What do you think?
Rate this book
The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation
With so many Bible translations available, how do you make a choice between them? How do you even know what the criteria should be for making a choice?
As an expert in English literature and literary theory, Leland Ryken approaches the translation debate from a practical artistic viewpoint. He believes that many modern translations take liberties with the biblical text that would not be allowed with any other type of literary work. Also, what readers are presented with as biblical text is actually far from the original text. In literature, a simplified version of Milton's work is not Milton, and neither is an edition written in contemporary English. Anyone who is interested in Milton would find any version that changes his words unacceptable for serious study. Ryken argues that the same dedication to reproducing literature texts as closely as possible needs to be present in biblical translation. To do so it is necessary to take into account the difficulty of working with original languages. Only an essentially literal, "word for word" translation of the Bible can achieve sufficiently high standards in terms of literary criteria and fidelity to the original text.
Ryken does not contest that many modern translations have been used for good, and believes that there is a place for a range of Bible translations, including children's Bibles and Bible paraphrases. His purpose is not to say that the only Bible available should be one that is essentially literal. Instead, he defines the translation theory and principles that would result in the best Bible for English-speaking people and serious students of the Bible, and also for the English-speaking church as a whole. He believes that an essentially literal translation is the natural result of following these principles.
Along with a short history of translation, Ryken evaluates presuppositions that impact translation theory. He also examines fallacies about the Bible, translations in general, and Bible readers that influence what translation decisions are made. Believing that those who undertake the serious work of translating God's Word have an obligation both to God and to others, he assesses the theological, ethical, and hermeneutical issues involved and surveys difficulties with modern translations. Ryken's literary expertise gives him the perspective needed to provide Christians with a standard for comparing contemporary Bible translations, as well as an understanding of why some translations may not convey the very words of God.
As an expert in English literature and literary theory, Leland Ryken approaches the translation debate from a practical artistic viewpoint. He believes that many modern translations take liberties with the biblical text that would not be allowed with any other type of literary work. Also, what readers are presented with as biblical text is actually far from the original text. In literature, a simplified version of Milton's work is not Milton, and neither is an edition written in contemporary English. Anyone who is interested in Milton would find any version that changes his words unacceptable for serious study. Ryken argues that the same dedication to reproducing literature texts as closely as possible needs to be present in biblical translation. To do so it is necessary to take into account the difficulty of working with original languages. Only an essentially literal, "word for word" translation of the Bible can achieve sufficiently high standards in terms of literary criteria and fidelity to the original text.
Ryken does not contest that many modern translations have been used for good, and believes that there is a place for a range of Bible translations, including children's Bibles and Bible paraphrases. His purpose is not to say that the only Bible available should be one that is essentially literal. Instead, he defines the translation theory and principles that would result in the best Bible for English-speaking people and serious students of the Bible, and also for the English-speaking church as a whole. He believes that an essentially literal translation is the natural result of following these principles.
Along with a short history of translation, Ryken evaluates presuppositions that impact translation theory. He also examines fallacies about the Bible, translations in general, and Bible readers that influence what translation decisions are made. Believing that those who undertake the serious work of translating God's Word have an obligation both to God and to others, he assesses the theological, ethical, and hermeneutical issues involved and surveys difficulties with modern translations. Ryken's literary expertise gives him the perspective needed to provide Christians with a standard for comparing contemporary Bible translations, as well as an understanding of why some translations may not convey the very words of God.
336 pages, Paperback
First published November 12, 2002
10 people are currently reading
174 people want to read
About the author
Leland Ryken
120 books137 followersDr. Ryken has served on the faculty of Wheaton College since 1968. He has published over thirty books and more than one hundred articles and essays, devoting much of his scholarship to Bible translations and the study of the Bible as literature. He served as Literary Chairman for the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible and in 2003 received the distinguished Gutenberg Award for his contributions to education, writing, and the understanding of the Bible.
