic equivalence over the rival theory of translation. Consider the formula verbal equivalence. This would be innocuous and even helpful if it meant “finding the equivalent English word for the word in the original.” The problem is that the word equivalent has already been co-opted by dynamic equivalent advocates. It carries the connotation of being a substitute for rather than corresponding to the words of the original biblical text.

We also need to note how inadequate—to the point of being misleading—the terms dynamic equivalence and functional equivalence are as descriptors of what translations bearing those names actually do with the original text. In fact, only a small amount—almost a statistically insignificant quantity—of what we find in modern dynamic equivalent translations is a matter of finding an equivalent for something in the original. What these translations mainly do is beyond that parameter, consisting of such things as changing syntax and word order, adding exegesis and interpretive commentary to the text, simplifying the content of the original text, removing figurative language from sight, producing a colloquial style for the English Bible, and adapting the translation to the expectations of a target audience. None of these activities can be honestly construed as finding an equivalent for difficult words and phrases in the original text of the Bible.

Realistically, the prevailing terminology will not change any time soon. So we need to use the terms in a “state of high alert.” Many of the terms are misleading. They also stack the deck in favor of modern translation theories and against traditional understandings of what English Bible translation should be.

2

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUTENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION

THE ISSUES SURROUNDING English Bible translation are complex. Much of the writing on the subject is so technical that laypeople might well despair of ever understanding the process. In this chapter I will clarify matters by asking and answering a series of questions that frequently surface in regard to English Bible translation. In answering the questions in my own voice, I have pictured myself as responding to questions posed by an interviewer.

1) Isn’t all translation interpretation? If so, aren’t essentially literal and dynamic equivalent translations basically the same?

The favorite motto of dynamic equivalent translators is that “all translation is interpretation.” The statement is so misleading that an immediate moratorium should be called on its use.

There is only one sense in which all translation is interpretation, and it is not what dynamic equivalent translators usually mean by their cliché. All translation is lexical or linguistic interpretation. That is, translators must decide what English word or phrase most closely corresponds to a given word of the original text. I myself do not believe that “interpretation” is the best word by which to name this process, but inasmuch as it requires a “judgment call” on the part of translators, there is something akin to interpretation when translators decide whether, for example, the Israelites were led through the wilderness or the desert.

All translation is “interpretation” on the lexical level. But this is the least of what excites dynamic equivalent translators. In fact, they are often impatient with finding the right corresponding word and eager to interpret the meaning of a word or phrase for the allegedly ignorant modern reader.

2) What do dynamic equivalent translators primarily mean when they speak of all translation being interpretation?

They primarily mean interpretation of the content of a statement—in other words, exegesis and commentary. For example, lexical interpretation of Psalm 23:5b yields the translation “you anoint my head with oil.” A typical move by dynamic equivalent translators is to translate that statement as “you welcome me as an honored guest” (GNB). What I have labeled lexical interpretation has actually been bypassed in the second rendition, since the translators who produced it make no claim that the words honored guest appear in the original poem. The translators have interpreted the metaphoric meaning of the image of the anointed head. The two types of interpretation that I have noted belong to different realms and cannot accurately be placed on the same continuum.

3) What’s so objectionable about the motto “all translation is interpretation”?

It is objectionable because its effect is to conceal a basic difference that exists between the rival translation philosophies. The sleight of hand that dynamic equivalent translations hope to perform with their cliché “all translation is interpretation” is to conceal the irreconcilable divergence that exists between retaining the words of the original and substituting an interpretation of meaning in place of those words. The hoped-for effect of the motto is to imply something like the following: “See—all translation is interpretation, and the liberties that dynamic equivalent translators take with the original are just part of the normal work of translation.”

Well, those liberties are not a necessary part of translation. Dynamic equivalence introduced a new type of interpretation into the translation process—a type that essentially literal translators regard as license. To remove the imagery of the statement “he who has clean hands and a pure heart” (Ps. 24:4, esv and others) and replace it with the statement “those who do right for the right reasons” (cev) is to do something with the text that was never regarded as normal translation practice until the appearance of dynamic equivalence. All translation is emphatically not interpretation as we find it in the second translation quoted above.

4) Are the labels “dynamic equivalence” and “functional equivalence” good descriptors?

No; they are as misleading as the motto “all translation is interpretation.” The newer term functional equivalence is even more deceptive than its predecessor, and it is no wonder that enthusiasts for that approach have latched onto the new label.

Both labels name a process of finding an equivalent in the receptor language for a statement composed in the donor or native language. Functional equivalence seeks something in the receptor language that produces the same effect (and therefore allegedly serves the same function) as the original statement, no matter how far removed the new statement might be from the original.

