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), 35–36.
One of the surprising, and from our perspective unfortunate, recent developments in the story of English translations is the reappearance of an old argument that “literal” versions are more compatible with the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. We say “old,” because this is precisely what drove Robert Young . . . to produce a version vis-á-vis the KJV (first ed. 1862). . . .
Our first point, then, is that, as with beauty, “literal” is in the eye of the beholder, in this case meaning “in the perception of the user.” This is why we have tried to avoid the word “literal” in this book and have often put it in quote marks when we use it—because those who use it tend to have such a wide range of meanings. Unfortunately, it is also often used in the literature simply as a rhetorical device over against “meaning-based” versions.
Second, much of this rhetoric represents a poor understanding of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, which historically does not refer to the words as “words in themselves,” but “words as they convey meaning.” It is precisely at this point that we would argue that a translation that places the priority of meaning over form is much more in keeping with the doctrine of inspiration, since at issue always is the “meaning” of the inspired words. The translation that best conveys that meaning is the most faithful to this historic doctrine. . . .
When lecturing on Bible translation, one of the authors often holds up an English Bible and asks the audience, “Is this God’s Word?” The answer is a resounding “Yes!” This is absolutely true. An English translation remains God’s Word when it faithfully reproduces the meaning of the text. And since languages differ in terms of word meanings, grammatical constructions, and idioms, translation can never be about simply replacing words. The Hebrew and Greek text must first be interpreted—word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase, clause-by-clause—to determine the original meaning. Then this meaning must be painstakingly reproduced using different words, phrases, and clauses in English. The translation that most closely adheres to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is the one that reproduces the total meaning of the text, not just its words.
Related:
- Mark L. Strauss, “Do Literal Bible Versions Show Greater Respect for Plenary Inspiration? A Response to Wayne Grudem” (Evangelical Theological Society National Meeting; Valley Forge, PA, 2005). Strauss responds to Grudem’s 2004 ETS presentation (MP3—which includes Doug Moo’s response from the floor at the end), later published as “Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God? Why Plenary Inspiration Favors ‘Essentially Literal’ Bible Translation,” in Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 19–56.
- Rodney J. Decker, “Verbal-Plenary Inspiration and Translation,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 11 (2006): 25–61.
- “Scripture: How the Bible Is a Book Like No Other,” in Don’t Call It a Comeback: The Old Faith for a New Day
(ed. Kevin DeYoung; Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 59–69. - “The Best All-Around Book on Bible Translation“
- “How to Disagree about Bible Translation Philosophy“
- “Reproduce the Meaning“
- “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).
Any chance you could post an exerpt from the book on the preservation of scripture?
Hey, Brian. This book doesn’t fully address that issue, though the chapter on textual criticism may be what you’re looking for (pp. 111–18).
Andy,
Thanks for your posts! I especially appreciate the last sentence of the quote.
“The translation that most closely adheres to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is the one that reproduces the total meaning of the text, not just its words.”
I think we miss that sometimes. Again, thanks for your posts.
Great balancing thoughts here. I’m curious about the historical understanding of verbal inspiration. Where does one find such a thing? Chicago Statement!?
Thanks, Drew.
This isn’t a novel understanding of verbal inspiration. The word “just” in the last sentence I quote above is significant:
Fee and Strauss affirm that God inspired the words. But the most faithful translations most closely reproduce the text’s total meaning (which, of course, includes the words).
Further, words don’t have inherent meaning apart from a context. So God inspired words that work in conjunction with other words to produce a particular meaning. (Cf. tomorrow’s post, which refers to some works by Silva that are extremely helpful re lexical semantics.)
Thanks for the reply, Andy. However, I’m still curious on what basis one can refer to this as the “historical” understanding. From where in history does this view stem such that you know it’s not novel? (It might sound like I’m challenging you, but I’m not–I’m very appreciative of your blog!–I would just like to trace the view and see its history.) In what sense is it “historical”? Patristic? Medieval? Reformational? 20th century?
Fee and Strauss aren’t saying anything different than the traditional view that God inspired the γραφή. They’re simply expressing that view with linguistic precision.
Thanks, Andy. I’ve got that part. But where does one first encounter “the traditional view” in history?
1. I reference some helpful resources in the footnotes of this article as well as at its end. You could start with those and branch out from there (the ones I cite reference a lot of other resources).
2. John Woodbridge is the finest living expert on this subject I know of. See esp. this book.
3. This resource should be esp. helpful when it comes out (hopefully in 2012): D. A. Carson, ed., “But My Words Will Never Pass Away”: The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming). Woodbridge has an excellent chapter in this volume.