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

The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. By Leland Ryken. Wheaton: Crossway, 2002, 336 pp., $15.99 paper.

Leland Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College, identifies his work as a "wholehearted defense of essentially literal translation in the King James tradition" (p. 18). The book is a thoroughgoing challenge to dynamic equivalence as a translation theory (the author prefers the older term "dynamic equivalence" to "functional equivalence"). Ryken decries dynamic equivalence for destroying the literary quality of the text, oversimplifying its meaning, removing theological terminology, modernizing ancient contexts, and removing the ambiguity, majesty, mystery, and beauty of the original. He considers the influence of Eugene Nida-the father of dynamic equivalence-to be "on balance, negative, depriving current Bible readers of the Bible they need" (p. 14).

The book has five parts. After an introductory chapter on the translation debate, part one draws lessons for translation from literature (chap. 1), ordinary discourse (chap. 2), and the history of translation (chap. 3). Part two describes common fallacies related to translation. These include fallacies about the Bible (chap. 4), about translation (chap. 5), and about Bible readers (chap. 6). Part three deals with theological, ethical, and hermeneutical issues and part four identifies problems of modern translation. These include ignoring the literary qualities of the Bible (chap. 9), obscuring the world of the original textichap. 10), destabilization of the biblical text (chap. 11), and reductionism (chap. 12). The fifth part summarizes the book with five criteria for excellence in an English Bible: fidelity to the words of the original (chap. 13), effective diction-clarity, vividness, connotation, and ambiguity (chap. 14), respect for the principles of poetry (chap. 15), effective rhythm (chap. 16), and exaltation and beauty (chap. 17). After Ryken's conclusion, an appendix by C. John Collins, Old Testament professor at Covenant Theological Seminary, is included entitled "Without Form, You Lose Meaning."

Ryken is strongest when he is dealing with the literary features of the biblical text. Many important cautions are raised for translators. The best translation will not cater to the lowest level reading public, simplifying the text at the expense of accuracy. Translators should preserve the genre and distinct literary styles of the authors, not flatten the text to stale prose. Translators should challenge readers to rise to the level of the text, not lower the text to suit the reader. The translation should accurately reflect the historical and cultural setting of the original and should preserve the "otherness" of the biblical context. Inter-textual allusions should be reproduced. A translation should conserve the beauty, artistry, and majesty of the original. This is particularly important in poetry, where modern idiomatic translations sometimes change concrete metaphors into abstractions (e.g. "God is a rock" becomes "God is strong"). Ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning should be preserved.

These are important cautions, and should be considered by translators. However, Ryken's apparently simple solution-a return to essentially literal translation-underestimates the differences between languages and flies in the face of almost all linguistic and hermeneutical research over the past half century. While strong on literary features, Ryken is weakest when discussing translation theory, linguistics, and Greek grammar. His basic thesis, repeated dozens of times throughout the book, is that a Bible translation should preserve what the Bible says, not merely what it means (its "ideas"). The claim is that literal translation tells us directly what the Bible says, while functional equivalence inappropriately interprets the meaning. In chap. 5, "Seven Fallacies About Translation," Ryken rejects as fallacious that "we should translate meaning rather than words" (fallacy 1), and that "all translation is interpretation" (fallacy 2). He claims that by focusing on meaning, dynamic equivalent versions are "translating what they interpret the meaning of the original to be instead of first of all preserving the language of the original" (p. 79). But how can you "preserve the language of the original" when the source language is different than the receptor language? Every English translation changes all the words of what the Bible "says." Ryken seems to assume the literalist fallacy that the words and syntax of one language have exact counter-parts in another, so that meaning transfer occurs automatically. He tries to avoid this obvious fallacy by allowing for "linguistic interpretation" but not "thematic interpretation" (pp. 85-87). But what he means by "linguistic interpretation" is limited to "decisions regarding what English words best express Hebrew or Greek words" (p. 85). This is too narrow a definition since languages differ radically not only in word meanings, but also in collocations, syntactical functions, idioms, connotations, and a host of other ways. Direct translation without interpretation is impossible since every word, phrase and clause must first be understood (= interpreted) in the source language before equivalent words, phrases, and clauses can be found in the receptor language.