For example, in searching for a metaphor to express how delightful he finds God’s law, the poet in Psalm 19:10 landed on “sweeter also than honey / and drippings from the honeycomb” (most translations). A dynamic equivalent translator asks, now what does someone in modern Western society find as tasteful as the ancient poet found honey to be? What in modern experience serves the same function as honey in the category of “something that tastes sweet?” One translator’s answer: “You’ll like it better than strawberries in spring, / better than red, ripe strawberries” (message).

In slight contrast, dynamic equivalence widens the scope beyond functional equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is not primarily interested in corresponding effect. Instead, dynamic equivalence is interested in finding equivalent words or expressions for the original even while departing from the terms used by the biblical author. For example, if the original says “Lord of hosts,” dynamic equivalent translators judge that “Lord Almighty” is an adequate lexical equivalent for the original. If the original says “the hearts of the people melted and became as/like water” (all translations that render Joshua 7:5 literally), the other philosophy thinks that a suitable equivalent of the metaphor is “the Israelite army felt discouraged” (cev) or “the Israelites . . . lost their courage” (NCV) or “their courage melted away” (NLT).

5) What makes the labels “dynamic equivalence”and “functional equivalence” objectionable?

Those labels cover only a fraction of what the translators actually do during the process of translation. Correspondingly, the activities that fall into these two categories constitute a relatively small part of what I discuss in this book. Dynamic equivalent translators smuggle in a huge agenda of further activities that have little to do with finding an equivalent for something in the original text. Here is a list of activities that make up the major portion of what dynamic equivalent translators do:

make the style of the English Bible as contemporary and colloquial (or nearly so) as it is possible to make it;

change figurative language into direct statement;

add interpretive commentary in an attempt to make the Bible immediately understandable to a modern reader;

replace theological vocabulary with everyday vocab­ulary (true of some but not all dynamic equivalent translations);

reduce the vocabulary level of the original and of traditional English translations;

shorten the syntax of the original and/or traditional English translations;

bring masculine gender references into line with modern feminist preferences.

Very little of the process I have just described involves finding equivalent terminology or “functions” for the original text. My objection to the labels dynamic equivalence and functional equivalence, therefore, is that they are misleading and deceptive as descriptors of the phenomenon that they are designed to name.

6) Is the claim true that essentially literal translation is no more than transliteration?

The claim was made in print by Mark Strauss in a review of my earlier book.1 (Strauss coauthored a book that makes the opposite claim that all translation—even literal translation—is a form of paraphrase.2 ) A transliteration of Psalm 32:1 reads, “Blessedness of forgiven of transgression, covered of sin.” An essentially literal translation is totally different: “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” The charge that essentially literal translators “forget that [the process involves] translation rather than transcription” should be labeled for what it is—frivolous and irresponsible.3

7) Is it true that linguistic theory has made it obsolete to speak of the difference between what the original text “says”and what it “means?”

No, linguistics has not proven that. The only kernel of truth in the statement is that meaning is ordinarily embodied not in individual words but in more complex word combinations such as phrases, clauses, and sentences. The exception would be in a one-word communication, where the single word embodies the meaning.

The attempt to discredit the distinction between what a passage in the Bible says and what it means is yet another way in which dynamic equivalent translators attempt to phrase the issues in such a way as to make it appear that all translation is really a version of dynamic equivalence. To clarify the matter, we can compare the two columns in Chart 2.1. The left column translates the words of the original into English, while the right substitutes something in place of the words of the original.

Chart 2:1 What a Text Says vs. What It Means

“my joy and crown” (Phil. 4:1)

“how happy you make me, and how proud I am of you” (GNB)

“the keepers of the house tremble” (Eccl. 12:3)

“your body will grow feeble” (CEV); or “your limbs will tremble with age” (NLT)

“set a guard . . . over my mouth” (Ps. 141:3)

“take control of what I say” (NLT); or “help me control my tongue” (NCV)

It does not take the proverbial rocket scientist to see that the left column gives us what the original text says: crown, keepers of the house, guard. It is equally clear what the original does not say: happy, proud, body, limbs, grow feeble, control, what I say. Well, then, what do the terms used in the right column represent? They are translators’ interpretations of the meanings of the words and/or statements in the right column.

The commonsense distinction between what a passage says and what it means is completely valid, and we should not allow the high-flown technical jargon of linguistics deter us from seeing what is plain to us. The relevance of this to Bible translation is that essentially literal translations give us what the original text says (to the extent that translation into English allows), while dynamic equivalent translations regularly remove what the original text says in deference to an interpretation of what it means. As biblical scholar Raymond Van Leeuwen states, “It is hard to know what the Bible means when we are uncertain about what it says.”4