Dr Leland Ryken on ancient Biblical manuscripts and English readers

This writer recently had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Leland Ryken of Wheaton College regarding the process of Biblical Interpretation for the modern reader. Dr. Ryken is a Professor of English, and as such, has an intimate scholarly understanding of how the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are rendered into the English Language, and the difficulties associated with this process.  

According to Ryken, there are several difficulties that arise in the translation process. These essentially divide into two problems. The first is determining what the original authors meant to communicate to the reader taking into account culture, context, idiom and so forth. The second is to then find the best way of communicating this meaning to the modern English reader.  

There are two schools of thought as to how to complete this process. The first is known as verbal equivalence. Dr. Ryken explains: 

“The goal of Bible translation is to take readers as close as possible to the actual words that the biblical authors wrote. The translation process that this viewpoint produces is called verbal equivalence, which means that every word in the original Hebrew or Greek text is rendered by an equivalent or corresponding English word or phrase. The goal of Bible translation is be transparent to the original text—to see as clearly as possible what the biblical authors actually wrote.” 

 

The second school of thought in rendering an English translation is known as dynamic equivalence. Says Dr. Ryken: 

“Dynamic equivalent translators feel no obligation to find an English equivalent for every word in the original Hebrew and Greek texts; if the text says "he anoints my head with oil," a dynamic equivalent translation might read "he treats me as an honored guest." Paraphrases often bear little resemblance to what the biblical authors wrote (for example, the statement in Psalm 19 that God's law is "sweeter than honey" becomes "you'll like it better than strawberries in spring" (The Message).” Dr. Ryken is critical of the dynamic equivalence school of Bible translation, saying: “Here are the liberties that dynamic equivalent translators regularly take: 

1. replace what the original authors wrote with something else (e.g., where the text says "establish the work of our hands," dynamic equivalent translations substitute "let all go well for us");  
2. change figurative statements into direct statements (again a substitution); 
3. add interpretive commentary to what the biblical authors wrote, so readers do not know what was in the original and what was added; 
4. make the style of the English Bible contemporary and colloquial; 
5. reduce the vocabulary level of the original text; 
6. bring masculine gender references into line with modern feminist preferences.

In all these ways, dynamic equivalent translations give the public a substitute Bible. I would also assert that the original authors of the Bible had the resources to state their content the way dynamic equivalent translators state it, but instead they stated it as we find in the original texts of the Bible. Dynamic equivalent translators take a condescending view toward the authors of the Bible, treating them like inept writers who couldn't state things accurately and therefore need correction.” 

Dr. Ryken places the responsibility for Biblical understanding with the reader, saying: 

“Readers should aspire to what is excellent. They should refuse to read a substitute Bible. They should want a Bible that calls them to their higher selves—or to something higher than their current level of attainment.  “Some of the blame can be laid at the feet of easy-reading translations. When I read these translations and (even more) hear them read in public, I feel a great letdown and say to myself that such a Bible does not capture my heart and allegiance. A translation that reads like the chatter at the corner coffee shop is given the type of credibility that the chatter is given. But quite apart from that, we need to acknowledge the damage done by the proliferation of Bible translations. With so many contradictory renditions of the biblical text, the public has lost confidence that we can actually know what the Bible says. It is an easy step from this skepticism to an indifference about what the Bible says.”