Illustrations by Michael Reeve CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
Meeting Readers Where They Stand: The Nuances and Selection of English Bible Translation
The Christian Bible is the most read book on the planet, being accessible in 167 countries and available in 736 languages (“2023 Global Scripture Access”). How is it that so many people are able to read and understand the same story across cultural and linguistic barriers? The answer lies in the art of translation, which seeks to accurately transfer meaning from an original text into a different target language (Strauss “Literal Meaning” 3). Today’s Bibles are translated from a collection of ancient Biblical manuscripts that are written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. It is the job of translators to interpret and transcribe these original texts into language that is comprehensible for modern readers. Considering readers’ demands for the Bible, it’s only natural that accurate, comprehensible, and applicable translation is an end worth pursuing. This raises a pressing and complex question: which approach to English Bible translation best allows readers to both understand and apply the messages of scripture?
In the past few decades, the number of versions of the English Bible has increased exponentially. Religious journalist Gustav Niehbur of the New York Times observes the rapid increase in the number of English Bible translations in common use, and the decline of more traditional approaches. He specifically accounts for the decline in the usage of the King James version (KJV), the previously most abundant translation. As the third English Bible translation to ever be published, the KJV was first made available in 1611, and would dominate in the Christian community for the next several centuries. However, it has shifted out of fashion over the past few decades, due to its tendency towards traditional, formal, and arguably archaic language – a transition which Niehbur describes as “a casualty of the English language’s evolution, social change, and advances in biblical scholarship” (“In Other Words”). While some, such as Niehbur, see this cultural shift as catastrophic, others have taken the opportunity to replace the KJV with translations that are more consistent with modern day language and culture. For example, the “Black Bible Chronicles” gives the creation story in African American Vernacular English; and the Contemporary English Version appeals to a wider audience through its elementary level grammar. New versions and supplemental materials such as these certainly stray from the conventional and conservative approach, resulting in many varied opinions and arguments both for and against the unorthodox.
As new translations grow in abundance, one has to wonder how so many versions derived from the same source documents can maintain accuracy whilst presenting the same information in such varied manners. It is certainly no easy feat, and any given approach to English Bible translation attempts to address particular obstacles inherent to such an ancient, metaphorical, and sacred work. The first unique obstacle is that the Bible is a difficult text to understand even in its original form. Theologist and journalist Casey Cep of The New Yorker highlights that seeking to understand any text that centers around the spiritual and the unseen is an undertaking in and of itself (“New Translation”). Second, the ancient languages of Biblical manuscripts often add another layer of obscurity in the translation process. For example, there are some words in the ancient languages that appear only in Biblical manuscripts and in no other ancient or modern texts. This means that translators need to use their own discretion and contextual understanding to interpret what an obscure word might mean in that sentence. Different translations will inherently make up for the discrepancy in different ways. Take for example the Greek word “episous” which is found only in Luke and Matthew’s gospels, and nowhere else in scripture or ancient literature. The majority of Bible scholars have taken this word to mean “daily” as is used in the Lord’s Prayer to describe “our daily bread,” but due to the rarity of the Greek word, a level of uncertainty still exists, as does interpretive judgment (New International Version, Luke 11.3, New International Version, Matt. 6.11).
Another obstacle to translation is the difference in word meanings and the patterns of how sentences are structured across languages. There are inherent struggles with word-for-word translation, namely that it is impossible to always equate one word in a given language to a corresponding word in another (Henderson 132). Many times, there are several potentially appropriate words that differ only slightly in their meanings, and the translator’s job is to decide which word best fits the context of the original – a perfect match is rarely feasible. To this end, one of the dangers of translation is creating sentences that are “awkward to the point of obscurity” for readers of the translated language (Henderson 133). Word-for-word translation from an ancient language to modern English rarely leads to sentences that are grammatically meaningful and correct to modern day readers. In order to produce a translation that allows readers to understand and apply the text they are reading, some leeway must be afforded to translators to make linguistic changes that will produce comprehensible phrases for English speakers.
The third obstacle to translation is the discrepancies in cultural context and idioms across languages. Naturally, cultural differences exist between modern day society and Biblical times, and these differences are clearly evident in the ancient manuscripts. Cultural barriers, like linguistic discrepancies, can cause greater confusion for readers and inhibit their ability to understand the overall message if they are directly translated rather than put in terms that would be meaningful in the current cultural context. Bible Scholar points out that the most common example of this is the difference in common idioms. For example, while English speakers would typically identify the word “heart” as the locus organ of love and spirituality, in the Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible, the kidneys were more often recognized with this attribute (Henderson 134). While this would have made sense to readers in Biblical times, it is not significant for modern readers. Thus, in order to maintain significance, Henderson notes that translators need to use discretion and knowledge of the cultural and linguistic context in which they are translating (136).
There are several dominant approaches to English Bible translation that each seek to overcome these obstacles while maintaining the integrity of the original manuscript. The two most prominent means of translation are formal and functional equivalence (Strauss “Bible Translation” 170). Formal equivalence seeks to translate the original manuscript as literally as possible into the target language. As established by Henderson, word-for-word translation is not possible when considering discrepancies in sentence structure and linguistic form. Thus, adherents to formal equivalence will seek to translate word-for-word until sentences must be changed to compromise for overall meaning. Mark Strauss, professor of the New Testament at Bethel Seminary in San Diego, acknowledges that formal equivalent versions have been more highly revered in the Christian community, as is exemplified by the high usage of the KJV – the most prominent formal equivalence translation on the market (“Bible Translation” 170). While scholars have often believed that formal equivalent versions are more integritous with the original text, because they are closest to the original Hebrew, Strauss makes the case that a different approach, functional equivalence, is more effective. Functional equivalence prioritizes capturing the overall meaning of the original manuscripts. To this end, Strauss points out that functionally translated versions should also elicit a similar response in readers as the original passages would have for people living in ancient times (“Bible Translation” 173). To reach this goal, translators have more lee-way to interpret a passage, and put it in terms that will be culturally and linguistically significant for modern readers.
In order to better grasp the differences between formal and functional equivalence, it’s useful to compare a passage of scripture in one translation to that same passage in a different translation. Professor of ancient scripture, Dr. Gaye Strathearn, does this in her chapter of the academic book titled The King James Bible and the Restoration. She compares passages from the KJV – a formal equivalence approach – to passages from the Contemporary English Version (CEV) – a functional equivalence approach. The CEV is a unique translation in that it not only prioritizes encompassing the meaning of the original manuscripts, but also takes into account how the translation would sound when spoken aloud. Nevertheless, comparing these two versions provides insight into the differences between formal and functional equivalence. One of the passages Stathern uses to compare the two models is found in Psalm 23:5. In the KJV, this passage reads: “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: / thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.” In the CEV, this same verse is worded as: “You treat me to a feast, while my enemies watch. / You honor me as your guest, and you fill my cup until it overflows” (Strathearn 245).
While undoubtedly similar, the contrast in ideologies of translation are stark just from this example. Strathearn commends the CEV for its linguistic comprehensibility; the entire translation matches the skills of a fourth grade reading level, making it accessible to a wider audience. She comments on the ease of the flow of the passage, noting in particular “how well Psalm 23 reads” in the CEV as compared to in the KJV’s at times unwieldy language (Strathearn 244). While the CEV might appeal to a broader reach of modern day readers, this doesn’t come without cost. Strathearn notes that in the CEV’s translation of Psalm 23, certain critical theological words such as “atonement, covenant, justification, redemption, and repentance” are excluded (245). This is just one of many examples of how conflict can arise between formal and functional equivalent versions.
In order to assess if a specific approach to English Bible translation better promotes understanding and application of Scriptural messages, it is interesting to directly examine the Christian community and their current practices. Professor of Sociology of Religion, Samuel Perry, and Associate Professor of Psychology, Joshua Grubbs, did just that in a study they conducted in 2020. In this study, Perry and Grubbs sought to discover the correlation between religious subculture – also known as Christian denomination – and the type of Bible they read, either a formal equivalence or functional equivalence version. Upon conducting his study, Perry and Grubbs used a close-ended survey to ask 2,519 American Christians: (1) What Bible translation they read (2) What religious subculture they identified with (3) Their beliefs on what kind of text the Bible is (4) Their frequency of participation in religious activities and (5) Their sociodemographic affiliations. Some of Perry and Grubb’s key findings were that more traditional Christian sects such as conservative Protestants tend to read formal equivalence versions, while Catholics and other Christians were more likely to read functional translations. Interestingly, the study also showed that Christians who reported a higher level of participation in religious activities – including reading the Bible on their own – were more likely to read functional versions as their primary source of scriptural intake. However, these highly active Christians also reported reading multiple different versions of the Bible to enhance their personal studies. Perry and Grubbs contrast this with the observed reading patterns of conservative Christian subsects, noting that avid readers of scripture were more likely to reference multiple translations in their studies rather than relying on “a single Bible that might be owned, but seldom read” (339). Perry and Grubbs postulate that this is because Christians who have the intent of actually applying the Bible to their day-to-day lives, choose multiple translations for their readability and accessibility, rather than choosing a singular translation out of loyalty or tradition (Perry and Grubbs 338).
