Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) is a Bible translation of the Old and New Testaments into English. It was produced by Robert Young, compiler of the analytical concordance known as Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible and Concise Critical Comments on the New Testament. Young produced his translation in the mid-19th century (1862 for the Old Testament and 1898 for the New Testament).
The most distinctive feature of Young’s Literal Translation is that it translates the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts into English as literally as possible. Young sought to adhere very closely to the original languages and grammatical structures, sometimes producing stilted or awkward phrasing in English in order to remain faithful to the original text.
Here are some key features of Young’s Literal Translation:
- It strictly follows Hebrew and Greek grammatical forms, even to the point of violating English grammar rules.
- It retains Hebrew and Greek idioms rather than translating them into equivalent English idioms.
- It uses Hebrew names instead of Anglicized forms, so Isaiah instead of Isaiah, Moses instead of Moses, etc.
- It translates the Hebrew Tetragrammaton as “Jehovah” instead of LORD.
- It indicates untranslated words in the original texts via italics.
- It uses past tense instead of present tense for verbs.
- It translates Greek verbs that indicate continuous action as simple past tense verbs.
Because of Young’s commitment to formal equivalence, the result is a very literal, word-for-word translation that is quite wooden and awkward to read at times. However, it can be useful when studying the precise meaning and usage of Hebrew and Greek words and grammatical forms. The translation philosophy makes it valuable as an interlinear-style study Bible.
Here is an example from Genesis 1:1-5 showing the literal style of Young’s translation:
In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth —
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
and God saith, ‘Let light be;’ and light is.
And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
and God calleth to the light ‘Day,’ and to the darkness He hath called ‘Night;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day one.
Some key things to note are:
- Close adherence to Hebrew grammar and word order
- Use of “fluttering” instead of a more dynamic verb like “moving”
- “And God saith” instead of “And God said”
- Use of archaic verb endings like “hath existed” and “separateth”
Because of its hyper-literal approach, Young’s Literal Translation is difficult to read and understand for most English readers today. The outdated grammar and word choices make it seem awkward. For in-depth Bible study, it can provide insight into the original biblical languages by showing literal equivalents. However, it is not very useful for general Bible reading, devotional purposes, or public worship.
Most modern English Bible translations like the ESV, NIV, NKJV, etc. sacrifice some degree of literalness in order to achieve good readability and natural English style. They follow an “essentially literal” or “thought-for-thought” translation philosophy instead. So they convey the original meanings accurately but in more understandable, modern English. Young’s Literal Translation sits on the far literal end of the translation spectrum.
History of Young’s Literal Translation
Robert Young was a Scottish Biblical scholar who also compiled an analytical concordance to the Bible in the 19th century. This concordance analyzes the original Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible and provides detailed definitions for each word. His concordance work gave him tremendous insight into the original biblical languages.
Young became convinced that many translations of his time were not accurate enough. He felt they added interpretive layers that distorted the original text. So he set out to produce as literal of a translation as possible that would accurately reflect the Hebrew and Greek.
He published his translation of the Old Testament in 1862. Then in 1898 he finished translating the New Testament at the age of 80! The full Bible was printed together as Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible in 1898.
Given its extremely literal approach, Young’s translation did not become very popular. It aimed for formal equivalence to the source languages rather than readable, idiomatic English. But it did fill a niche need for those who wanted access to a very literal translation.
In 1976, Baker Books reprinted Young’s Literal Translation after acquiring the rights from the original publisher. It remains in print today and is used mostly as a supplement to other translations. The unique viewpoint it provides into Hebrew and Greek makes it a useful interlinear-style study Bible.
Translation Philosophy of Young’s Literal Translation
Most modern English Bible versions follow either an “essentially literal” or “dynamic equivalent” translation philosophy. That means they try to balance literal faithfulness to the original text with clear, natural English.