He is the father of Philip Graham Ryken
He is the father of Philip Graham Ryken
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
August 12, 2022
Ryken persuasively argues for an "essentially literal Bible translation" and highlights the many negative results of Eugene Nida's theory of dynamic equivalence. The amount of modern translations and the significant differences between them has made it more difficult for English readers to understand what the Bible actually said.
What I Liked
To me the brief history of translation, his section on common fallacies, and the ending appendix were worth the price of the book. Some insightful fallacies that motivate dynamic equivalent translations include “the important question is how we would say something” and “the Bible is more difficult for modern readers than for the original audience.” To boil it down, Ryken argues “a good translation does not attempt to make the Bible simpler than it was for the original audience” (101).
The most helpful summary statements are found in the appendix, a section written by C. John Collins. Here are a few.
- “One way of distinguishing translations is by the degree to which they have aimed to clarify for the sake of the reader things that otherwise he or she would have to figure out.” (300)
- “(1) Such translations (dynamic equivalent) make interpretive decisions for the reader, and run the risk of deciding wrongly; (2) such a philosophy requires the translator to resolve ambiguities for the reader;…(4) this philosophy generally leads to the loss of important repetitions. The feature these defects have in common is that the reader is limited to what the translator allows him to see.” (301)
Though I am not as distraught over the current state of Bible translation as Ryken, I am more convinced than before that preaching should be done from a “formal equivalence” translation.
What I Didn’t Like
The book is long and Ryken is not a biblical scholar. Perhaps it is those complaints that made the appendix (which I almost didn’t read) such a delight. As I read it I smiled and thought, “yes, this is what I was hoping for.”
His book was filled…filled with examples of differences in translations. Sometimes the examples were overkill on a point. Sometimes the differences were used to sound the alarm, differences that an understanding of the original languages make much less alarming. Even so, they were often illuminating and I will likely refer to them in the future.
Ryken didn’t seem to find much value in the dynamic equivalent translations. Though his concerns were valid, I think there is a place for them. If Christians are taught about translation, then various translations can be used as helpful tools in understanding God’s Word.
December 24, 2016
There are two disciplines involved in the preparation of our Bibles, and they are transmission and translation. The first, the transmission of the text, also called textual criticism, seeks to reconstruct the original autographs as closely as possible based on existing manuscripts. That gets us the Word of God in Greek. The second discipline of translation is necessary to get us the Word of God in English, which is both the name of Leland Ryken’s book and the focus of his study.
Before reading this book, I thought that all the action was in textual criticism, and that once you established an accurate Hebrew and Greek text, the rest was easy. Boy, was I wrong. The issue of translation is just as important, and just as controversial. Ryken lists two major philosophies of translation, one being “essentially literal” and the other being “dynamic equivalence.” Essentially literal translations have as their focus fidelity to the original language, while dynamic equivalence focusses primarily on the reader’s ability to understand the text.
Now at first glance this commitment of dynamic equivalence sounds good, but what is happening is that this approach conflates two disciplines that really ought to be separate – translation and interpretation (hermeneutics). And Ryken notes the irony that emerges when one realizes that this ends up reversing one of the primary goals of the Protestant Reformation, which was to bring the Bible to all believers and out of the exclusive hands of the Church which believed that it alone, and not the individual believer, ought to interpret the Scriptures. Now the Bible is in a sense being once again removed from the hands of ordinary people by translation committees who feel that ordinary people cannot understand the Bible for themselves and thus need various degrees of interpretation mixed in with their translation.
He points out the fact most of those who still prefer to read the King James Version, which is by far the hardest English translation, are among the less educated in our culture, thus calling into question the validity of the assumption that people these days need an easier translation. Some of us know people from an earlier generation who, though they had no more than a seventh grade education, read with profit their King James Bibles along with a dictionary and perhaps a commentary. And this illustrates two things: first, translation committees do not need to patronize Bible readers by putting everything on the lowest shelf. Second, there is a place for commentaries, and you might even say an indispensable place for them, but it is manifestly not in the translation itself.