To this end, I argue the English Bible translation that allows readers to best apply and understand the messages of Scripture is the one that is actually read. The text does no good if it serves as merely a symbol of religious heritage or affiliation; in order to understand and internalize its messages, it must be opened and used often. With this established, I would like to reiterate that no translation – whether of the Bible, or another text – is ever perfect by translation’s standards. Due to cultural and linguistic differences like the ones pointed out by Cep and Henderson, no translation will ever perfectly deliver the same impact in its translated form. That being said, the best way to truly understand and apply the messages of scripture is to learn ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and read directly from the original manuscripts. This way, the reader will interpret the text exactly as it was intended to be read, and any obscurities or nuances that remain will be the same challenges that original readers would have faced.
Clearly, learning entirely new and complex languages with their own alphabets is unrealistic for the majority of English speakers. With this being the case, I propose that functional equivalent versions of the Bible best allows readers to read the Bible in the same way it was intended to be read by original readers. Functional equivalence, while allowing translators more freedom to change passages, accounts for cultural and linguistic discrepancies that might be overlooked in the formal equivalence approach. The text does no good if it is inaccessible to readers in the target language and culture – many of us would put down any book that requires extensive deciphering. Formal equivalent versions leave this step of deciphering for the readers to do themselves by the nature of their linguistically and culturally elusive phrases. Functional equivalent versions, on the other hand, first decipher the language of the ancient manuscripts so readers do not have to, and they can simply start at applying the messages they read to their own life. What makes scripture so integral to a Christian, is that it is “alive and active;” applicable to each reader’s life and circumstances in its own unique way, and meant to be reflective of God’s own thoughts and voice (NIV, Heb. 4.12). Because it’s believed that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work,” it is important that all readers – the new believer, the skeptic, and the scholar alike – are able to approach the text so that it meets them where they stand spiritually (NIV, 2 Tim. 3.16-17). Through their inherent readability and cultural impact, I believe that functional equivalent versions best accomplish this goal.
Strauss similarly advocates for functional equivalence over formal equivalence. He argues that functional equivalent versions promote knowledge of the text as “literary wholes” and allow readers to gain “a mastery of the sweeping flow of salvation history” (Strauss “Literal Meaning” 31). On the other hand, Strauss argues that formal equivalent versions discourage readership of multiple passages in a single sitting due to their inherently challenging language (“Literal Meaning” 31). Essentially, Strauss argues for functional equivalent versions because of their ability to be easily read and digested, giving readers greater understanding of the overall scriptural message. He advocates for these versions as the best alternative for reading the manuscripts in their original form by explaining that functional equivalence provides an “additional window” to the meaning of the ancient text by “alerting readers to verbal allusions and word plays which idiomatic versions might miss” (Strauss “Literal Meaning” 31). By meeting readers at their cultural and linguistic level, functional equivalence versions allow readers to understand scripture on their own terms, rather than resting in the obscurity of antiquity’s tendencies.
While the benefits of relying on functional equivalent translations are clear, there are plenty of opposing voices to this claim. Niehbur’s New York Times article highlights the voices of the traditional, conservative Christian community, which often advocates strongly for formal equivalent versions, most notably the KJV. This adherence is twofold: firstly, conservative Christians feel a strong sense of loyalty towards the translation they have been brought up with and used in church. Secondly, many of the new and emerging functional equivalent versions seek to “reach as many people as possible in an increasingly diverse society,” and thus have done away with unnecessarily exclusive language (Niehbur). One example Niehbur highlights in his article is the growing prominence of gender-inclusive translations that seek to do away with unnecessarily gendered language in order to make the text more relatable to all who read it. He describes various approaches to translation that seek to undergo this task, often making controversial moves such as expelling masculine descriptions of God, in favor of unorthodox phrases that evade ascription of any sexual identity (“In Other Words”).
