The Word: On the Translation of the Bible

by John Barton

The Bible is held to be both universal and specific, the source of fundamental truths inscribed in words that are exact and sacred. For much of the history of Judaism and almost the entirety of Christianity, however, believers have overwhelmingly understood scripture not in the languages in which it was first written but rather in their own - in translation.

This book examines how saints, scholars and interpreters from ancient times down to the present have produced versions of the Bible in the language of their day while remaining true to the original. It explains the challenges they negotiated, from minute textual ambiguities up to the sweep of style and stark differences in form and thought between the earliest writings and the latest, and it exposes the bearing these have on some of the most profound questions of faith: the nature of God, the existence of the soul and possibility of its salvation.

Reading dozens of renderings alongside their ancient Hebrew and Greek antecedents, John Barton traces the migration of biblical words and ideas across linguistic borders, illuminating original meanings as well as the ways they were recast. 'Translators have been among the principal agents in mediating the Bible's message,' he writes, 'even in shaping what that message is.' At the separation of Christianity from Judaism and Protestantism from Catholicism, Barton demonstrates, vernacular versions did not only spring from fault lines in religious thinking but also inspired and moulded them. The product of a lifetime's study of scripture, The Word itself reveals the central book of our culture anew - as it was written and as we know it.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Christianity, Theology, Language, Christian

320 pages, Paperback

Published November 2, 2023

About the author

John Barton is Oriel & Laing Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford. His publications include The Theology of the Book of Amos (Cambridge University Press, 2012) and Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (2007).

For the Canadian poet, see John Barton.

Reviews

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Barton is a truly subtle and genius mind; I remember a story my dad told me about one of his friends at University, Richard Cross, who was once remarked by Richard Swinburne as a truly 'subtle mind' who had this intelligence beyond compare. This is what strikes me about Barton- a man of truly great learning and a disposition away from confessional hard-headedness, looking towards a truth and an argument that is variated by interesting debate and scholarship.

The most enlightening thing about 'The Word' was understanding the 'litero-theosophy' of the translation of the Bible. The fact that power is clearly the crux of translation practice. Whilst Barton approaches the post-modern paradigm in this regard, he always shies away from it (perhaps pertaining to his own priesthood). It is the fact that ideological conviction overshadows the entire history of translation- one must look for the purpose of a text before trying to translate it. The theological identities both of textual authors as well as translators play an enormous role in the shaping of their works; whether it be evangelists looking towards functional (dynamic) equivalence to proselytise their message in mission, or scholars looking towards a formal (literal) equivalence to try and more deeply understand the 'alienation' of the text in a foreign tongue. What is so crucial about this book is that it is not written in an excoriating style that seeks to define the 'perfect' translation (as Barton himself says), but rather than take a telescopic view of the enormous platter of translations meted out over 100s of years. Whilst Barton clearly has reverence for some translations over others, such as the NKJV and the RSV (over something like the NRJB or the NIV), he continuously (and rather laboriously at some points) makes sure to apply his critical scalpel in a most accessible and scholarly way.

This really did illuminate things for me when it came to the Bible (and somewhat shocked me as to my woeful knowledge of the Old Testament); I would highyl recommend it even for someone who is looking at linguistics, just to view translation philosophy more than anything else. Even if you have no interest in the Bible whatsoever, it really isn't a confessional book about the Bible. It is a testament to theological practice, translation philosophy and simply a little witty book that isn't too hard on the brain to be truthful.

[Sarah-Hope · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Word: How We Translate the Bible—and Why It Matters makes for both daunting and rewarding reading. Barton's purpose here is to survey the kinds of decision-making translators have to do and offer chapters focused on the complexities of these. Go for literal accuracy or for an accuracy of spirit/feeling? Modify outdated usages, like the universal male, to offer a more inclusive reading experience?

Barton knows this subject in all its detail and complexity, which is what makes the experience both daunting and rewarding. If you don't have a degree in theology, you'll either have to spend a great deal of time doing research to be able to understand some of Barton's more specific or esoteric points or you'll have to be able to choose when to skim and when to sink into the book. I fall into the second category. I know my understanding of the specifics of The Word was only partial, but I also found that partial understanding very worthwhile.

