My friend Alistair Chalmers has written here both extolling the importance of Christians hearing and reading Scripture and opposing the practice of using paraphrases. First of all, I want to offer a hearty amen to his concern for Scripture to be heard and read. One of the strengths of more traditional and liturgical church contexts is that they give more space for Scripture to be read.
Where I would want to push back a little is on this comment:
“And yet here is where the concern must be stated plainly. In many churches and among many Christians, there is a growing reliance on paraphrases, versions of the Bible that do not aim to translate the original text accurately, but to rephrase it freely, often expanding, simplifying, or interpreting along the way.
Let me be clear, if we want to truly read God’s Word, we cannot be content with paraphrases. Why? Because a paraphrase, by definition, is not a translation. It is a human retelling of what someone thinks the text means. That is a fundamentally different thing.
God did not inspire paraphrases. He inspired words – specific words, given through human authors by the Holy Spirit, preserved for his people. Our task is not to improve upon them, but to receive them faithfully.
Where I think this needs a little unpicking is that he is probably thinking specifically of options such as The Message, The Living Bible and The Passion Translation. Such paraphrases may well be based on other existing English Bible translations. In some cases they might be considered more as commentary or even exposition of the text. I would agree with Alistair that we should not rely on these, though if we take them for what they are, then they have a place. I think they particularly had a part to play previously in public reading at evangelistic events, or for helping children and those for various reasons with lower literacy rates get access to God Word. I say previously because there was a time when these were your only alternative to complex translations.
However, things have changed substantially because there are now a number of Bible translations such as The New Living Translation and the Christian Standard Bible that are regarded as highly readable and accessible when it comes to understanding. However, Alistair’s negative comments about paraphrases might be seen to apply to these as well.
Specifically, Alistair’s concern is that the words of Scripture are inspired and so for paraphrases he argues that:
Precision is lost
The Bible’s language is rich, careful, and often deliberately nuanced. Paraphrases flatten this, replacing depth with simplicity. Important theological distinctions can disappear entirely.
Interpretation replaces revelation
A translation seeks to convey what the text says. A paraphrase inevitably begins to explain what the author thinks it means. This moves authority away from Scripture and towards the paraphraser.
Additions and distortions creep in
Because paraphrases allow for expansion, they often include ideas that are not present in the original text. At times, these are not just unhelpful, they are misleading.
The tone of Scripture is altered
The weight, majesty, and even the sharpness of God’s Word can be softened or trivialised. What should confront us may instead be made comfortable.
These tend to be the arguments used for sticking with what is known as “Formal Equivalence.” You see, there are two kinds of translation philosophy. Formal Equivalence seeks to translate at a word for word level following the syntax and vocabulary of Greek and Hebrew as closely as possible. At the far extreme of this approach, you get the English text below the Greek in inter-linear options. The KJV, ASB, RV, RSV and ESV seek to follow this approach as closely as possible.
The other approach is known as “Dynamic Equivalence” and is seen as “thought for thought” translation. The translators are less concerned about getting things word for word and more concerned for accurately conveying thoughts. Paraphrases therefore might be seen as at the extreme end of this. However, the NLT, HCB and others also follow this approach. Meanwhile the NIV claimed to try and sit at a midpoint between both approaches.
Historically, the trade off has seen to be one between accuracy and readability. All translations therefore include some level of dynamic equivalence because otherwise they will be pretty unreadable (try reading that interlinear text). However, it is also worth making a few further observations.
First, we presume that formal equivalence guarantees more precision or accuracy. However, that is not necessarily the case in all circumstances. I think there can be a benefit to following common vocabulary in initial study and formal equivalence may better capture the rhetorical structure of text, especially poetry and oratory. However, there are cases when it may not be the most accurate. For example, would a formal equivalent translation of an English joke into German or Chinese be the most accurate and precise? I would argue that it would not be because of the different approaches to humour and because of the function of word play and puns (significant in Hebrew as it happens). The joke may simply not translate across. I’m reminded of the most extreme form of dynamic equivalence I’ve experienced. I used to be translated into Spanish for a South American contingent in our church. I noticed that whereas my humour still bombed badly at times with much of the congregation that the newer, Spanish speaking members were roaring with laughter. I felt much encouraged until I discovered that at that point, the translator would say “Dave is telling a joke now, so please laugh.”
Secondly, all translations require a level of interpretation. Even with formal equivalence, you have to make choices within a semantic range when deciding vocabulary. You are also making decisions about how tenses and voices function. Does Jesus tell his followers to
“Go and make disciples of the nations”
“Go and disciple the nations”
Or
“As you go, disciple the nations”?
These are interpretative choices. Sometimes what we see is that versions that are claiming to be Formal Equivalence in philosophy are making stronger interpretative choices than the Dynamic Equivalence ones. They are just not being as transparent about it. For example, consider this offering from the ESV.,
“7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,[d] and they were in Christ before me.” (Romans 16:7)
Translating the text as “well known to the apostles” is an interpretive choice. Other versions opt for “outstanding among the apostles.” Both options are possible and you are more likely to lean towards “well known to” if you assume that “the apostles” refers strictly to the twelve. Now the ESV may have made the right interpretative choice here based on wider contextual information but the translator has still made a choice, they have interpreted.
Finally, whilst it is possible for any interpreter to get the tone wrong in translation (in fact, getting tone right is what often makes people stand out as gifted when it comes to languages), this does not mean that paraphrases get the tone wrong. Indeed, perhaps there are times when we miss the tone of Scripture and of Jesus’ words because we are meant to hear lightness and even humour and levity but instead hear weighty seriousness.
Personally, I think there is a place for both approaches and indeed they compliment each other. If I’m preparing to teach from an English text rather than Greek or Hebrew, I prefer to use a formal equivalent such as the ESV, it helps me to work out the flow and structure of the text. However, I tend to use something like the NLT for preaching, especially in our context. Paraphrases can be helpful as part of taking time to reflect and meditate on God’s Word,
My recommendation would be to read and listen to as much Scripture as possible and in as many versions as possible, even the occasional paraphrase!
Faithroots 