So the goal of dynamic equivalence is to simplify Bibles. What’s wrong with that? Many things, actually, according to Ryken. One is the impoverishment of language in general that results. Changing the lofty and somewhat more difficult language into something more casual removes the “otherness” of the Scriptures, the element of mystery and wonder, and the sense that one ought to get that this is something other, and something higher, than, say, the latest edition of Reader’s Digest. The text is trivialized when the language is debased in favour of simplicity.
A second problem is the loss of specific theological language. Ryken argues that it is more difficult, and perhaps impossible, to communicate specific theological truths without a specific theological vocabulary. The NIV is the most conservative of the dynamic equivalent translations, but here is one of the places where it really lets us down. The editors decided to do away with the word “propitiation” in the New Testament and replace it with the phrase “sacrifice of atonement.” Does this solve anything? I don’t think it does. Certainly the word “propitiation” needs defining, but the definition is clear and unambiguous, whereas what is a sacrifice of atonement? It too needs explaining, and I think it is less precise and opens up a broader range of possible meanings.
Another way the Bible is simplified is by changing the poetry, often dumbing it down to common speech to make it easier, the assumption being that modern people cannot handle poetry. The same reasoning is behind the loss of ambiguity that the original text would in certain places confront us with. The dynamic equivalent version editors remove any ambiguity that the text actually presents, in favour of an understanding that they have decided for us. In both of these situations, poetry and ambiguity, it seems that the editors feel they have to correct the judgement of the Holy Spirit, who, after all, is the ultimate author of Scripture and who has deemed it appropriate that the text contain these things.
The Bible has a dignity all its own, whether in its poetry or in the exalted prose of Paul’s epistles. This dignity is stripped away when the language is all flattened out to that of common speech by the dynamic equivalent versions. Now, Ryken is careful to point out that he is not beating up on the NIV, but the NIV does list itself among these versions, and so the problems are still there, even if to a lesser extent.
One glaring example that I have been aware of since I got my first NIV Bible is in Psalm 23:1, which the essentially literal translations render “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.” The NIV renders it either “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want,” or “…I shall lack nothing.” Even at a young age I thought that especially the second rendering just ruined the verse.
Ryken is really in his element as a literary stylist here. He gives a detailed account of the Bible as exalted literature, and the literary elements such as cadence and rhythm that distinguish exalted literature from common speech. This gives form to the intuitions that we have as to why the KJV, for example, is beautiful, whereas the NIV, at least in Psalm 23, is clunky. Word choice and order dramatically impact the beauty, readability, and memorability of Bible passages, especially as they are read aloud. This is a real art form, what we call rhetoric, and it seems that dynamic equivalent translators are either unaware of this, or they think it is unimportant.
Regarding memorability, “dynamic equivalent translations [do] slip more smoothly into the modern ear, but [they] also slide out more easily; the very strangeness and antique ceremony of the old forms make them linger in the mind.”
He concedes that the English language no longer has the resources within it that allowed for the KJV to achieve its level of beauty and dignity – for example, we no longer have the “eth” suffix on words that gave English a more flowing cadence when read aloud. But he does argue that if we treat the Bible as the exalted literature that it is, and allow the poetry to remain poetry, we still have the resources to present an English Bible that is as beautiful, dignified, and memorable as it was intended to be.
Ryken’s book, even at 300 pages, is a pleasure to read. His skill as a literary stylist enriches his text; he practices what he preaches and his arguments are clothed in eloquent and beautiful language. His chapters are short, ending with clear summaries, and before you know it you find yourself at the end of the book, desiring to read it again.
Leland Ryken has really made in impact on my thinking about Bible translations. Though I have used the NIV for decades, I have an English Standard Version on order, and I am excited to begin reading it at the table to my family and seeing the difference that an essentially literal translation can make.
As a postscript, I would say that an excellent summary of some of the main points in Ryken’s book can be found in Kevin DeYoung’s 30-page booklet entitled “Why Our Church Switched to the ESV” published by Crossway, in which Pastor DeYoung acknowledges his indebtedness to Ryken’s work.