I received a free electronic review copy of this title from the published via NetGalley; the opinions are my own.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating, thought-provoking and informative. Not an altogether easy read, it must be said, and on occasions erring toward the dry and technical. But it's full of insights into the possibilities and pitfalls of translation. Are the words of the original the most important thing, and therefore to be rendered as closely as possible? Or is it the story (or argument) that's being told, in which case a freer rendering might give a truer understanding. Should you, that is, try to take the reader closer to the original text? Or take the text to the reader?

There's no right answer - and there are many examples of how the same passage has been treated in different version of The Bible that illustrate and illuminate the question. In the end it comes down to the audience for whom you're translating and the purpose for which you're doing the work.

I finished this book with a deeper understanding of and respect for the skills of a good translator: deep knowledge of the original language and a feel for its culture, and a nuanced, sophisticated command of (in this case) English.

[Audrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Much of the history of [the Bible’s] reception is the history of its translation.”

A short but fairly comprehensive glimpse into the history and influence of Bible translation and what it has meant for Christian doctrine past, present, and future. Lots of food for thought!

[Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

[I received a free digital copy of this book through NetGalley.]

This is a fascinating book! Much of the discussion around translation, especially in my circles, centers entirely around formal and functional equivalence. Barton does an excellent job here of demonstrating that the formal/functional spectrum is only one of several important features of the translational process. He considers matters such as doctrinal presuppositions, tonal register, archaism, gender inclusivity, textual criticism, genre, form criticism, and canon (as well as others) all factor into the process. His core thesis is that the adequacy of a translation depends in large part on its purpose, and therefore that, while there can be incorrect translations, there cannot be one uniquely correct one. I think he proves this point quite persuasively.

The book isn't perfect. He tackles, for example, the intriguing question of semantic variance between equivalent words in the Old and New Testaments. Should they be rendered by a single English word, or by different ones reflecting the different semantic domains of the source languages' vocabulary? This seems, to me, a very valid and very important question. However, I think his three illustrations (נפש vs ψυχη, ישוע vs σωτηρία, and אמונה vs πίστις) are rather weak. Regarding the first pair he concludes that the two ultimately mean the same thing, and I think he greatly exaggerates the gap between the other two pairs. Despite this, the overarching concept is still important.

Other issues crop up when he discusses the doctrinal implications of linguistic data. I think it all boils down to one problem: Barton doesn't quite understand the evangelical doctrine of inspiration/inerrancy. He suggests, for example, that the imperfect Greek grammar of Mark and Revelation may contradict such beliefs. To anybody who has seriously studied the subject, however, that is simply preposterous.

My last major issue with the book is chapter ten, where he makes a rather weak argument (both doctrinally and historically) that Protestants might do well to consider priveleging the Septuagint (along with the apocryphal books) over the Hebrew OT. He assumes that Patristic quotations of the Apocrypha indicate early adoption into the canon. This fails to account for the relative infrequency and qualitative difference of Apocrypha citations versus OT citations. He also argues that the doctrinal emphases accord better with the brliefs of Christianity. That may be true, but this does not mean the Septuagint is divinely inspired, and that is the central point for evangelical protestants.

Having spent most of my review discussing the book's flaws, I would reiterate that I really do think the book is excellent. Were I a language professor at a seminary (as I hope I might be someday), I would assign this book to my students. The problems I mentioned would prevent me from recommending the book to most lay Christians, but I will absolutely be suggesting this book to students and faculty at my seminary.

[Jane · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book might have been a lot easier to read if I was a theologian. However, I did get something out of it that might stay with me. Barton analyzes all the ways that make translating the Bible so difficult and addresses literal vs free translation, literary style, and inclusive language. He compares how the versions of the Bible most in use today handle these issues. In the conclusion he sites three theories of translation posited by Reif and Vermeer: 1. That there can be no perfect translation and that adequacy is a better aim than accuracy. 2. Bible translations should take into account the different genres (such as legends, history, poetry) rather than translating the entire Bible as if was written in a single genre. 3. It is vitally important to consider the purpose of the translation. Gaining this information has helped me understand how much critical thinking is required in reading any translation and to wish that those who believe that the Bible is simply the word of God would read this book.