While some approaches take this farther than others, the overall concept of altering long standing translations of the Bible like the KJV for the sake of increased inclusion is distasteful to the conservative Christian community, due in part to their social agenda. Perry and Grubbs identify the inextricable link between religious affiliation and political/social agendas, noting that the modern day conservative Christian identity is not only associated with, but built upon “ideas and rhetorics of the family and gender roles” (339). Thus, it seems that aspects of the Christian community’s strict advocacy for formal equivalent translations of the Bible stem more from a place of political and social affiliation, rather than genuine concern that the Gospel message is being altered to the point of heresy.
A recent New York Times article reflects how the Bible has been used by conservative Christians for their particular political and social agenda. Associate professor of the New Testament, Esau McCaulley, identifies the way in which political intimidation and nationalism has infringed upon mainstream presentations of the Bible in his New York Times article. He comments on the way that conservative Christians have taken to promoting Americanized Bibles with the addition of a copy of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and lyrics to “God Bless America” (McCaulley). McCaulley identifies the flaw in this presentation of the sacred text, lamenting over the fact that this Americanized Bible tries to harp on the blessing of one group of people over another. In reality, McCaulley notes, the beauty of Christianity is found in its ability to transcend culture and language and reach multitudes of people. This glorification of nationalism alongside religion is wrong on both “a theological and a moral level.” To this end, McCaulley advocates for the “supremacy of the cross over any flag” and cautions against misrepresentation of the Christian message ((McCaulley). This misrepresentation bleeds into the motives behind the conservative Christian community’s strict advocacy for and loyalty to formal equivalent versions, as functional equivalent versions are often framed as another way the left wing is corrupting the nation.
In reality, politics, social agendas, and nationalism were never meant to affect Bible readership, or the Christian message in general. Jesus Himself, although expected to arrive as a political leader who would free the Jewish people from Roman oppression, never displayed interest in political hierarchies, saying, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place” (New International Version, John 18.36). Thus, modern day political affiliation or denominational loyalty does not take away from the benefits of functional equivalent versions in amplifying the messages of Scripture to a level that is comprehensible and meaningful to modern day readers. The messages of love, grace, and acceptance that course throughout all of Scripture will not be silenced by intimidation, exclusion, and comfortability. Those who choose to base their promotion of the Scriptural message, or Christianity in general, on these things clearly have not opened the Bibles they claim to know so much about.
Translation of any text is no easy feat. Various cultural, linguistic, and historical barriers must be overcome in order to produce a work that is accessible in the target language. In a manuscript that deals with the numinous and abstract, accurate translation becomes all the more difficult. The approach of functional equivalence to Bible translation seeks to traverse these obstacles by focusing on preserving the overall meaning of the text, and eliciting a similar response in readers as the original text would have evoked for readers in ancient times. While this approach does allow translators more discretionary freedom, it also allows readers to avoid the extra step of interpreting a culturally and linguistically elusive formally equivalent translation. Studies such as the one conducted by Samuel Perry and Joshua Grubbs have shown that functional translations promote increased readership, due to their linguistic and cultural accessibility. To this end, I propose that the functional equivalence approach to Bible translation best allows readers to understand and apply the messages of Scripture.
Author: Jessica Lattanzi
During the spring semester of my first year at Delaware, I was enrolled in an Honors E110 class. My section, taught by Professor Haen, focused on language and its usages and effects on thought and common discourse. We learned just how important words are in conveying meaning, and how a small decision can have a monumental impact on a reader or listener’s understanding.
For our overarching assignment, we were asked to select a topic related to language and its influence on communication. I was grateful for the amount of freedom Professor Haen gave us over the subject matter of our essay. As a STEM major often buried in lab reports and problem sets, I jumped at the opportunity to exercise my creativity and passion for writing. Eager to take this assignment seriously, I selected a topic that is both near to my heart and has always puzzled me; one that is both familiar and challenging, and ultimately, proved to be practically enriching.