Before reading this book, I thought that all the action was in textual criticism, and that once you established an accurate Hebrew and Greek text, the rest was easy. Boy, was I wrong. The issue of translation is just as important, and just as controversial. Ryken lists two major philosophies of translation, one being “essentially literal” and the other being “dynamic equivalence.” Essentially literal translations have as their focus fidelity to the original language, while dynamic equivalence focusses primarily on the reader’s ability to understand the text.
Now at first glance this commitment of dynamic equivalence sounds good, but what is happening is that this approach conflates two disciplines that really ought to be separate – translation and interpretation (hermeneutics). And Ryken notes the irony that emerges when one realizes that this ends up reversing one of the primary goals of the Protestant Reformation, which was to bring the Bible to all believers and out of the exclusive hands of the Church which believed that it alone, and not the individual believer, ought to interpret the Scriptures. Now the Bible is in a sense being once again removed from the hands of ordinary people by translation committees who feel that ordinary people cannot understand the Bible for themselves and thus need various degrees of interpretation mixed in with their translation.
He points out the fact most of those who still prefer to read the King James Version, which is by far the hardest English translation, are among the less educated in our culture, thus calling into question the validity of the assumption that people these days need an easier translation. Some of us know people from an earlier generation who, though they had no more than a seventh grade education, read with profit their King James Bibles along with a dictionary and perhaps a commentary. And this illustrates two things: first, translation committees do not need to patronize Bible readers by putting everything on the lowest shelf. Second, there is a place for commentaries, and you might even say an indispensable place for them, but it is manifestly not in the translation itself.
So the goal of dynamic equivalence is to simplify Bibles. What’s wrong with that? Many things, actually, according to Ryken. One is the impoverishment of language in general that results. Changing the lofty and somewhat more difficult language into something more casual removes the “otherness” of the Scriptures, the element of mystery and wonder, and the sense that one ought to get that this is something other, and something higher, than, say, the latest edition of Reader’s Digest. The text is trivialized when the language is debased in favour of simplicity.
A second problem is the loss of specific theological language. Ryken argues that it is more difficult, and perhaps impossible, to communicate specific theological truths without a specific theological vocabulary. The NIV is the most conservative of the dynamic equivalent translations, but here is one of the places where it really lets us down. The editors decided to do away with the word “propitiation” in the New Testament and replace it with the phrase “sacrifice of atonement.” Does this solve anything? I don’t think it does. Certainly the word “propitiation” needs defining, but the definition is clear and unambiguous, whereas what is a sacrifice of atonement? It too needs explaining, and I think it is less precise and opens up a broader range of possible meanings.
Another way the Bible is simplified is by changing the poetry, often dumbing it down to common speech to make it easier, the assumption being that modern people cannot handle poetry. The same reasoning is behind the loss of ambiguity that the original text would in certain places confront us with. The dynamic equivalent version editors remove any ambiguity that the text actually presents, in favour of an understanding that they have decided for us. In both of these situations, poetry and ambiguity, it seems that the editors feel they have to correct the judgement of the Holy Spirit, who, after all, is the ultimate author of Scripture and who has deemed it appropriate that the text contain these things.
The Bible has a dignity all its own, whether in its poetry or in the exalted prose of Paul’s epistles. This dignity is stripped away when the language is all flattened out to that of common speech by the dynamic equivalent versions. Now, Ryken is careful to point out that he is not beating up on the NIV, but the NIV does list itself among these versions, and so the problems are still there, even if to a lesser extent.
One glaring example that I have been aware of since I got my first NIV Bible is in Psalm 23:1, which the essentially literal translations render “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.” The NIV renders it either “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want,” or “…I shall lack nothing.” Even at a young age I thought that especially the second rendering just ruined the verse.
Ryken is really in his element as a literary stylist here. He gives a detailed account of the Bible as exalted literature, and the literary elements such as cadence and rhythm that distinguish exalted literature from common speech. This gives form to the intuitions that we have as to why the KJV, for example, is beautiful, whereas the NIV, at least in Psalm 23, is clunky. Word choice and order dramatically impact the beauty, readability, and memorability of Bible passages, especially as they are read aloud. This is a real art form, what we call rhetoric, and it seems that dynamic equivalent translators are either unaware of this, or they think it is unimportant.
