How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions

Which Bible translation do you use?In the early years of the Twentieth Century, the answer to that question was simple and obvious: the King James Version. In the middle of the Twentieth Century, however, readers had two major choices: the KJV and the Revised Standard Version. By the early 1970s; they had four: KJV, RSV, the New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version--not to mention Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible paraphrase. Now we have such a proliferation of Bible translations that choosing just one is a real chore.In How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss give us "a guide to understanding and using Bible versions," as the subtitle puts it. Fee is a world-renowned New Testament scholar and Assemblies of God minister. With Douglas Stuart he authored How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (now in its third edition) and How to Read the Bible Book by Book. Strauss is professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary in San Diego, California. Both are members of the Committee for Bible Translation that produced Today's New International Version.Let me explain why I am personally interested in this issue. For some time, I have struggled with which translation to use. I grew up with the NIV, but it has a number of features that bug me. One is its persistent translation of Paul's concrete language with abstractions. "Flesh" becomes "sinful nature" in Galatians. "Walk" becomes "live" in Ephesians. The meaning of "flesh" in Galatians is "sinful nature," just as the meaning of "walk" is "live" in Ephesians, but I prefer the concrete metaphor over the abstraction.Recently, the English Standard Version (basically, a conservative update of the RSV) has been gaining ground among evangelicals. (The preaching team of James River Assembly of God uses it, for example, as does John Piper.) Leland Ryken, my college English professor, has written an extended explanation and defense of the translation theory underlying the ESV in his book, The Word of God in English. For a time, I found his reasoning persuasive. But the ESV doesn't live up to the hype, in my opinion. It retains the concrete images in Galatians and Ephesians, but sometimes it uses clunky syntax and archaic vocabulary. (Instead of "rainbow" in Genesis 9, for example, it uses "bow.")The TNIV and NRSV follow the translation philosophies of the NIV and ESV, respectively, but with one crucial difference. They are "gender inclusive," "gender neutral," or "gender accurate." So, instead of translating Psalm 1 as "Blessed is the man...," for example, they translate it, "Blessed are they..." Similarly, the New Testament vocative, "brothers" becomes "brothers and sisters." And "man" becomes "human beings" or "mortals." This is either political correctness run amok or accurate translation, depending on your translation philosophy.The difference between the NIV/TNIV and ESV/NRSV is the difference between "formal equivalence" and "functional equivalence." Formal equivalence translations seek to reproduce the form of the translation at the level of vocabulary and syntax. Functional equivalence translations seek to reproduce the meaning. So, while the ESV/NRSV both translate sarx as "flesh" in Galatians," which is the formally equivalent term, the NIV/TNIV both translate it as "sinful nature," which is its approximate meaning.Fee and Strauss offer a brief articulation and defense of the functional equivalence theory of translation. They argue: "The goal of translation is to reproduce the meaning of the text, not the form." Furthermore: "the best translation is one that remains faithful to the original meaning of the text, but uses language that sounds as clear and natural to the modern reader as the Hebrew or Greek did to the original readers."In the course of articulating and defending this theory, Fee and Strauss walk the reader through the thicket of issues translators must face: picking the right words, translating figurative language, dealing with the idiosyncrasies of Greek grammar, bridging cultural gaps between then and now, accurately translating gender, making correct text-critical decisions, and translating for audiences with varying reading levels and vocabularies. I put down this book with a lot more appreciation of what translators do, even if I don't always agree with their specific translations of this or that verse.While I basically agree with Fee and Strauss regarding the correctness of their translation philosophy (i.e., meaning over form), I do wonder whether some of the translation choices functional equivalence translations make are really necessary. Fee and Stuart regularly write that modern readers just wouldn't understand this or that idiom if it were translated in a formally equivalent way. They have a right to their opinion, but I wonder if fair-minded readers of Galatians are really so confused by "flesh" in Galatians and "walk" in Ephesians. Even if functional equivalence is the right philosophy, in other words, it doesn't always make the right translation. Sometimes, it overinterprets the text for the reader and in doing so misses out on something else the text is trying to communicate. By translating sarx as "sinful nature," for example, the NIV/TNIV misses Paul's word play about the circumcision party. They cut the "flesh" (i.e., the foreskin) in pursuit of a form of justification that is based on the "flesh" (i.e., sinful nature). This wordplay was present to the original Greek readers but is totally absent to English readers today, unless they're reading the ESV or NRSV.Of course, some figurative language must be explained. Even the ESV flattens out metaphors now and then. And it does not attempt to translate Paul's one-sentence doxology in Ephesians 1:3-14 as one sentence in English. In other words, translations make choices, and unless you expect every parishioner in your church to know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, you'll just have to live with these choices.The important thing is for all of us to realize that such choices need to be made--trading off literalness here for intelligibility there--and to be gracious when translations make choices different than our own. In pursuit of such grace, Fee and Strauss's book is an excellent resource.

