Luther Meets Ryken On Bible Translation[Updated]
When most people think Martin Luther, they usually think of his theological contribution to the Reformation–rightfully so. But the great reformer also made a worthwhile contribution in the area of Bible translation.
So this time around, Luther meets Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College and served as the literary stylist of the English Standard Version:
Ryken on Bible Translation: English Bible Translation stands at a watershed moment. For half a century, dynamic equivalence has been the guiding translation philosophy behind most new translations. Each successive wave of these translations has tended to be increasingly bold in departing from the words of the original text. Stated another way, we can trace an arc of increasingly aggressive changing, adding to, and subtracting from the words that the biblical authors wrote. The issues that are at stake in the current debat about Biblie translation are immense. (Bible Translation Differences, p. 30)
Luther on Bible Translation: What purpose does it serve unnecessarily to abide by the words so rigidly and strictly that people can get no sense out of them? Whoever would speak German must not see Hebrew idioms; but if he understand the Hebrew writer, he must see to it that he grasps his meaning and must think: Now let me see. How does a German speak in this case? When he has the German words that serve the purpose, then let him dismiss the Hebrew words and freely express the sense in the best German he is capable of using. (What Luther Says, pp. 105-06)
Because of apparent confusion I’ve caused with my Luther quote, I’ve decided to add another from an older post of mine:
“One may not ask the Latin language how to speak German…one must ask mothers in the home, children on the street, the common man at the market, and watch carefully how they speak. After that one may translate. Then those who read will understand you and know that you are speaking German with them” (WA30, II, 637).
Here’s the grind: while the English professor is highly critical of the dynamic equivalence approach to Bible translation, the 16th century German reformer gladly embraced the dynamic equivalence approach to Bible translation of his time.
As a footnote, I guess the ESV was able to avoid an “increasingly aggressive changing, adding to, and subtracting from the words that the biblical authors wrote.” But I guess the professor allows for some “changing, adding to, and subtracting from the words that the biblical authors wrote” as long as they’re not “increasingly aggressive.”
I’ll go with Luther on this one.
Excellent. Luther got right to the heart of the issue.
I would love to hear what Martin Luther, were he alive today, would say about the anti-TNIV campaign.
I’m sure he would have some lively words!
Brian, me too.
Stan, Luther would shake his head at the nonsense from Ryken and ESV fanatics.
It’s astounding how the ‘Reformed’ sometimes misrepresent the ‘Reformers’.
No, this is not really right. You are mistranslating Luther, or misexpressing him. He did not produce a dynamic translation and took care to produce an accurate translation according to the standards of his day.
Do you have the original German quote?
Iyov, what kind of a translation did Luther produce?
Maybe I need to update my original post to avoid confusion. I’m sorry about that.
I think Tyndale and Luther had the same goals and undertook a very similar type of translation. However, Luther did sneak in a few of his own dynamic translations here and there. For example,
1. He added allein “only” to Romans 3:28,
Rom. 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. KJV
So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben. Luther
2. He prefered to say that a woman was schwanger “pregnant” rather than “with child” or “conceive seed.” KJV
Hebrews 11:11
Durch den Glauben empfing auch Sara Kraft, daß sie schwanger (pregnant) ward und gebar über die Zeit ihres Alters; denn sie achtete ihn treu, der es verheißen hatte. Luther
Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. KJV
3. And I like what he did here,
Hebrews 13:17
Gehorcht euren Lehrern (teachers) und folgt (follow) ihnen;
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them KJV
4. But not so much here,
Romans 16:7
Grüßet den Andronikus und den Junias, (first to translate Junia as a male) meine Gefreundeten und meine Mitgefangenen, welche sind berühmte Apostel (are well known apostles) und vor mir gewesen in Christo. Luther
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. KJV
Otherwise, though, it is very similar to Tyndale although there are specific differences in details. For example, “saved” and “blessed” are both translated with selig and German lacks latinizations like “justification” so that would always be gerechtigkeit – righteousness.
Luther’s Bible sounds less formal than the KJV but it is still for the most part literal. That my sense in any case.
The differences in gender language is that Luther always translated “children of God” not “sons of God” as did Tyndale and KJV, also, and anthropos was always Mensch/i> and aner was Mann.
Sue, I appreciate your German efficiency in these matters.
I have a question based on what Luthers says: “one must ask mothers in the home, children on the street, the common man at the market, and watch carefully how they speak.”
Why was he more dynamic in his own translation after making or holding such a concept on what a translation should look like?
It sounds as if someone was recommending something more literal than Luther’s translation. He always uses a grammatical structure that is natural in German. I suppose someone could set up a cage match with Luther and some other translation. It is not quite like the KJV, more like the HSCB, an optimal translation, as they say, almost literal, but not at the price of being stilted. I don’t really know if this is legitimate as a characterization. Just my impressions.
Thanks, Sue. Your impressions make good sense.
Well, I went to the trouble of actually looking up the Luther quotation. It appears in Word and Sacrament I in the chapter Defense of the Translation of the Psalms. Reading it in full context gives us a rather different impression of what Luther was doing here (I use the Pelikan edition — I don’t have easy access to the German edition but will update this comment when that arrives). A few paragraphs after the given quote, Luther explains his philosophy:
Again in Psalm 68 we ran quite a risk, relinquishing the words and rendering the sense. For this many know-it-alls will criticize us, to be sure, and even some pious souls may take offense. But what is the point of needlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to words which one cannot understand anyway? Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it—once he understands the Hebrew author—that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, “Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?” Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows….
[We] translated quite literally—even though we could have rendered the meaning more clearly another way—because everything tums on these very words. For example, here in [Psalm 68] verse 18, “Thou hast ascended on high; thou hast led captivity captive,” it would have been good German to say, “Thou hast set the captives free.” But this is too weak, and does not convey the fine, rich meaning of the Hebrew, which says literally, “Thou hast led captivity captive.”
Thus read in context, Luther is clearly arguing that usually literal translation is best, but when a misinterpretation is likely, more colloquial language may be used. Clearly he set the standard high, and his translation is not that different from translation we would normally classify as formal, such as the NRSV.
Iyov and Sue, I called up a professor friend of mine on the matter. He says that Luther was more theoritical than practical on the matter.
His translation didn’t back up his theory on what a translation should look like for the common man in the market place.
Two years or so ago, I was talking to a mentor of mine who is a Lutheran reverend. I asked him about Luther’s translation philosophy, and he was showing me various areas of more or less “literal” spots, but also quite a few dynamic translations as well. It seemed particularly dynamic in regards to Hebraic idioms if I remember correctly.
(the plural of anecdote is not data, however).
Bryan, this for this input. I guess Luther meant to confuse us all.
Luther’s translation does not have the latinizations that the English translations have. German simply doesn’t do this. Luther also allows some dynamic equivalence to creep in here and there. So, overall, it comes off as a little less formal. There is a difference in the details. The lack of ability to create a theological vocabulary from Latin has quite an effect in some areas. For example, “saved” and “blessed” are both translated as “selig.”
Yes, “some dynamic equivalence to creep in here and there… a little less formal,” but wouldn’t be exactly like our dynamic equivalent translation, correct?
Do you have a link? Thanks.