I chose to write about the nuances of English Bible translation because of its relevance to my own life and to the significance of language. As a committed follower of Christ, the process of translating the Bible had always interested me, and admittedly, confused me. I always wondered how there could be so many marketed versions of such a foundational text — how could they be exceedingly diverse, yet all equally be called the Word of God? I can hardly think of a question that further illuminates the weight of word choice and rhetoric.
Through my research, I uncovered answers to these questions that I still consider in my spiritual life today. When selecting a translation of the Bible to use and read, I now know the reason why there’s so many versions to choose from. I learned to compare a translation’s readability and essence of meaning with its literal adherence to ancient manuscripts. Ultimately, my research taught me that differences in translations are to be cross-referenced and utilized to maximize the depth of a passage. This discovery has enhanced my daily Bible reading, and has given me a greater appreciation for the words that are the bedrock of my life. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with such meaningful subject matter and authentically express my heart in conjunction with well-sourced research.
Instructor: Michael Haen
The theme of this section was “Language: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.” Throughout the semester, we explored these broad questions about language: What is language good for? What does it do for us? What does it do to us? In the first five weeks, students began developing their research interests as they read chapters in Language vs. Reality (2022), which draws on anthropological, sociological, and linguistics scholarship to examine how language works as a tool for social coordination. As students engaged with this text, they began writing a research proposal that presented a guiding question on a language-related topic and summarized five sources. Jessica was interested in how different approaches to Bible translation influenced reader engagement and correlated with distinct religious and social affiliations. After writing a strong proposal that described key historical trends and contrasting approaches in translation, Jessica composed an annotated bibliography that included both popular and scholarly sources written by sociologists, biblical scholars, and journalists. Her essay incorporates various perspectives and makes a persuasive case for the functional equivalence approach to translation, which cultivates a wider readership by making scripture accessible while preserving the original meaning as much as possible.
Abbreviated research paper prompt
A major learning goal of English 110 is for you to “address and identify exigences” through your writing. In other words, effective writing addresses some issue or problem that requires attention, response, or action from readers. You will write an argumentative essay (8 - 10 pages, double-spaced) based on your research into a specific issue or problem that is related to language. I encourage you to pick a language topic that aligns with your own personal, academic, or career interests, aspirations, or passions. The essay should explore various perspectives in the “conversation” about your topic, and you should take a position within that conversation (i.e., make an argument). You will need to use at least four scholarly sources and four popular/general audience sources.
Works Cited
Cep, Casey. “What We Can and Can’t Learn from a New Translation of the Gospels.” The New Yorker, 28 Apr. 2021, www.newyorker.com/books/under-review Accessed 8 Mar. 2024.
Henderson, R. F. “Problems of Bible Translation.” The Bible Translator, vol. 6, no. 3, 1955, pp. 127–136, https://doi.org/10.1177/000608445500600307. Accessed 15 Mar. 2024.
McCaulley, Esau. “There’s No Such Thing as an American Bible.” The New York Times, 31 Mar. 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/31/opinion/trump-bible-america.html. Accessed 16 Mar. 2024.
New International Version. Bible Gateway, www.biblegateway.com/versions. Accessed 1 May, 2024.
Niebuhr, Gustav. “In Other Words: The Bible’s New Language.” The New York Times, 23 Dec. 1995, www.nytimes.com/1995/12/23. Accessed 8 Mar. 2024.
Perry, Samuel L., and Joshua B. Grubbs. “Formal or Functional? Traditional or Inclusive? Bible Translations as Markers of Religious Subcultures.” Sociology of Religion, vol. 81, no. 3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/sraa003. Accessed 14 Mar. 2024.
Strathearn, Gaye. "Modern English Bible Translations." BYU ScholarsArchive, 2011, http://hdl.lib.byu.edu/1877/6341. Accessed 16 Mar. 2024.
Strauss, Mark. “Bible Translation and the Myth of ‘Literal Accuracy.’” Review & Expositor, vol. 108, no. 2, 2011, pp.169-193, www.researchgate.net/publication/274997048. Accessed 14 Mar. 2024.
—. "Form, Function, and the “Literal Meaning” Fallacy in English Bible Translation." Denver Seminary Biblical Studies Conference, 1 Feb. 2003, https://www.bible-researcher.com/Strauss.LiteralFallacy.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar. 2024.
“2023 Global Scripture Access.” Wycliffe Global Alliance, www.wycliffe.net/resources/statistics. Accessed 3 Aug. 2024.