[Traci Rhoades · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's in the details. If one has ever felt like one translation of the Bible is better or, even, the right one, this book debunks that. Translation doesn't work that way. For the rest of us, a fascinating look at the vast attempts to honor Scripture in translation. A hefty read.

[Christopher Whalen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good follow-on from John Barton’s “A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths”, returning in more detail to the subject of the Bible in translation, focusing mostly on English translations. As an audiobook it’s harder to compare and contrast the translations cited as examples - particularly when the narrator, Neil Gardner’s, French and German accent and pronunciation are so poor that they’re a distraction.

[Luca Drole · Rating 4 out of 5]

While never getting too scholarly, Barton allows the uninitiated reader to witness the impact that biblical translation has had on Western history.

[Susan Peak · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent, if occasionally over-detailed, discussion of what's involved in translating the Bible. I learned a lot about translation itself, the different ways of tackling a text, as well as the theological implications of Bible translation itself. A very good book, both engaging and scholarly

[Dan Ust · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall very good, though could be improved with a few tables and charts. For instance, he might have shown via some graphic the relationships between some of the more famous translations.

[Daniel Clemence · Rating 5 out of 5]

The translation of the Bible is an important subject particularly for Christians who want a correct understanding of the text. John Barton's The Word: On the Translation of the Bible is a subject overview of translation of the Bible by differences in translation, context of translation, language and meanings and the intertextuality of the Bible. In this regard, John Barton's book is a phenomenal overview of the translation of the Bible.

The book starts with an overview of the history of Biblical translation. The Word  outlines how translation happened through the centuries and which manuscripts were used for translation. The Bible is the piece of writing with the most translations. Unlike other holy books such as the Qur'an which is most authoritative in its native language of Arabic, the Bible is widely translated into other languages.

The big question about Bible translation is whether the reader should be taken to the text or should the text be taken to the reader. This comes to the famous liberal Christian FDE Shliermacher's 1813 lecture in Berlin where he outlines that you leave the writer in peace with the work or you leave the reader at peace. This is outlined further by Eugene Nida in the difference between formal equivalence that aims to keep the original text as close to the original as possible and dynamic/functional equivalence. To this end, the first chapters look at this dichotomy before outlining that there is a translation tradition that is an equilibrium between the two.

Style and register is looked at. The language used in the Bible differs significantly based on the author, with some authors writing eloquently (such as the gospel of John) whilst others are much more cruder (such as the gospel of Mark or Revelation). The vocabulary then becomes a part of how a translation is written.

The questions of inclusivity and worship are also aspects of translation. Having inclusive words to describe Christians (for example translating adelphoi into both brothers and sisters) is an example of how translators seek to bring translation to those who are less conservative. However, such decisions have then been criticised by conservative Christians, leading for example to the creation of the ESV which was a conservative evangelical response to the RSV which tried to have more female friendly descriptions.

Language and the meanings of words has a significant impact on translation. The idea of salvation being central to Christianity and the reformation in particular led to Protestants such as Luther viewing salvation to be defined by grace. However, a more modern understanding of via the "New Perspectives of Paul" that N.T Wright has been part of found salvation was more about being part of the Christian community rather than a psychological state of belief and adhering to this community by acting in a certain way. Then there is the intertextuality of the Bible in how different authors are influenced by different books. The Bible becomes a web of different works and links together. This John Barton outline isn't like the web popularised by Jordan Peterson but there are clearly intertextual links between books in the Bible.

Then there is discussion about which version of the Bible Christians should use for translation. This is important because Christians historically used the Septuagint for translation. Indeed, many of the Jews around the time of Jesus used the Septuagint and there is significant evidence that Paul and other authors in the Bible were quoting from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text. The Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Hebrew text but later Christians such as Martin Luther used the Masoretic text, which is why there is a difference in the number of books found in the Protestant versus Catholic and Orthodox canons.