Regarding memorability, “dynamic equivalent translations [do] slip more smoothly into the modern ear, but [they] also slide out more easily; the very strangeness and antique ceremony of the old forms make them linger in the mind.”
He concedes that the English language no longer has the resources within it that allowed for the KJV to achieve its level of beauty and dignity – for example, we no longer have the “eth” suffix on words that gave English a more flowing cadence when read aloud. But he does argue that if we treat the Bible as the exalted literature that it is, and allow the poetry to remain poetry, we still have the resources to present an English Bible that is as beautiful, dignified, and memorable as it was intended to be.
Ryken’s book, even at 300 pages, is a pleasure to read. His skill as a literary stylist enriches his text; he practices what he preaches and his arguments are clothed in eloquent and beautiful language. His chapters are short, ending with clear summaries, and before you know it you find yourself at the end of the book, desiring to read it again.
Leland Ryken has really made in impact on my thinking about Bible translations. Though I have used the NIV for decades, I have an English Standard Version on order, and I am excited to begin reading it at the table to my family and seeing the difference that an essentially literal translation can make.
As a postscript, I would say that an excellent summary of some of the main points in Ryken’s book can be found in Kevin DeYoung’s 30-page booklet entitled “Why Our Church Switched to the ESV” published by Crossway, in which Pastor DeYoung acknowledges his indebtedness to Ryken’s work.
May 24, 2020
In this book, Ryken argues for the merits of an “essentially literal” English translation within the King James tradition. To discover what he does and does not mean by this, as well as how he came to his conclusion, you will have to read the book. I would recommend this as a worthwhile read for anyone interested in identifying a good Bible translation or anyone who wants to engage with excellence in personal translation work.
March 18, 2025
It was difficult for me to get past the superiority complex Ryker has with the English language. In the opening, he says that due to the rich literary history, translations in English need to follow a different standard of translating. But this doesn't apply to languages that aren't as developed?
If a language doesn't have an option to be "essentially literal" due to the structure of its language, then it can be the word of God, but in English those same standards means it's not?
Translations that alter pronouns are "significant departures" but what of languages that don't have linguistic gender pronouns?
Ryker thinks his stature as an English literary expert and not a translation expert gives him unique insight, but from my experience, it falls entirely flat.
As Dave Brunn says, "in English speaking countries, we have the huge advantage of being able to compare dozens of Bible versions side-by-side...yet sometimes, I think we squander this great wealth. Not only do we fail to take full advantage of it, we also allow it to become a source of disagreement among us" and this whole book is a prime example of the sad fact.
If a language doesn't have an option to be "essentially literal" due to the structure of its language, then it can be the word of God, but in English those same standards means it's not?
Translations that alter pronouns are "significant departures" but what of languages that don't have linguistic gender pronouns?
Ryker thinks his stature as an English literary expert and not a translation expert gives him unique insight, but from my experience, it falls entirely flat.
As Dave Brunn says, "in English speaking countries, we have the huge advantage of being able to compare dozens of Bible versions side-by-side...yet sometimes, I think we squander this great wealth. Not only do we fail to take full advantage of it, we also allow it to become a source of disagreement among us" and this whole book is a prime example of the sad fact.
February 20, 2021
Enlightening introduction for everything involved in the Bible translation efforts. Ryken is always a good read, this was a little on the dry side, but was still interesting.
March 2, 2021
Does anyone else see the irony that a professor of English but who does not know Hebrew and Greek (nor apparently linguistics) pronounces what is faithful translation and what is not?
June 28, 2025
The book lays out a good paradigm of what to expect in an essentially literal translation of the Bible. However, the manner it is presented becomes begrudgingly repetitive in many parts. It is almost reading an advertisement for the ESV. No offense, ESV is a good essentially literal translation but the book does not even admit at a single point wherein the ESV fell short.
