Fortunately it is frequently possible to translate literally and still retain contemporary
English idiom and excellent literary style. For example, “In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth” is a straightforward translation of
the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1, and it is also good English. So why change it? In
fact, why not follow this more literal approach everywhere and all the time, with
an absolute minimum of interpretation? Moisés Silva responds, “Translators who
view their work as pure renderings rather than interpretations only delude themselves;
indeed, if they could achieve some kind of noninterpretative rendering,
their work would be completely useless.”2 Daniel Taylor reinforces the point:
“All translation is interpretation, as George Steiner and others have pointed out.
At every point, the translator is required to interpret, evaluate, judge, and
choose.”3 Bob Sheehan correctly states that the “idea of a noninterpretive translation
is a mirage.”4
Several years ago I wrote about this very issue:
Translation without interpretation is an absolute impossibility,
for at every turn the translator is faced with interpretative decisions
in different manuscript readings, grammar, syntax, the
specific semantic possibilities of a Hebrew or Greek word for a
given context, English idiom, and the like. For example, should
a particular occurrence of the Hebrew word ,eres≥ be contextually
nuanced as “earth,” “land,” or something else? . . . In the
very act of deciding, the translator has interpreted.5
Moisés Silva further indicates the following:
A successful translation requires (1) mastery of the source language—
certainly a much more sophisticated knowledge than
one can acquire over a period of four or five years; (2) superb
interpretation skills and breadth of knowledge so as not to miss
the nuances of the original; and (3) a very high aptitude for
writing in the target language so as to express accurately both
the cognitive and the affective elements of the message.6
And biblical scholar Ephraim Speiser reminds us of the translator’s challenge:
The main task of a translator is to keep faith with two different
masters, one at the source and the other at the receiving
end. . . . If he is unduly swayed by the original, and substitutes
word for word rather than idiom for idiom, he is traducing
what he should be translating, to the detriment of both source
and target. And if he veers too far in the opposite direction, by
favoring the second medium at the expense of the first, the
result is a paraphrase.7
Speiser concludes by declaring that a “faithful translation is by no means the
same thing as a literal rendering.”8
Unfortunately, then, it is often not possible to translate literally and retain
natural, idiomatic, clear English. Consider the NASB rendering of Matthew
13:20: “The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who
hears the word and immediately receives it with joy.” The NIV reads: “The one
who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word
and at once receives it with joy.” Here the NASB is so woodenly literal that the
result is a cumbersome, awkward, poorly constructed English sentence. The NIV,
on the other hand, has a natural and smooth style without sacrificing accuracy.
The second major type of translation is referred to variously as dynamic or
functional or idiomatic equivalence. Here the translator attempts a thought-forthought
rendering. The Good News Bible (GNB; also known as Today’s English
Version, TEV), the New Living Translation (NLT), God’s Word (GW), the
New Century Version (NCV), and the Contemporary English Version (CEV)
are some of the examples of this approach to the translation challenge. Such versions
seek to find the best modern cultural equivalent that will have the same
effect the original message had in its ancient cultures. Obviously this approach
is a much freer one.
At this point the reader may be surprised that the NIV has not been included
as an illustration of either of these two major types of translations. The reason is
that, in my opinion, it fits neither. After considerable personal study, comparison,
and analysis, I have become convinced that, in order to do justice to translations
like the NIV and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), scholars must recognize
the validity of a third major category of translation, namely, the balanced
or mediating type. To discuss this subject intelligently, we must have a working
definition of formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Eugene Nida gives
us important insight:
Since “there are . . . no such things as identical equivalents,”
. . . one must in translation seek to find the closest possible
equivalent. However, there are fundamentally two different
types of equivalence: one which may be called formal and
another which is primarily dynamic.
Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself,
in both form and content. . . . Viewed from this formal orientation,
one is concerned that the message in the receptor language
should match as closely as possible the different
elements in the source language. This means . . . that the message
in the receptor culture is constantly compared with the
message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy
and correctness.
The type of translation which most closely typifies this
structural equivalence might be called a “gloss translation,” in
which the translator attempts to reproduce as literally and
meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original.