The Word concludes with how important translation is and the power that translators have over understanding the scripture. The book is a fantastic overview of Biblical translation. John Barton avoids normative biases that could impact his work. If there was a criticism, it would be that the book fails to take into how Bible translations can have a profound impact on their denomination. Indeed, one thing that lacks from this is the quaint and bizarre impact the John Schofield study Bible had on American evangelicalism and particularly the Rapture and dispensationalism. That said, I suspect it is because they didn't create an entirely new translation.

The book is a must read for students of the Bible or Christians who want to further their understanding of Bible translation.

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Translation in general is something I’ve always had an interest in and that of course includes the Bible. A few years ago I read a collection of books all about it: "The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently” by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, “Whose Bible Is It?: A Short History of the Scriptures” by Jaroslav Pelikan, and...ah, “Let’s Get Biblical” by Rabbi Tovia Singer. Thus, with my ho-hum credentials on the table, the biggest concern I had going into “The Word: How We Translate the Bible—and Why It Matters” by John Barton was simply: am I going to learn anything new? Really, I was on the fence but seeing how Robert Alter, who single-handedly translated the Tanakh into English (and probably did the best job of it and don’t ask me, ask John Barton who probably positively cited him more than any other translator!) praised it, I was left with little choice in the matter.

There’s a saying in the Talmud (Berakhot 31b:13) that should serve as a lodestar to any translator—and especially those translating not to get an A for “accuracy” but an A for “comprehension” (not necessarily the same thing!): “The Torah spoke in the language of men.” Thus, believing the only good Bible translation is word-for-word-no-excuses may result in text that frankly is unreadable. Of course the flip side is being way too free and adding in one’s own beliefs (hello NIV and definitely salutations to NWT, the latter of which thankfully was not even addressed in this book) which depending on one’s outlook can be heresy in another name. And of course the ‘source material’ for such old works will always remain a great subject to academic debate.

This makes for murky waters when deciding what Pelikan noted in his own book: “Whose Bible Is it?” In “The Word”, we zero in less on the “whose?” aspect (still important and covered briefly early on and returns at the end with a vengeance) and heavy on the actual translation aspect; why we pick the words we do, why we structure it the way we do, the pro’s and con’s of solo vs group/committee translations (and as Alter noted when it comes to the beauty of the word, not necessarily translation accuracy, (paraphrasing) “all Bible translations made by a committee are equally dreadful”).

Early on, one of the biggest takeaways and probably the easiest reason why NIV and KJV remain so incredibly popular in spite of being theologically-influenced ‘adjustments’ and outdated, respectively (for the former, sorry, it’s not a “virgin”, get over it and the latter, beautiful text though archaic even for the 17th century) is that the former is written so most anyone can clearly understand and the latter because of its legendary status as a cornerstone of beautiful English.

Pardon the Inception level of quoting, but this explains it even better: “Naomi Seidman quotes Edward Greenstein: ‘audience-oriented translation conforms to the evangelical thrust of Christianity as opposed to the covenant-centeredness of Judaism’.” (p. 103) This may even better explain this concept as Jewish translations including Robert Alter’s which receives more praise in in this book than perhaps any other mentioned translation combined very closely sticks to adhering to a word-for-word direct translation whereas some evangelical translations are so far beyond the pale we get “Da Jesus Book: Hawaii Pidgin New Testament”. In other words, one is for conversion purposes and the other for educational (no shade on more academic Christian translations such as NRSVue which do a phenomenal job albeit you probably won’t see any in church pews).

“The Word” could frighten some curious readers thinking it’s going to be a deeply academic and thus hard to penetrate piece about the intricacies of Bible translation and at times, it does deliver on this, but at its core, it’s a great example of taking a complex theme and writing to satisfy the curiosities of the curious yet academically engaged layperson. Those who already have read a lot on the subject matter at hand may not find too much new here, but for those who only have light experience, this is a somewhat easy to digest treasure trove of why the Word is translated the way it is.

4/5

[E · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book tries to walk that fine line that has been trod so many times before--how "literal" should a Bible translation be? Are we more interested in the meaning or in the individual words? (I hope already you've seen the problem--how else do we communicate meaning except via the words? An obvious point never made.) Do we bring the text toward the modern reader, or do we bring the reader to the original text? (Are the text and readers equals? Is it possible the former has more authority than the latter? Barton is unwilling to say.