While Ryken's critique of dynamic equivalence is fair and with merit, it seems to me that him being a literary expert and with only KJV as his pinnacle of Bibical expression, has recklessly put other versions in bad light with only literary expression as his criterion.
Particularly striking to me is the portion discussing clarity when he called out the NASB's rendering of "the caperberry is ineffective" in Ecclesiastes 12:5. ESV has it as "the desire fails", which is a textual variant and not a stylistic deficiency for the NASB.
Another thing (still on the clarity part) when he mentioned uniquely British expressions used by the Revised English Bible such as "strain off a midge" and "a cudgel is but a reed", only to praise British English thereafter for its quaintness. Then he bemoaned this same British quaintness to distract American readers. Ryken would have been perplexed to know that ESV eventually had an Anglicised edition.
He might be a well regarded literary expert, but Bible translations are not his forte. By the way, he mentions Ray Van Leeuwen incessantly which becomes gratingly frustrating at some point which makes me consider to read the guy instead which could get the point more succinctly.
While Ryken's critique of dynamic equivalence is fair and with merit, it seems to me that him being a literary expert and with only KJV as his pinnacle of Bibical expression, has recklessly put other versions in bad light with only literary expression as his criterion.
Particularly striking to me is the portion discussing clarity when he called out the NASB's rendering of "the caperberry is ineffective" in Ecclesiastes 12:5. ESV has it as "the desire fails", which is a textual variant and not a stylistic deficiency for the NASB.
Another thing (still on the clarity part) when he mentioned uniquely British expressions used by the Revised English Bible such as "strain off a midge" and "a cudgel is but a reed", only to praise British English thereafter for its quaintness. Then he bemoaned this same British quaintness to distract American readers. Ryken would have been perplexed to know that ESV eventually had an Anglicised edition.
He might be a well regarded literary expert, but Bible translations are not his forte. By the way, he mentions Ray Van Leeuwen incessantly which becomes gratingly frustrating at some point which makes me consider to read the guy instead which could get the point more succinctly.
December 20, 2023
A book that argues quite powerfully that the theory of Dynamic Equivalence has failed in its purpose of producing accurate Bible translations. It deserves wide readership amongst pastors and elders.
Ryken presents his evidence in a methodical and clear manner.
The book has an appendix by C.John Collins it repeats Ryken's argument without really advancing it However, it would make an excellent stand alone pamphlet but after nearly 300 pages of argumentation by Ryken it came across as superfluous. Although this may be because I read it whilst unwell.
Ryken presents his evidence in a methodical and clear manner.
The book has an appendix by C.John Collins it repeats Ryken's argument without really advancing it However, it would make an excellent stand alone pamphlet but after nearly 300 pages of argumentation by Ryken it came across as superfluous. Although this may be because I read it whilst unwell.
August 8, 2016
As part of some course work on Bible Translation and Hermeneutics I read this text from Leland Ryken. I was very impressed with his scholarship as well as his patient and gracious handling of an issue that could cause some to think that he had a personal issue to vent in regards to Dynamic Equivalent Translations. But he gives good background to his thoughts and provides details of his research to help articulate what he is thinking in regards to translations.
There are two main translation types that most of us know about today. There are the Literal Translations (commonly known as word for word) and there are the Dynamic Equivalent Translations (commonly known as thought for thought). Although Ryken will provide background on both types of translation work it will become very evident which is his preferred style. But I have to say that I understand why after reading through his work.
He will go through the different structures and types of literature found in the Bible from Historical accounts to Narratives to Parables and Poetry. In each case he will examine the difference in translation process and give you time to dwell on what he has to say and then make up your own mind.
In the camp of Literal Translations he lists the King James Version, the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version. On the side of Dynamic Equivalent falls, New International Version, The Message, The New English Bible, The New Living Translation and others.
What I found most helpful were the Tables in the back of the book where he diagrams out several passages of scripture and allows you to see how the different translations handle the text. This is very enlightening.
One final thought, he makes an excellent point about the original languages and the need for Pastor's, Teachers, Expositors and Scholars to depend on original languages, and if they don't read or understand those then they need to be prepared to know why they choose the translation that they will be working from and know whether they can trust it to give a good translation of the actual text or if they give a translation with their own commentary included.
I highly recommend this book to any Bible Student who wants to understand better the work of Translation of Scriptures and why there is so much difference in the translations that you find in your local Bible Book Stores today.
Enjoy!
There are two main translation types that most of us know about today. There are the Literal Translations (commonly known as word for word) and there are the Dynamic Equivalent Translations (commonly known as thought for thought). Although Ryken will provide background on both types of translation work it will become very evident which is his preferred style. But I have to say that I understand why after reading through his work.
He will go through the different structures and types of literature found in the Bible from Historical accounts to Narratives to Parables and Poetry. In each case he will examine the difference in translation process and give you time to dwell on what he has to say and then make up your own mind.
In the camp of Literal Translations he lists the King James Version, the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version. On the side of Dynamic Equivalent falls, New International Version, The Message, The New English Bible, The New Living Translation and others.
What I found most helpful were the Tables in the back of the book where he diagrams out several passages of scripture and allows you to see how the different translations handle the text. This is very enlightening.
One final thought, he makes an excellent point about the original languages and the need for Pastor's, Teachers, Expositors and Scholars to depend on original languages, and if they don't read or understand those then they need to be prepared to know why they choose the translation that they will be working from and know whether they can trust it to give a good translation of the actual text or if they give a translation with their own commentary included.
I highly recommend this book to any Bible Student who wants to understand better the work of Translation of Scriptures and why there is so much difference in the translations that you find in your local Bible Book Stores today.
Enjoy!
February 29, 2020
Changed much of how I think about the issue, but some points may be overstated.
July 18, 2013
Ryken makes a simple but critical argument in this in-depth examination of English Bible translations: the same literary principles ought to apply (indeed, much more rigidly apply) to the translation of the Bible into English that would apply to the translation or re-publication of any other work.
Using the two translation theories of "essentially literal" and "dynamic equivalent" renderings of the original text, Ryken convincingly defends the importance of maintaining total fidelity to the exact words, rather than the thoughts (as interpreted by the editors and translators) of Scripture in its natural languages. He demonstrates the literary richness and complexity of the King James Version and advocates the continuation of that tradition in today's essentially literal versions like the NASB, RSV, and ESV, as opposed to dynamic or even paraphrase "translations" that utterly distort the voice of the text in their efforts to make it more "accessible" to modern readers.
Ryken's background as a literary critic is fundamental to his approach, and at times his arguments become rather technical. Aside from that, my only real complaint is that the content tends to be somewhat redundant at times, as the interrelated nature of the concepts lends itself to frequent re-statement of ideas already discussed. But this seems to be more a byproduct of Ryken's effort to address his subject thoroughly, and his general premise is well-articulated and well-supported. I highly recommend this work to anyone interested in learning more about the Bible's translation process or simply becoming more educated about the proliferation of translation choices that are available to the English-speaking world today.
Using the two translation theories of "essentially literal" and "dynamic equivalent" renderings of the original text, Ryken convincingly defends the importance of maintaining total fidelity to the exact words, rather than the thoughts (as interpreted by the editors and translators) of Scripture in its natural languages. He demonstrates the literary richness and complexity of the King James Version and advocates the continuation of that tradition in today's essentially literal versions like the NASB, RSV, and ESV, as opposed to dynamic or even paraphrase "translations" that utterly distort the voice of the text in their efforts to make it more "accessible" to modern readers.
Ryken's background as a literary critic is fundamental to his approach, and at times his arguments become rather technical. Aside from that, my only real complaint is that the content tends to be somewhat redundant at times, as the interrelated nature of the concepts lends itself to frequent re-statement of ideas already discussed. But this seems to be more a byproduct of Ryken's effort to address his subject thoroughly, and his general premise is well-articulated and well-supported. I highly recommend this work to anyone interested in learning more about the Bible's translation process or simply becoming more educated about the proliferation of translation choices that are available to the English-speaking world today.
