The Word: How We Translate the Bible—and Why It Matters makes for both daunting and rewarding reading. Barton's purpose here is to survey the kinds of decision-making translators have to do and offer chapters focused on the complexities of these. Go for literal accuracy or for an accuracy of spirit/feeling? Modify outdated usages, like the universal male, to offer a more inclusive reading experience?

Barton knows this subject in all its detail and complexity, which is what makes the experience both daunting and rewarding. If you don't have a degree in theology, you'll either have to spend a great deal of time doing research to be able to understand some of Barton's more specific or esoteric points or you'll have to be able to choose when to skim and when to sink into the book. I fall into the second category. I know my understanding of the specifics of The Word was only partial, but I also found that partial understanding very worthwhile.

I received a free electronic review copy of this title from the published via NetGalley; the opinions are my own.

This is a fascinating book! Much of the discussion around translation, especially in my circles, centers entirely around formal and functional equivalence. Barton does an excellent job here of demonstrating that the formal/functional spectrum is only one of several important features of the translational process. He considers matters such as doctrinal presuppositions, tonal register, archaism, gender inclusivity, textual criticism, genre, form criticism, and canon (as well as others) all factor into the process. His core thesis is that the adequacy of a translation depends in large part on its purpose, and therefore that, while there can be incorrect translations, there cannot be one uniquely correct one. I think he proves this point quite persuasively.

The book isn't perfect. He tackles, for example, the intriguing question of semantic variance between equivalent words in the Old and New Testaments. Should they be rendered by a single English word, or by different ones reflecting the different semantic domains of the source languages' vocabulary? This seems, to me, a very valid and very important question. However, I think his three illustrations (נפש vs ψυχη, ישוע vs σωτηρία, and אמונה vs πίστις) are rather weak. Regarding the first pair he concludes that the two ultimately mean the same thing, and I think he greatly exaggerates the gap between the other two pairs. Despite this, the overarching concept is still important.

Other issues crop up when he discusses the doctrinal implications of linguistic data. I think it all boils down to one problem: Barton doesn't quite understand the evangelical doctrine of inspiration/inerrancy. He suggests, for example, that the imperfect Greek grammar of Mark and Revelation may contradict such beliefs. To anybody who has seriously studied the subject, however, that is simply preposterous.

My last major issue with the book is chapter ten, where he makes a rather weak argument (both doctrinally and historically) that Protestants might do well to consider privileging the Septuagint (along with the apocryphal books) over the Hebrew OT. He assumes that Patristic quotations of the Apocrypha indicate early adoption into the canon. This fails to account for the relative infrequency and qualitative difference of Apocrypha citations versus OT citations. He also argues that the doctrinal emphases accord better with the beliefs of Christianity. That may be true, but this does not mean the Septuagint is divinely inspired, and that is the central point for evangelical protestants.

Having spent most of my review discussing the book's flaws, I would reiterate that I really do think the book is excellent. Were I a language professor at a seminary (as I hope I might be someday), I would assign this book to my students. The problems I mentioned would prevent me from recommending the book to most lay Christians, but I will absolutely be suggesting this book to students and faculty at my seminary.