On “Literal” Interpretation, Part 2: Sometimes You Shouldn’t Translate

Part 1: Nobody Does That

There’s an argument among conservative Christians over whether we should translate the Bible “literally”—by which the proponent usually means “word for word, so much as is possible in translating from one language to another”—or “loosely”—by which the proponent means “concept for concept.” The technical term for the latter is “dynamic equivalence.”

Of the popular English translations today, the most “literal” is, in my opinion, the NASB, while the most representative of dynamic equivalence is the NIV—though I hasten to say that the NIV frequently goes beyond dynamic equivalence to interpretation, seeking to “clarify” ambiguous original language. That makes the NIV in some respects more of a commentary than a translation.

Some may be surprised that I didn’t identify the KJV as the most “literal.” Well, I didn’t because it isn’t. The KJV translators did occasionally render in dynamic equivalence, although the term wasn’t around in those days. Probably the clearest example is the way they translate the Greek exclamation μη γενοιτο (me genoito), which literally means “May it never come to pass!” The KJV translates this expression “God forbid” in all 16 occurrences, thereby introducing the name of God where it does not appear in the Greek. I’m not criticizing this translation choice; I think it’s a perfectly good one for the culture of 1611. But it’s indisputably not a literal translation.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both “literal” and dynamically equivalent translations, and a I make a point of consulting multiple translations, across the spectrum of translation philosophy, when I study a passage.

I ended the previous post by promising a consideration of when we shouldn’t translate the original language at all—when translating is to miss the whole point. I would direct you to a passage that may sound familiar:

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
Line upon line, line upon line;
Here a little, and there a little: …
But the word of the Lord was unto them
Precept upon precept, precept upon precept;
Line upon line, line upon line;
Here a little, and there a little;
That they might go, and fall backward, and be broken,
And snared, and taken
(Is 28.10, 13).

But what if Isaiah’s point isn’t the words?

Here’s the transliterated Hebrew. (I need to show it to you to make the point.)

tsaw ltsaw tsaw ltsaw qaw lqaw qaw lqaw

“line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept”

Do you see what Isaiah—and the Lord—are doing here? I’d suggest that there’s a strong possibility that the message is not about the meaning of the words; it’s about the sounds of the words. Blah, blah, blah. Yada, yada, yada.

It’s worth noting that the context bears this out. In verse 11 God says that he’ll speak to his people “with stammering lips and another tongue”; in verse 12 he says, “yet they would not hear.” God’s point is not that the Israelites are slow learners and need pedagogical scaffolding; his point is that they just don’t listen to what they already know—the Torah and the words of the prophets are just a bunch of noise to them.

Nearly all the English versions miss the point, I would suggest, by translating the Hebrew. There are a few that get it, in my opinion:

You don’t even listen— all you hear is senseless sound after senseless sound (CEV).

They speak utter nonsense (GW).

CEV is a paraphrase rather than a translation; GW is a translation originally designed to meet the needs of deaf readers and often used with ESL readers.

Some would caution against taking this approach, given the doctrine of verbal inspiration. I would agree that we should approach this idea with caution. But I also think that the evidence of sound and context are strong in this case.

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash