That’s the goal of Bible translation. If you speak more than one language, then you can easily think of more examples like the ones below.
Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions 
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 25.
There is a common perception among many Bible readers that the most accurate Bible translation is a “literal” one. By literal they usually mean one that is “word-for-word,” that is, one that reproduces the form of the original Greek or Hebrew text as closely as possible. Yet anyone who has ever studied a foreign language soon learns that this is mistaken. Take, for example, the Spanish sentence, ¿Como se llama? A literal (word-for-word) translation would be, “How yourself call?” Yet any first-year Spanish student knows that is a poor translation. The sentence means (in good idiomatic English) “What’s your name?” The form must be changed to express the meaning.
Consider another example. The German sentence Ich habe Hunger means, literally, “I have hunger.” Yet no English speaker would say this. They would say, “I’m hungry.” Again, the form has to change to reproduce the meaning. These simple examples (and thousands could be added from any language) illustrate a fundamental principle of translation: The goal of translation is to reproduce the meaning of the text, not the form. The reason for this is that no two languages are the same in terms of word meanings, grammatical constructions, or idioms.
What is true for translation in general is true for Bible translation. Trying to reproduce the form of the biblical text frequently results in a distortion of its meaning. The Greek text of Matthew 1:18, translated literally, says that before her marriage to Joseph, Mary was discovered to be “having in belly” (en gastri echousa). This Greek idiom means she was “pregnant.” Translating literally would make a text that was clear and natural to its original readers into one that is strange and obscure to English ears. Psalm 12:2, translated literally from the Hebrew, says that wicked people speak “with a heart and a heart” (or, as some “literal” versions render it, “with a double heart”). This Hebrew idiom means “deceitfully.” Translating literally obscures the meaning for most readers. The form must be changed in order to reproduce the meaning.
Update: The above quotation is not controversial. Both formal and functional equivalent proponents agree here (for the most part). This is merely correcting a common misconception among many lay people (especially those who don’t know more than one language).
Related:
- “The Best All-Around Book on Bible Translation”
- “How to Disagree about Bible Translation Philosophy”
- “Thank God for Good Bible Translators and Translations“
Update on 3/31/2017: In my latest attempt to explain how to interpret and apply the Bible, I include a chapter on Bible translation (pp. 50–81).
Check out Patrick Schreiner’s post.
Patrick is quoting Earle Ellis’s article on dynamic equivalence in Expository Times. At school, my prof always said dynamic equivalence, a meaning-for-meaning translation, was best. Ellis states, “It (DE) assumes that the present-day translator knows what contemporary words, idioms and paraphrases are equivalent to the prophets’ and apostles’ wording.” That suggests to me that try as we may, the original meaning may be elusive at best. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts about that point.
Thanks, Craig. Yesterday I posted an article on how to disagree about Bible translation. Ellis’s article seems like a good example of how not to do it. It fails all four conditions I suggest:
1. It doesn’t understand the position it’s disagreeing with. (At least it doesn’t give evidence of genuine understanding.)
2. It doesn’t respectfully and accurately portray the other position.
3. It blows the issue out of proportion (e.g., a functional equivalent philosophy is incompatible with inspiration!?).
4. It slanders the opposing position by identifying it with feminist ideology.
This is a bit of a straw man, don’t you think? Who is advocating for “reproducing the form”? Who suggests that a literal translation like the NASB or even the KJV is “reproducing the form”?
When we advocate for literal translation, we do mean word for word, but we don’t mean form for form. That would be nonsense.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
No, it’s not a straw man given the context of the statement. Fee and Strauss are writing for lay people, and when many lay people think of a “literal” translation—especially Americans who speak only English—they think it means word-for-word.
Translations that are more formal equivalent (like the NASB) basically follow the form as much as grammatically possible while still preserving some degree of intelligibility. Mediating translations (like the NIV) don’t disregard the form, but they value meaning over form and translate into modern English so that, for example, the plow boy can understand it.
Yes, but the lay person who says “literal” or “word-for-word” don’t mean some wooden replication of the Gk/Heb forms. They mean something like the KJV or NASB. Here is what Fee and Strauss said at the beginning of your quote:
“There is a common perception among many Bible readers that the most accurate Bible translation is a “literal” one. By literal they usually mean one that is “word-for-word,” that is, one that reproduces the form of the original Greek or Hebrew text as closely as possible.”
If you were to talk to one of these Bible readers and say to them, “Oh, you want it to be translated like ‘How yourself call?'” they’d look at you like you were from some other planet.
If it’s not a straw man, then at least Fee and Strauss aren’t translating the average Bible reader’s term “literal” very well.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I disagree. Fee and Strauss are simply addressing a common misconception that literal means word-for-word.
Clarification: The above quotation by Fee and Strauss is not controversial. Both formal and functional equivalent proponents agree here (for the most part). This is merely correcting a common misconception among many lay people (esp. those who don’t know more than one language).
Well, don’t want to keep beating a dead horse… but just one more comment, perhaps I am not expressing myself well, too rushed…
When I talk to lay people (i.e., people who don’t know Greek), it is true that they will use ‘literal’ and ‘word-for-word’ interchangeably. However, I have never found them to mean by ‘word-for-word’ a woodenly literal translation. They mean word-for-word like the KJV or NASB is word-for-word.
I sometimes will give a woodenly literal translation in sermons so people can understand the emphasis the apostle is making by showing the Greek word order. But that kind of literal is not what my non-Greek reading friends mean by ‘word-for-word’.
So I think Fee and Strauss are attacking a problem that is not really there. The lay person isn’t demanding what they are criticising.
Ok, I guess I’ve said enough on that point. Don’t mean to be argumentative, just trying to explain why I disagree with F & S here. I like Fee in other places, and dislike him in still others… but I think he is missing it here.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Great illustration, Don. Neither the KJV or NASB is “word-for-word,” so it’s misleading to describe them as such. Fee and Strauss helpfully dispel that misleading notion.
Understanding “the emphasis the apostle is making by showing the Greek word order” is another issue. Don Carson suggested that someone in our Advanced Greek Grammar course write their dissertation on that because the significance of Greek word order (w.r.t. emphasis, markedness, etc.) is not clear.
I routinely run into people who have the perception that the “good” translations are “word for word”… meaning they simply plug in the matching word from the English that fits the Greek term. They have the idea that “dynamic equivalence” means a translation is not as accurate because they “change the word order” and “insert terms.”