Most people don't consider such questions. They just know they like the NLT, say. While others might prefer the ESV. (Interestingly enough, I've noticed that fans of the former rarely have theological reasons for being so. Fans of the latter, though, often do. Is this important. Hmm. A point never raised.) To be clear, Barton never deals with these translations. He's British, and so he's usually comparing the literalism of the KJV with the expansiveness of a NEB or with the political correctness of the NRSV. (In my opinion: why will the NRSV never catch on? It's abbreviation is one too many letters. Sometimes it's the little things, folks.)

The first third of the work deals with these issues. Then things get weird, as Barton talks about anything or everything related to Bible translation. Again and again his extreme theological liberalism gets in the way of an honest conversation (he never admits his place on the theological spectrum, though it's more than clear through his pronouncements). For instance, he suggests Christian Bibles should use the LXX, not the Hebrew, as the OT basis, since it's a better fit with the apostles (269). No discussion of which might actually be God's Word. In writing about odd grammar in Scripture, he suggests "the fact that the BIble is not written throughout in the best varieties of its languages, but can contain bad Hebrew or Greek, is hard to square with claims that it is inerrant or perfect" (157). Huh? What? No imagination.

It gets worse. When discussing gendered language of God, he admits "it seems to me that the Bible really does treat God as male." Well duh, I thought. But then he writes "I would add that the Bible is mistaken in this" (183). Oh. So we can't be sophisticated enough to talk about God as a Father while still not limiting him to a gender. Tell that to the apostles and prophets. Barton could also stand to get out more. Once he writes, when pontificating on the divine name, "No modern Christian thinks of God as Yahweh" (185) Uhh, I could find you lots and lots who do. Maybe they're not "modern" enough?

There's other dumb stuff--Paul twisted what the OT means by "faith" or "belief," e.g. (217). I can't reproduce it all here. It's just sad that 35 years of Oxford students were taught biblical interpretation under such skepticism--by an Anglican minister, at that. When one fails to respect the author of a work, we truly warp the work and poison our students/readers.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

While waiting for his History of the Bible to borrow from the library queue, I figured I'd check out his later book on translation. Unsurprisingly, he takes a lot from Robert Alter's similar study of the Hebrew scriptures, which informed his own version and commentary trying to capture the original style rather than a looser rendering. Tension between fidelity and fluidity sustains Barton's study.

Parts of it went on too long for my tastes, but I confess my eyes glaze over at the Documentary Hypothesis, even as Barton correctly reminds us how it's necessary for any modern approach to the Book itself, whether or not the details always correspond. This isn't his fault, but my own

He emphasizes that the Septuagint (2c BCE) Greek serves as a truer predecessor than the sources and texts which Alter, for instance, presents. That is, by the time of the group effort by Egyptian Jewish sages to make their holy writings into the by-then common Greek spoken, rather than the Hebrew that wasn't the vernacular of those living in the Near East, influences from Hellenistic culture and thought--resurrection of the dead, messiah, eternal life, salvation--were already growing within the Second Temple form of Jewish thinking. Later books which weren't canonized by the Hebrew scholars nonetheless wound up in Catholic and Orthodox Christian bibles, and a crossover of concepts even before the New Testament ensured that the Greek translation embedded conceptualizations that the Christians picked up and ran with, as that'd be how they interpreted the Jewish teachings, not knowing the Hebrew, and in turn filtering the oral Aramaic spoken by Jesus and company through the koine Greek, complicating and distancing further from the Hebrew itself.

That's the main gist of his conclusion, and earlier he reviews the history of translations, thematic issues around key terms, the struggle between close and free styles of trying to shift the ancient languages into contemporary frameworks, from early medieval and late antiquity's eras to the debates over gender-inclusive expression, liturgical uses, evangelical appropriations, Lutheran and Anglican and Presbyterian efforts to alter loaded words, and Catholic attempts to get around the meaning of "almah" and insist upon it as "virgin" rather than as "young woman" in proof texts.