. . . [Student] needs call for a relatively close approximation
to the structure of the early . . . text, both as to form (e.g., syntax
and idioms) and content (e.g., themes and concepts). Such a
translation would require numerous footnotes in order to make
the text fully comprehensible.
A gloss translation of this type is designed to permit the
reader to identify himself as fully as possible with a person in
the source-language context, and to understand as much as he
can of the customs, manner of thought, and means of expression.
For example, a phrase such as “holy kiss” (Romans 16:16)
in a gloss translation would be rendered literally, and would
probably be supplemented with a footnote explaining that this
was a customary method of greeting in New Testament times.
In contrast, a translation which attempts to produce a
dynamic rather than a formal equivalence is based upon “the
principle of equivalent effect.” . . . In such a translation one is
not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message
with the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship
. . . , that the relationship between receptor and message
should be substantially the same as that which existed
between the original receptors and the message.
A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness
of expression and tries to relate the receptor to modes
of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; it
does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the
source-language context in order to comprehend the message.
Of course, there are varying degrees of such dynamicequivalence
translations. . . . [Phillips, e.g.,] seeks for equivalent
effect. . . . In Romans 16:16 he quite naturally translates “greet
one another with a holy kiss” as “give one another a hearty
handshake all around.”
Between the two poles of translating (i.e., between strict formal
equivalence and complete dynamic equivalence) there are
a number of intervening grades, representing various acceptable
standards of literary translating.9
Edward L. Greenstein further describes the principle of dynamic equivalence
as proposing a “three-stage translation process: analysis of the expression in
the source language to determine its meaning, transfer of this meaning to the
target language, and restructuring of the meaning in the world of expression of
the target language.”10
Two observations may be helpful at this point. First, it is instructive that the
NIV retains “Greet one another with a holy kiss” in Romans 16:16. Second, it is
significant that Eugene Nida seems to open the door for a mediating position
between the two main translation philosophies, theories, or methods. In general
terms, all Bible translation is simply “the process of beginning with something
(written or oral) in one language (the source language) and expressing it in
another language (the receptor language).”11 A translation cannot be said to be
faithful that does not pay adequate attention to both the source language and the
receptor language.
A distinction must be made between dynamic equivalence as a translation
principle and dynamic equivalence as a translation philosophy. The latter exists
only when a version sets out to produce a dynamic-equivalence rendering from
start to finish, as the GNB did. The foreword to the Special Edition Good News
Bible indicates that word-for-word translation does not accurately convey the
force of the original, so the GNB uses instead the “dynamic equivalent,” the
words having the same force and meaning today as the original text had for its
first readers. Dynamic equivalence as a translation principle, on the other hand,
is used in varying degrees by all versions of the Bible.12 This is easily illustrated
by a few examples, several of which were given to me about 1990 by former Old
Testament professor (Calvin Theological Seminary) Dr. Marten Woudstra (now
deceased).
• A literal rendering of the opening part of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 40:2
would read, “Speak to the heart of Jerusalem.” Yet all English versions
(including the KJV) see the need for a dynamic-equivalence translation
here (e.g., the NIV has “Speak tenderly to Jerusalem”).
• In Jeremiah 2:2 the KJV and the NASB read “in the ears of Jerusalem,”
but the NKJV and the NIV have “in the hearing of Jerusalem.” Here
the NKJV is just as “dynamic” as the NIV. That it did not have to be is
clear from the NASB. Yet the translators wanted to communicate the
meaning in a natural way to modern readers, which is precisely what
the NIV also wanted to do.
• In Haggai 2:16 the NASB has “grain heap,” but the KJV, NKJV, and NIV
all use “heap” alone (which is all the Hebrew has). Here the formalequivalent
version, the NASB, is freer than the NIV.
• The KJV and the NKJV read “no power at all” in John 19:11, whereas
the NIV has only “no power” (in accord with the Greek). Which version
is following the formal-equivalence approach here, and which ones are
following the dynamic approach?
One could continue ad infinitum with this kind of illustration. Suffice it to mention
additionally that there is a book of over two hundred pages published as a
glossary to the oddities of the KJV word use and diction.13
In a similar vein, Ron Youngblood has written the following:To render the Greek word sarx by “flesh” virtually every
time it appears does not require the services of a translator; all
one needs is a dictionary (or, better yet, a computer). But to recognize
that sarx has differing connotations in different contexts,
that in addition to “flesh” it often means “human standards” or
“earthly descent” or “sinful nature” or “sexual impulse” or “person,”
etc., and therefore to translate sarx in a variety of ways is to
understand that translation is not only a mechanical, word-forword
process but also a nuanced [I would have said contextually
nuanced], thought-for-thought procedure. Translation, as
any expert in the field will readily admit, is just as much an art
as it is a science. Word-for-word translations typically demonstrate
great respect for the source language . . . but often pay only
lip service to the requirements of the target language. . . .
When translators of Scripture insist on reproducing every
lexical and grammatical element in their English renderings,
the results are often grotesque.14
Because I have served on the executive committee of the NIV’s Committee
on Bible Translation (CBT) since 1975 and have been the chief spokesperson for
the NIV, people often ask me, “What kind of translation, then, is the NIV?
Where does it fit among all the others?” While these related questions have been
dealt with generally in several publications and reviews, they are addressed
specifically in only one published authoritative source dating back to the release
of the complete NIV in 1978:
Broadly speaking, there are several methods of translation:
the concordant one, which ranges from literalism to the comparative
freedom of the King James Version and even more of
the Revised Standard Version, both of which follow the syntactical
structure of the Hebrew and Greek texts as far as is
compatible with good English; the paraphrastic one, in which
the translator restates the gist of the text in his own words; and
the method of equivalence, in which the translator seeks to
understand as fully as possible what the biblical writers had to
say (a criterion common, of course, to the careful use of any
method) and then tries to find its closest equivalent in contemporary
usage. In its more advanced form this is spoken of as
dynamic equivalence, in which the translator seeks to express
the meaning as the biblical writers would if they were writing
in English today. All these methods have their values when
responsibly used.As for the NIV, its method is an eclectic one with the emphasis
for the most part on a flexible use of concordance and equivalence,
but with a minimum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright
dynamic equivalence. In other words, the NIV stands on middle
ground—by no means the easiest position to occupy. It may
fairly be said that the translators were convinced that, through
long patience in seeking the right words, it is possible to attain
a high degree of faithfulness in putting into clear and idiomatic
English what the Hebrew and Greek texts say. Whatever literary
distinction the NIV has is the result of the persistence with
which this course was pursued.15
The CBT has also formulated certain guidelines in an unpublished document
(“Translators’ Manual,” dated 29 November 1968):
1. At every point the translation shall be faithful to the Word of God as represented
by the most accurate text of the original languages of Scripture.
2. The work shall not be a revision of another version but a fresh translation
from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
3. The translation shall reflect clearly the unity and harmony of the Spiritinspired
writings.
4. The aim shall be to make the translation represent as clearly as possible
only what the original says, and not to inject additional elements by
unwarranted paraphrasing.
5. The translation shall be designed to communicate the truth of God’s
revelation as effectively as possible to English readers in the language of
the people. In this respect the Committee’s goal is that of doing for our
own times what the King James Version did for its day.
6. Every effort shall be made to achieve good English style.
7. The finished product shall be suitable for use in public worship, in the
study of the Word, and in devotional reading.
The following statements appear later in this same document:
1. Translators should keep the principles of the translation constantly in
mind and strive for accuracy, clarity, and force of expression.
2. Translators should do their work originally from the original language,
but before the completion of their work representative translations and
commentaries shall be consulted.
3. Certain notes of text variation, alternative translation, cross reference,
or explanation will be put in the margin.4. The purpose of the project is not to prepare a word-for-word translation
nor yet a paraphrase.
5. Read the passages as a whole and aloud to check for euphony and suitability
for public reading.
At the time of the NIV’s publication I wrote this about the translation work:
About two thousand years ago, when confronted with the
prospect of translating Plato’s Protagoras into Latin, Cicero
declared, “It is hard to preserve in a translation the charm of
expressions which in another language are most felicitous. . . . If
I render word for word, the result will sound uncouth, and if
compelled by necessity I alter anything in the order or wording,
I shall seem to have departed from the function of a translator.”