June 18, 2014
Great book! The main point of the work is to refute dynamic equivalence as a translation philosophy, in favour of formal equivalence in general and the ESV in particular. At times reads almost like an infomercial for the ESV, taking questions of text source for granted (the Modern Critical Text versus Textus Receptus debate is only mentioned in passing: Ryken takes it for granted that the MCT is more reliable). While the book is highly valuable as a discussion of translation philosophy and an eye-opening look at how outrageous are some of the things which dynamic equivalence Bible translations will do to the original Word, I also appreciated the things Ryken had to say about literature as a genre and its interpretation. His arguments in favour of ambiguity and metaphor are extremely valuable for any reader, not just when it comes to Scripture. This is the second of Leland Ryken's books that I've read and I'm really looking forward to more when I get the chance, especially on literary criticism. I learned a lot.
March 23, 2016
This is an extremely helpful book. It has clarified much of the debate issues of translation as well as theories of inspiration. For a while arguments for Verbal Plenary inspiration were unclear to me. Reading this book, along with the works of Kevin Vanhoozer, has helped me to understand how the meaning of words relates to the meaning of sentences and phrases. P.S. E.D Hirsch, as popular as he has been, is not helpful on these topics. His single meaning theory, though more or less accurate, is extremely crude in it's descriptions. As Ryken notes, many forms of literature have a multi-layered meaning. Often times it is appropriate to speak of multiple meanings in a text. It is precisely these nuances that dynamic translations strip away for the sake of readability. This is definitely a must read for all students of the Bible.
May 18, 2018
An excellent resource for understanding translation theory. There are so many Bible translations out there today, but so few of those who buy them know what really makes them different. Bibles are often chosen only by which one "speaks to me" or is the easiest to understand.
Leland Ryken, however, shows that there are crucial differences in how these bibles are translated into English. Differences that every serious student of Scripture, those who long to see and hear God rightly in his Word, should be aware of. "All Bible translations are not created equal!"
Leland Ryken, however, shows that there are crucial differences in how these bibles are translated into English. Differences that every serious student of Scripture, those who long to see and hear God rightly in his Word, should be aware of. "All Bible translations are not created equal!"
August 15, 2011
This book is not for everyone, but it is for any of us who want to understand its subject matter: translating the Word of God into English.
Since the Bible was not written in English, it has to be translated, and translation is a difficult art. This book provides a thorough, if biased, view of the main translation philosophies, and comes out solidly in favor of what the English Standard Version (and seemingly no one else) calls "essentially literal" translation.
Great food for thought. It will make you appreciate the King James Version as well as the ESV.
Since the Bible was not written in English, it has to be translated, and translation is a difficult art. This book provides a thorough, if biased, view of the main translation philosophies, and comes out solidly in favor of what the English Standard Version (and seemingly no one else) calls "essentially literal" translation.
Great food for thought. It will make you appreciate the King James Version as well as the ESV.
June 20, 2013
A profound study of what makes for excellence in bible translation. Ryken's background as an English professor and career in literary study of the Bible position him well for such an endeavor. He discusses the issue from many different angles. He manages to address literal vs. dynamic equivalence without reducing every debate to that issue. Written from a conservative theological and philosophical viewpoint.
July 14, 2021
Review coming.
October 20, 2011
Best book I've ever read on the subject. Rather than oversimplify or talk over one's head, Ryken takes on the painstaking task to not explain or sway but to educate the mind about bBiblical translation. It was a breath of fresh air on the subject.
Currently reading
January 26, 2011Very good, very well written. I've had to break out the dictionary a few times now. But I'm learning a lot. Very highly recommended.
Read
June 20, 2013great book
September 2, 2016
Need a reason not to buy an NIV?
May 4, 2022
Essential read for Christians. After reading Ryken's book, I know why I read (and preach from the NASB 1995)
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews