Page 7

M. L. Strauss, "Literal Meaning" Fallacy

transfer occurs automatically. He tries to avoid this obvious fallacy by distinguishing
between "linguistic interpretation" and "thematic interpretation."

As we shall see, this

is a legitimate distinction when "linguistic interpretation" is defined correctly. But what
Ryken means by "linguistic interpretation" is limited to "decisions regarding what
English words best express Hebrew or Greek words."

This is far too narrow a

definition since languages differ not only in word meanings, but also in syntax, idioms,
connotations, collocations, and a host of other ways. The translator practicing only
Rykens "linguistic interpretation" would have to render the Greek phrase pater he¯mo¯n
ho en tois ouranois in Matthew 6:9 as "Father our the in the heavens," instead of "Our
Father in heaven...." (ESV; TNIV) because the syntax of Greek and English function
differently. The message as a whole must first be understood in the source language
before the meaning can be transferred into the receptor language. All translation involves
interpretation.

Although utilizing a more nuanced linguistic approach, Raymond Van Leeuwen

expresses concerns similar to Rykens. He claims that functional equivalent versions
often practice interpretation which should be left to the reader. He writes "It is hard to
know what the Bible means when we are uncertain about what it says."

The claim is

that formal equivalence tells us "directly" what the Bible says, while functional
equivalence inappropriately interprets the meaning of text. This interpretation, in turn,
may be wrong, or at best, may limit the reader to only one option. Such interpretation, he
argues, should be left to commentaries.

There is certainly a case to be made for retaining intentional ambiguity when it is

present in the original text. Furthermore, translations must be careful not to exclude
viable interpretations. We will deal with these issues later. Yet the statement "what the
Bible says" is problematic from the start. The Bible is written in Hebrew and Greek, so
every English translation changes every word of what the Bible says. Direct translation
without interpretation is impossible since every word, phrase and clause in Greek or
Hebrew must first be understood before it can be translated accurately. Since it is
impossible to have a translation which "says what the Bible says," we need versions
which mean what the Hebrew and Greek mean.

Translation as Communication

Since words are symbols representing ideas or concepts, we must go a step further

and define the translation process more comprehensively. By definition, the transfer of
meaning is an act of communication. For a translation to be successful, meaning must be

Ryken, The Word of God in English, 85-87.

Ryken, The Word of God in English, 85.

Van Leeuwen, "We Really Do Need," 30. Again: "The problem with FE [functional equivalence] (i.e.,

most modern translations) is that they prevent the reader from inferring biblical meaning because they
change what the Bible said."

Van Leeuwen is well aware of this. At one point he writes that "translation is a difficult and, in some

ways, impossible task. Translations always compromise and interpret." He adds that, "A translators first
and most important job is to bridge the language gap. She seeks the best way of saying in English what
was said first in Hebrew or Greek. But even this is not simple. No English word fully matches a Greek or
Hebrew word." Yet a few paragraphs later he seems to contradict himself when he writes, "When our
translations do not say what the Hebrew or Greek say, it is hard to know what the Bible means." Van
Leeuwen, "We Really Do Need," 33.