Such is the dilemma of all translators! And the problem is particularly
acute for those who attempt to translate the Bible, for it
is the eternal Word of God. The goal, of course, is to be as faithful
as possible in all renderings. But faithfulness is a doubleedged
sword, for true faithfulness in translation means being
faithful not only to the original language but also to the “target”
or “receptor” language. That is precisely what we attempted to
produce in the New International Version—just the right balance
between accuracy and the best contemporary idiom.16
In spite of that goal, I am certain that from time to time we will continue to be
criticized—by some for being literal but not contemporary enough, and by others
for being contemporary but not literal enough. Yet perhaps that fact in itself
will indicate that we have basically succeeded.
All this clearly indicates that the CBT attempted to make the NIV a balanced,
mediating version—one that would fall about halfway between the most
literal and the most free. But is that, in fact, where the NIV fits? Many neutral
parties believe so. For example, Steven Sheeley and Robert Nash state, “The NIV
committees attempted to walk this fine line and, to their credit, usually achieved
a good sense of balance between fidelity to the ancient texts and sensitivity to
modern expression.” They conclude, “Like any other modern translation of the
Bible, the NIV should not be considered the only true translation. Its great
achievement, though, lies in its readability. No other modern English translation
has reached the same level and still maintained such a close connection to the
ancient languages.”17
A similar opinion is expressed in the “Report to General Synod Abbotsford
1995” by the Committee on Bible Translations appointed by General Synod Lin-coln 1992 of the Canadian Reformed Churches. The members of the committee
(P. Aasman, J. Geertsema, W. Smouter, C. Van Dam, and G. H. Visscher) thoroughly
and carefully investigated the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV. They indicated
that the NIV “attempted to strike a balance between a high degree of
faithfulness to the text and clarity for the receptor in the best possible English.”
They added that “it was frequently our experience that very often when our initial
reaction to an NIV translation was negative, further study and investigation
convinced us that the NIV translators had taken into account all the factors
involved and had actually rendered the best possible translation of the three versions.”
18 Similarly, when the committee questioned a passage as being too interpretive,
upon closer examination it was often discovered that the NIV had
produced a text that was accurate yet idiomatic.19 They concluded that “the NIV
is more idiomatic than the NASB and NKJV but at the same time as accurate as
the NASB and NKJV.”20 (By the way, the General Synod Abbotsford 1995 of the
Canadian Reformed Churches adopted these two recommendations—among
others: [1] to continue to recommend the NIV for use in the churches, and [2] to
continue to leave it in the freedom of the churches if they feel compelled to use
other translations that received favorable reviews in the reports.)
Another neutral voice is that of Terry White in an article about how a Baptist
General Conference church (Wooddale in Eden Prairie, Minnesota) endorsed
the NIV as the best translation for their membership. The church appointed a
task force to evaluate the NIV, the RSV, the NASB, and the NKJV. The NIV
came out ahead in nine of ten areas evaluated (most readable, best scholarship
used, best grammatically, best paragraphing, best concordances and supplemental
writing, best for use by laity, best Old Testament, best New Testament, and
best total Bible). A slight edge was given to the NASB as the most accurate rendering
of the original texts. Nonetheless it was clear that the NIV had the best
overall balance.21
Strictly speaking, then, the NIV is not a dynamic-equivalence translation.
If it were, it would read “snakes will no longer be dangerous” (GNB) instead of
“dust will be the serpent’s food” (Isa 65:25). Or it would read in 1 Samuel 20:30
“You bastard!” (GNB) instead of “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman!”
Similar illustrations could be multiplied to demonstrate that the NIV is an
idiomatically balanced translation.
How was such a balance achieved? By having a built-in system of checks
and balances. We called it the A–B–C–Ds of the NIV, using those letters as an
alphabetic acrostic to represent accuracy, beauty, clarity, and dignity. We wanted
to be accurate, that is, as faithful to the original text as possible (see our comments
on the rendering of Genesis 1:1 at the beginning of this chapter). But it wasimportant to be equally faithful to the target or receptor language—English in
this case. So we did not want to make the mistake—in the name of accuracy—
of creating “translation English” that would not be beautiful and natural. Accuracy,
then, must be balanced by beauty of language. The CBT attempted to make
the NIV read and flow the way any great English literature should. Calvin D.