After reading some negative reviews of this work, I couldn't help but add my own comments. At first I couldn't understand what some of them were complaining about. Then it dawned on me that they had one thing in common: a dislike of dynamic equivalence,thought for thought, translations. As such I felt these negative reviewers missed the point Fee and Strauss are trying to make. First of all, of course they like dynamic equivalence translating. After all they worked on the NIV and TNIV. However, the point of their book is not that dynamic equivalence translations are the only ones to read.Read what they say carefully and you will see that they find fault with both word for word and thought for thought methods of translation. (See their chart on page 34.)One reviewer even commented that their preference for thought for thought was in error and cited an example from Romans. He or she got that form a book by Leland Ryken. The example is based on a metaphor where in that culture a sword stood for the power and authority of the political office. One reference that I found even stated that a sword or dagger could be presented to the "governor" when he was officially assigned his office. Given that fact I suspect there is room to translate the thought here. It should also be pointed out that a literal translation could be either sword or dagger. Therefore, I'm not sure you could argue that "sword" is the only translation that should be used in this case. After all Trajan presented a dagger to his appointees, according the source I have.Fee and Strauss are recommending that one not rely on only one translation or type of translation. Their book provides excellent insight into what problems exist for the translator as he or she attempt to convert Hebrew and Greek into understandable English, and the key word is understandable. In the example above, it is perfectly adequate to translate that word as sword. However,would some miss the point and think Paul is referring to his own pending death sentence? Is Paul even under arrest at the time he wrote Romans? Some scholars think this letter represents an earlier desire to go there that was, ironically, filled when he was arrested and taken before the Emperor. There is even debate about whether or not he was released after the events detailed in Acts.Besides the point of "How to Choose a Translation...." is that one method is not the only one to use. All translations have their weaknesses. I read Ryken's book too and the striking difference between it and this work is that Fee and Strauss present examples of poor translating form both word for word and thought for thought works. Read carefully and you will find that they even present examples of thought for thought translating in those word for word works, while Ryken can only praise word for word translating and criticize thought for thought work.Martin Luther once wrote that: The words of the Hebrew tongue have a peculiar energy. It is impossible to convey so much so briefly in any other language. To render them intelligibly we must not attempt to give word for word, but only aim at the sense and the idea.Luther would have loved what Fee and Strauss are saying in this book. Translating the Bible is a challenge and they have given us insight into that challenge. I have read this book three times and will probably read it again. It is the best work I have read on selecting a translation. It doesn't answer the question about which one is the best one or which one is the word of God. However, it clearly agrees with the translators of the KJV who state in the preface to the 1611 edition:Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.They are all the word of God,even the "meanest" according to the KJV preface. Which is the best to read? All of them. In fact, I remember reading a quote from Billy Graham somewhere. Asked which one is the best to read, Graham is said to have replied that the one you can understand was the best translation to read.Fee and Strauss do a great job of defining the kinds of problems translators encounter as they try to convert Hebrew and Greek into understandable English. They explain the problem of deciding which words to pick in converting original words into English, problems faced as translators try to deal with figures of speech and problems in what to do in order to convey culturally bound terms into modern English that will give the reader an idea about what the original authors were talking about.I highly recommend this book. I am sure some will not appreciate what Fee and Strauss have done here. After all, it is like learning what actually goes into a hot dog. Some never want to eat one again. Others will be delighted to know what they are eating. However, if you want to understand why translation is such a complex process that calls for decision making and interpretation on the part of the translator, you will love this book.

I'm reading about how the Bible has been / is translated from various sources. Like Fee & Stuart's, How to Study the Bible for All It's Worth, it is a keeper!

As much as I love both of these authors, the title to this book is very misleading. In truth, choosing a translation is entirely subjective depending on what you want. The authors do provide awesome descriptions of the genre’s of translations. Functional, Idiomatic, Literal, etc. And they do recommend which versions might be complimentary. But all of this info was included in a single chapter which was very helpful. In fact, I picked up a new Bible based on their opinions and found it has worked well in my studies.I gave it 3 stars due to the remainder of the book which was an in-depth description of the process of translation. Which truthfully should be in its own book and I think people who aren’t familiar with the process will find it very informative.Actually getting the other two books in this series provide better helps in choosing a translation. One, “How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth” has been a book that I’ve literally been searching for for quite a while. They discuss translations in it, but the meat of the book is teaching the student how to study the different books in the Bible, how to take notes, etc. We are told to study God’s Word. But has any pastor, minister, elder, etc ever taught you how to study His Word? I never even heard this stuff in Bible School.So!! My own opinion would be to pick up “How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth”, go through it thoroughly. Maybe even twice. If you still can’t decide on a suitable translation then grab this book and learn about the process of translation. And you’ll find that chapter that actually does make some recommendations. Shalom

A good read with a lot of insight into the methodology and challenges of Bible translation. Helpful read when trying to decide which versions to read and understand the philosophies behind them.

I learned a lot, not just about the process of translation, but also the way in which various translations are used in the Church. As a Bible College teacher, and academic dean of our college, I will be involved in choosing the translation which we will use for the foreseeable future, plus which we will recommend to our students to purchase. This book was tremendously helpful. I highly recommend it.David Hildebrandt

Fee, on the translation group of the NIV, explains clearly the difference between dynamic and literal translations of the Bible. Also highlights the inadequacies of the AV (KJV) and their sources.

A while since I read it, but I felt it was a satisfying review. Similar conclusions are found elsewhere, but this book contained a readable summary. I now feel less constrained in reading for 'pleasure' with a modern version, while using other choices for detail. When in doubt read as many as you can to see a concept from many angles. I would recommend. The four stars are for my limitations in grasping everything, not the writers' failings.

Interesting & informative. Glad I bought it.