While a learned presentation, Barton manages to keep the theoretical underpinnings clear, no small feat. He also makes sure that extensive passages when needed back up and illuminate his own look at how biblical narratives challenge preconceptions about a supposed, fashionable, but largely facile or untenable continuity of "Judeo-Christian" unity within a bible held by most Christians today. In the contents, Barton'd encourage us to think of the Septuagint rather than a Hebrew translation as the better choice for incorporating more accurate readings of the Old Testament vis-à-vis the New.

[Kathryn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book about Bible translation, which is a subject fraught with pitfalls. The author very clearly lays out the different types of translation, and notes that there are special difficulties in translating the Scriptures, depending on if they are for a particular kind of worshipper, or if they are for study, prayer, or reciting. I very much enjoyed this book.

The author goes over many different topics quite thoroughly, so I will just give a few highlights that struck me. While Jesus knew Hebrew (to read in the synagogues), and Latin (to communicate with the Romans, who essentially ruled Palestine), he spoke Aramaic; but the New Testament was written in Greek, so except for a few Aramaic phrases here and there, Christ is translated from Aramaic to Greek. The New Testament’s Christians, who spoke Greek, had as their Old Testament the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek dating from the third century BCE. This volume also included books and parts of books written in Greek with no Hebrew original (the Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical books, though Catholics accept them), which have much more of an emphasis on life after death, demons, and angels than the Hebrew Bible. (When the Reformation reformers compared the “Catholic Bible” to the Hebrew Bible, they did not find the Deuterocanonical books, so they determined they did not belong in a proper Bible.) The King James Bible is written with the English current, not in the time of King James, but in the time of the Tudors, to give it a slightly old-fashioned flair. The Bible of Shakespeare was the Coverdale Bible. The Hebrew Bible was written across nearly a thousand years, and contains legends, poetry, instruction, history, prophecy, and other elements, all of which call for different translation procedures. And if one was to translate the Hebrew in a way that shows that the original language was indeed Hebrew, one would have to have an English or German or whatever translation that reads right to left. As an American Catholic, I follow The New American Bible, but I quote from the King James Bible, as the one most familiar to those I converse with.

This was a fascinating book, and one that I loved reading.

[Connor Sampson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

All usage of the bible suffers from one major problem; very few of the readers are capable of understanding the languages in which it was written. As a collection of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek writings, it is almost impossible for the vast majority of people to meaningfully engage with the original texts. So, we must work from translations. Much of Christianity is remarkably distinct from Judaism and Islam in the extent to which these translations are embraced; the translations are often not seen as a tool to aid biblical understandin, but as the bible themselves.

So, the matter of translation becomes exceptionally important, and this book does an excellent job of demonstrating the impact of translations, the approaches to translating the bible, and why no perfect translation can ever exist.

I'm not someone who has any sort of linguistic background, and I found this book to be an unexpectedly engaging guide to the problem of translations, which I hadn't previously considered. For example, is it better to give a literal word by word translation, or to convey the meaning as clearly as possible without care for the exact words? When presented with an idiom, should you replicate the idiom faithfully, despite it having no clear meaning in the new language, or should you replace it with an idiom understandable by the final audience? Should a translated work maintain the feel of its foreign origin, or should it read as if it were composed in its target language?

The book gave a wonderful double dose of information, about the bible and about the tricky nature of translation itself!

[Brian Hanson · Rating 5 out of 5]

It would be understandable for a general reader to be put off by the apparently niche framing of this book: On the TRANSLATION of the BIBLE! But that would be to miss a fine piece of scholarship (eminently approachable) that goes well beyond its apparent remit: touching on faith, the complex unfolding of the Biblical canon, Jewish-Christian relations, the role of The Book in the lives of believers, the importance of community to the Christian life, the challenges of translation in general, what textual criticism can achieve and so on. Even in the most practical sense it guides readers in finding the translation that best fits the specifics of their beliefs. And it forcefully makes the point that it may be unwise to rely on the same translator(s) for both the Old and New Testaments. Probably the best summation of Barton's aims comes towards the end of his book: "the Bible and its faiths are not identical, and translation is one of the primary sites where the difference between Scripture and religious beliefs is negotiated".