Linton (professor emeritus of English at George Washington University) has
praised the beauty of the NIV as literature:
The NIV is filled with sensitive renderings of rhythms, from
the exultant beat of the Song of Deborah and Barak (Judg 5:1–
31) to the “dying fall” of the rhythms of the world-weary
Teacher in Ecclesiastes, with myriad effects in between. As a
random sample, let the reader speak the following lines from
Job (29:2–3), being careful to give full value to the difference
between stressed and unstressed syllables:
How I long for the months gone by,
for the days when God watched over me,
when his lamp shone upon my head
and by his light I walked through darkness!
It is better than the KJV!22
At the same time we did not want to make the mistake—in the name of
beauty—of creating lofty, flowery English that would not be clear. So beauty
must be balanced by clarity: “When a high percentage of people misunderstand
a rendering, it cannot be regarded as a legitimate translation.”23 If a translation
is to be both accurate and clear (idiomatic), it cannot be a mechanical exercise;
instead, it must be a highly nuanced process. Popular columnist Godfrey Smith
wrote in The Sunday Times (London, England):
I was won over by the way the new Bible [the NIV] handles
Paul’s magnificent [First] Epistle to the Corinthians [13:4].
“Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.” So runs the old version
[the KJV], but the word charity is a real showstopper. The new
version puts it with admirable simplicity: “Love is patient, love
is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.” The
old thunder has been lost, but the gain in sense is enormous.24
My favorite illustration of lack of clarity is the KJV rendering of Job 36:33:
“The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour.”
In the interest of clarity the NIV reads, “His [God’s] thunder announces the coming
storm; even the cattle make known its approach.” Or consider the Lord’sdescription of the leviathan in Job 41:12–14 (KJV): “I will not conceal his parts,
nor his power, nor his comely proportion. Who can discover the face of his garment?
or who can come to him with his double bridle? Who can open the doors
of his face? His teeth are terrible round about.” Again, in order to communicate
clearly in contemporary English idiom, the NIV translates as follows:
I will not fail to speak of his limbs,
his strength and his graceful form.
Who can strip off his outer coat?
Who would approach him with a bridle?
Who dares open the doors of his mouth,
ringed about with his fearsome teeth?
The importance of clarity in Bible translations is obvious. Yet, the CBT did
not want to make the mistake—in the name of clarity—of stooping to slang, vulgarisms,
street vernacular, and unnecessarily undignified language. Clarity, then,
must be balanced by dignity, particularly since one of our objectives was to produce
a general, all-church-use Bible. Some of the dynamic-equivalence versions are at
times unnecessarily undignified, as illustrated above in 1 Samuel 20:30.
Additional examples could be given. But the point is that when we produced
the NIV, we wanted accuracy, but not at the expense of beauty; we wanted beauty,
but not at the expense of clarity; and we wanted clarity, but not at the expense of
dignity. We wanted all these in a nice balance. Did we succeed? Rather than be
restricted to using descriptive terms like formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence,
paraphrase, and the like, in answering this question, it may be more helpful
to note the distinctions John Callow and John Beekman make between four
types of translations: highly literal, modified literal, idiomatic, and unduly free.
Their view can be diagrammed like this:25
In their classification system the NIV, in my opinion, contains primarily modified
literal and idiomatic renderings, though with a greater number of idiomatic
ones. To sum up, there is a need for a new category in classifying translations—
a classification I’d call a mediating position.
