background image
M. L. Strauss, "Literal Meaning" Fallacy
1
Form, Function, and the "Literal Meaning" Fallacy
in Bible Translation
Mark L. Strauss
Bethel Seminary San Diego

Introduction: The Rise of Meaning-Based Bible Translation
The 1980s and 90s may rightly be called the heyday of functional equivalence in
Bible translation. During these decades the meaning-based translation theories associated
especially with Eugene Nida, the United Bible Societies and Wycliffe Bible Translators
(SIL), flourished both in the English speaking world and in the world of international
Bible translation. Nida originally referred to his method as "dynamic equivalence," later
adopting the more appropriate "functional equivalent."
1
The first English version to
consciously adopt this method was Today's English Version (TEV; also known as the
Good News Bible
[GNB]). The New Testament, translated by Robert Bratcher under the
auspices of the American Bible Society, was published in 1966 as Good News for
Modern Man.
The whole Bible followed in 1976. Even before the TEV, various
attempts had been made to produce translations which reflected contemporary English
idiom. A number of such versions appeared in the early twentieth century, including The
New Testament in Modern Speech
(1903), produced by Richard Weymouth, The
Twentieth Century New Testament (1904), a committee production, The New Testament:
A New Translation
(1913, 1926) by James Moffatt, and The New Testament: An
American Translation
(1923) by Edgar J. Goodspeed. All of these sought to translate the
Bible into clear and contemporary English. Goodspeed, in a statement with remarkable
affinity to later dynamic equivalent theory, wrote "I wanted my translation to make on
the reader something of the impression the New Testament must have made on it earliest
readers."
2
This vivid relevance was the particular concern of works like J. B. Phillips
New Testament in Modern English (1958) and Kenneth Taylors enormously popular
Living Bible, Paraphrased (1967, 1971). For many readers, Taylors dynamic and
idiomatic renderings brought to life what had previously been a closed and
incomprehensible book.
Since all Bible translation utilizes both formal and functional equivalence, it is
impossible to simply categorize versions as either one or the other. All translations exist
on a continuum between form and function. The New International Version (NIV; 1973,
1978), the most popular version in the English speaking world, claims to be a middle-of-
the-road or mediating version between these two translation theories. Indeed, most
contemporary English versions profess to seek the perfect balance between accuracy and
readability. Terms like "complete equivalence" (NKJV), "optimal equivalence" (HCSB),
"literal-idiomatic" (ISV), and "closest natural equivalent" (God's Word) are frequently
coined by Bible translators to express this balance.
3
But it is beyond dispute that the last
quarter century has seen the proliferation of more idiomatic Bible versions. In addition to
1
See Jan de Waard and Eugene A. Nida, From One Language to Another. Functional Equivalence in
Bible Translating (Nashville: Nelson, 1986), 7-8.
2
Edgar J. Goodspeed, New Chapters in New Testament Study (New York: Macmillan, 1937), 113.
3
See the introductions or prefaces to each of these versions for these terms. The description "closest
natural equivalent" is used by de Waard and Nida in From One Language to Another, 41.