[Anson Cassel Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

Especially in its first half, this book by John Barton (b. 1948), an Anglican priest and former Oxford professor, is full of thought-provoking ideas about translation philosophy. Though his discussions might have been trimmed a bit, I suppose if you’ve written literally dozens of books, publishers are disposed to let you follow your own path.

The perhaps overlong treatment of formal and functional equivalence (“strict” and “free” translation) is nevertheless well-handled. Barton then branches out to consider style and tone as well as aspects of translation that seem to be of much less importance to me, like the possible use of deliberate archaism or recent attempts at gender inclusivity.

Barton is certainly aware that doctrinal presuppositions affect the decisions of translators, but he is coy about presenting the differences in a systematic way. Perhaps an organized treatment of how translations are affected by believing, or not believing, the Bible to be the actual word of God remains even today an awkward theme for a liberal churchman.

[Paige Gordon · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is difficult to capture in words the profound impact this book has had on me. I’ve been super interested and passionate about the whole idea of Bible translation for a few years now and this book brought so much clarity and understanding to an incredibly nuanced topic. John did an masterful job balancing all the differing points of view/challenges of Bible translation, and I believe this is a book that will cause you to think new and deeper thoughts than you ever have before. Every single Christian would benefit from reading and being challenged by this book. I cannot recommend it enough!

Favorite Quote: “The pursuit of a ‘really accurate’ translation is something of a red herring: all types have their place and none is suitable in all contexts. While there can be translations that are simply wrong, there cannot be one that is uniquely right.”

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book offers a fascinating review of translation philosophies as they apply to the Bible and really opened my mind to perspectives I hadn’t considered before. However, I do wish the book had discussed common American translations more. (The author is British and primarily focuses on translations I’d never heard of, while ESV is barely mentioned, NIV only comes up once in passing, and others like NLT and CSB aren’t mentioned at all.) The author also doesn’t seem to believe in the inerrancy of scripture — or if he does, he didn’t strike the right balance between the inerrancy of scripture’s *message* with the choices of its flawed human writers — so I took some of the book with a grain of salt, but I’m very glad to have read it.

[Jacob Frank · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thoroughly enjoyable read. Barton discusses a myriad of fascinating textual examples, linguistic nuances, and theoretical and theological principles. Particularly for the non-specialist Bible reader like myself, this seems likely to make one spend more time in the footnotes of one's Bible that one had previously been accustomed. One comment/question I have is that there is no mention of the New American Bible and NABRE in the discussion of Catholic Bible translations; that seemed an odd omission. Nonetheless, I would highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the Bible, translation, or ancient languages.

[Job van der Kooij · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really liked Barton's history of the early Latin and Greek translations, as well as his thorough review of the 'exuberant follies' of both the Vulgate and the Septuagint. His understanding of the way Classical Latin was diluted to a Medieval hotchpotch is excellent.

However, in the latter part of the book, the focus lies, understandably, with translations to English, starting with John Wycliffe. Was a little too much for me, as a Dutchman.

A nice companion to Barton's previous (and marvellous) book 'A History of the Bible'.

[Grace LeBlanc · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fascinating read. Anyone who is interested in the Bible and/or translation should read this. I study religion in school, but have learned little about how the Bible is translated. I do think Barton took for granted that his audience would be super familiar with the Bible, and he did not always explain things super well. For example he at one point gave an example of a bad translation of a verse and said that it was of course wrong, but he didn't provide a correct translation. I think he could alienate readers who are not super familiar with the Bible.

[aliya · Rating 5 out of 5]

this is the sexiest book i've ever read. this book changed my entire life. as the world's No.1 Reception Theory Stan (look me up), i'm thrilled that my entire philosophy of language and literature has been distilled in this book. john barton i'm in love with you

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Barton is always worth reading, this book is no exception. Fascinating exploration of translation of the Bible, quite pluralistic, surprisingly open to the Message, but full of tidbits on the many difficulties of translation.

[Jonathan Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much more interesting than I thought it would be. Might just read the NIV with Oxford Annotated near to hand, instead of reading the Annotated.

[Riley Hughes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Engrossing and approachable. Doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. Very good.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative, but mind-numbingly dull. This comes across as a 'popular' religion title, but is not engaging. Still, it is not dense enough to be an academic book. This is not one I will finish.