What, then, makes a good Bible translation? In my opinion, a good translation
will follow a balanced or mediating translation philosophy. Donald Burdick
puts it this way:
Chapter 2: Bible Translation Philosophies 61
Unacceptable
highly literal
Acceptable
modified literal idiomatic
Unacceptable
unduly freeA good translation is neither too much nor too little. It is neither
too slavish a reproduction of the Greek [and Hebrew], nor
is it too free in its handling of the original. It is neither too modern
and casual, nor is it too stilted and formal. It is not too much
like the KJV, nor does it depart too far from the time-honored
beauty and dignity of that seventeenth-century classic. In short,
the best translation is one that has avoided the extremes and has
achieved instead the balance that will appeal to the most people
for the longest period of time.26
An appropriate conclusion to this chapter is provided by Bible translation
specialist Bruce Metzger:
Translating the Bible is a never-ending task. As long as English
remains a living language it will continue to change, and
therefore new renderings of the Scriptures will be needed. Furthermore,
as other, and perhaps still more, ancient manuscripts
come to light, scholars will need to evaluate the history of the
scribal transmission of the original texts. And let it be said,
finally, alongside such developments in translating the Bible
there always remains the duty of all believers to translate the
teaching of Holy Writ into their personal lives.27
NOTES
1. This chapter is adapted from a similar one in Kenneth L. Barker, The Balance of
the NIV: What Makes a Good Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 41–55, 112–14.
Appreciation is hereby expressed to the publisher for permission to use some of that
material. I take great pleasure in presenting this chapter in honor of my dear friend and
esteemed colleague, Dr. Ronald Youngblood, on the occasion of his retirement at age
seventy. Ron and I have known each other since 1959. I have appreciated his valuable
contributions to the New International Version (NIV), The NIV Study Bible, and the
New International Reader’s Version (NIrV)—all of them being projects I’ve had the
enjoyable privilege of working on with him. God be praised!
2. Moisés Silva, God, Language, and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 134.
3. Daniel Taylor, “Confessions of a Bible Translator,” Books & Culture (November/
December 1995), 17.
4. Bob Sheehan, Which Version Now? (Sussex: Carey Publications, n.d.), 21.
5. Kenneth L. Barker, The Accuracy of the NIV (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 16–17.
6. Silva, God, Language, and Scripture, 134.
7. E. A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964), lxiii–lxiv.
8. Ibid., lxvi; see also Herbert M. Wolf, “Literal versus Accurate,” in The Making of
the NIV, ed. Kenneth L. Barker (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 125–34, 165.
9. Eugene A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 159–60.
10. Edward L. Greenstein, “Theories of Modern Translation,” Prooftexts 3 (1983):
9–39; quoted by J. T. Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, trans. W. G. E.
Watson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998): 126.
11. R. Elliott, “Bible Translation,” in Origin of the Bible, ed. Philip W. Comfort
(Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale, 1992), 233.
12. See Cecil Hargreaves, A Translator’s Freedom (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
13. Melvin E. Elliott, The Language of the King James Bible: A Glossary Explaining
Its Words and Expressions (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967); see also Edwin H.
Palmer, “The KJV and the NIV,” in The Making of the NIV, 140–54, 165.
14. Ronald Youngblood, “The New International Version was published in 1978—
this is the story of why, and how,” The Standard (November 1988): 18. For an example of
such a “grotesque” rendering, see Bob Sheehan, Which Version Now? 19 (this latter work
is available from International Bible Society in Colorado Springs, Colorado).
15. The Story of the New International Version (New York: The New York International
Bible Society, 1978), 13 (italics mine).
16. Kenneth L. Barker, “An Insider Talks about the NIV,” Kindred Spirit (Fall 1978): 7.
17. Steven M. Sheeley and Robert N. Nash Jr., The Bible in English Translation
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 44, 46.
18. “Report to General Synod Abbotsford 1995” from the Committee on Bible
Translations appointed by Synod Lincoln 1992 of the Canadian Reformed Churches, 16.
19. See “Report to General Synod Abbotsford 1995,” 169.
20. “Report to General Synod Abbotsford 1995,” 63.
21. See Terry White, “The Best Bible Version for Our Generation,” The Standard
(November 1988): 12–14.
22. Calvin D. Linton, “The Importance of Literary Style,” in The Making of the NIV, 30.
23. Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation
(Leiden: Brill, 1982), 2.
24. Quoted in A Bible for Today and Tomorrow (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), 19.
25. John Callow and John Beekman, Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1974), 23–24.
26. Donald W. Burdick, “At the Translator’s Table,” The [Cincinnati Christian] Seminary
Review 21 (March 1975): 44.
27. Bruce M. Metzger, “Handing Down the Bible Through the Ages: The Role of
Scribe and Translator,” Reformed Review 43 (Spring 1990): 170.
Post a Comment