We’ve already established that there’s no such thing as a truly literal translation, since at least some interpretation is necessary for the sake of coherence. But, as it was mentioned earlier, there are some very good nearly literal translations available. (We’ll henceforth refer to these as “literal” translations.) Among these are the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), and, yes, the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV).

What exactly is literal about “literal” translations, then? These translations attempt to preserve in their renderings the subtleties of the original Greek and Hebrew texts, such as grammatical features (tense, voice, mood, gender, etc.), syntactical patterns, word order, and rhetorical devices. Following is an example from James 3:18. The Greek text with a word-for-word translation is given first, followed by the ESV rendering.

καρδὸς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην.
a harvest and of righteousness in peace is sown by those who make peace.

ESV: And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

On the one hand, these sorts of translations have particular advantages for serious Bible study, because they allow readers to better see how the meaning was expressed in the original text. This is useful, for example, for word studies and, since “literal” translations attempt to preserve verb tense, for discerning temporal distinctions (e.g. there is a difference, albeit subtle, between saying “Christ rose from the dead” and “Christ has risen from the dead”). On the other hand, “literal” translations often preserve the subtleties of the original text at the expense of natural English expression; that is to say, “literal” translations aren’t always easy to understand and, moreover, aren’t always faithful to the thought of the original text.

Dynamic or idiomatic translations are easier to read than “literal” translations because, rather than following a word-for-word translation of the original text, they attempt to render the text thought-for-thought. In other words, dynamic translations are not concerned with preserving the grammar and word order of the original texts so long as the meaning is preserved. This allows for more natural, and therefore more readable, English style, generally without compromising the meaning of the text.

Most modern translations fall into this category; however, the spectrum of dynamic translations is such that some are more conservative in their use of dynamic equivalence, and others more liberal. On the more conservative end of this spectrum fall, for example, the New International Version (NIV) and Today’s New International Version (TNIV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). Those which use dynamic equivalence more freely include the New Living Translation (NLT), the Good News Bible/Today’s English Version (GNB/TEV), and the Contemporary English Version (CEV). In the following renderings of James 3:18, notice the differences between the two extremes of dynamic equivalence, as well as the differences between the dynamic translations and the “literal” translation from the ESV above:

NIV: Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

NLT: And those who are peacemakers will plant seeds of peace and reap a harvest of righteousness.

The obvious advantage of dynamic translations has already been mentioned: since they attempt to render the English more naturally, they are easier to read than “literal” translations, and can even occasionally be more faithful to the thought of the original texts. On the other hand, dynamic translations often sacrifice literalness for readability. This isn’t a bad thing, as we’ve seen; however, for this reason, dynamic translations (especially the freer ones) are less suited for serious Bible study than “literal” translations. That is not to say, of course, that one cannot conduct a meaningful study of scripture from, say, the NIV. It is to say, however, that when reading from dynamic translations, one should avoid jumping to interpretive conclusions based on minutiae of grammar, word order, etc. without first consulting a more “literal” rendering of the text.

Paraphrases are something else altogether—namely, they are paraphrases, not translations. In other words, paraphrased versions are the authors’ interpretations of the Biblical text, written in their own words. Essentially, a paraphrase is its author’s commentary on the Bible. There are two types: those which paraphrase the original Greek and Hebrew texts, such as The Message and The New Testament in Modern English; and those which paraphrase English translations, such as The Living Bible. Both attempt to interpret and summarize the meaning of the original text; neither attempts to translate it. Here is how The Message renders James 3:18. Compare it with the renderings of the ESV, NIV, and NLT above.

MSG: You can develop a healthy, robust community that lives right with God and enjoy its results only if you do the hard work of getting along with each other, treating each other with dignity and honor.

The difference between a paraphrase and a translation should be apparent: The Message rendering of James 3:18 is essentially what the text means, but it isn’t what it actually says.

So, should you use a paraphrase? Sure. If the plain English of a paraphrased version helps you understand scripture, why not? However, if it is important to realize that a translation is not inspired, it is all the more important to realize that a paraphrase is not inspired! Furthermore, when using a paraphrase, it is always best to read it alongside a good translation. Rule of thumb: use a paraphrase to help understand the meaning of the text, or to hear it in a different way; don’t use a paraphrase as if it is the text itself—because it isn’t.

Next episode: “What’s My Age Again?” Stay tuned.