Young’s Literal Translation is an extreme formal equivalence translation. This approach seeks to translate each Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word and grammatical form as literally as possible into English. Maintaining the original form, structure, and meaning takes priority over readability.
The preface to the 1898 edition lays out the specific translation philosophy followed by Young:
- Follow the original texts word-for-word and line-by-line as closely as English grammar allows
- Retain Hebrew and Greek idioms even when they don’t make sense in English
- Always translate a Hebrew or Greek word the same way into English
- Use past tense verbs for all cases including present and future actions
- Use italics to mark words added for English flow that are not directly translated
In the preface, Young acknowledged his translation would seem strange and awkward at times. But he argued that any awkwardness or lack of readability is the fault of the English language, not his translation.
Young wanted to provide an interlinear-style translation that would give readers better insight into the original biblical texts. His extreme commitment to formal equivalence over readability makes YLT unique among English Bible versions.
Strengths of Young’s Literal Translation
The greatest strength of Young’s Literal Translation is how closely it adheres to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible. For those studying the precise meaning of the original words, YLT can provide helpful insight not available in other versions.
Some specific strengths of YLT include:
- Word-for-word accuracy – YLT reflects the original word choices and grammar in a very precise way.
- Consistency – Always translates the same original word the same way, unlike other versions.
- “Hebraisms” – Retains Hebrew idioms and expressions unfamiliar to English readers.
- Helpful for word studies – Key for studying the meaning and usage of original Hebrew and Greek terms.
- Jehovah – Restores the name of God – Jehovah – instead of using LORD.
For those doing careful exegesis and Bible study, Young’s Literal Translation can shed light on key words and passages. It aims to provide as pure of a representation of the original Scriptures as possible in English.
Weaknesses of Young’s Literal Translation
The biggest weakness of Young’s translation is its poor readability in English. Because it sacrifices English style for formal equivalence, it is very difficult to read and understand for most people today.
Additional weaknesses include:
- Wooden, awkward English – Odd word order and archaic grammar makes YLT seem strange.
- Obscures meaning – Failing to translate idioms and forcing Hebrew style into English actually obscures the meaning.
- Not useful for reading or preaching – The poor style and readability prevent it from being used for general purpose Bible reading.
- “Bible English” – The use of archaic verb endings further reduces comprehension for modern readers.
- Limited value – Mainly useful only as a supplemental resource for studying original word meanings and grammar.
While valuable for Bible study, the wooden literalness of Young’s translation makes it impractical for widespread Christian use. Essentially literal translations like the ESV balance accuracy and readability much better.
What Supporters Say About Young’s Literal Translation
Advocates of Young’s Literal Translation praise it for preserving the precise meaning of the original texts. Some of their main arguments include:
- It reveals the Hebraic roots and idioms that get obscured in other versions.
- It shows connections between biblical words and concepts more clearly.
- It reflects verb tenses and grammatical structures with rigorous accuracy.
- It helps correct translational bias and theological assumptions in other versions.
- It is an indispensable resource for carefully studying what the biblical writers originally wrote.
To supporters, the poor English style is an acceptable tradeoff in order to achieve greater accuracy. The translation philosophy honors the inspiration of Scripture down to the very words used.
They see Young’s Translation as an important counterbalance to more interpretive modern versions. It anchors Bible study in the solid foundation of the original language texts.
What Critics Say About Young’s Literal Translation
Critics of Young’s Literal Translation argue that it goes too far in sacrificing readability for formal equivalence. They point out a number of problems with its translation approach:
- It is so woodenly literal that it distorts the meaning of passages.
- Hebrew idioms end up being misleading rather than helpful.
- The poor English style makes the Bible seem archaic and irrelevant.
- It is useless for memorization, Bible study, or preaching.
- No major denomination or church uses YLT in public worship.
- Later literal translations like NASB and ESV accomplish the same goals much better.
Critics see little justification for the degree of literalness taken in Young’s Translation. They argue it ends up obscuring the meaning rather than illuminating it. The lack of acceptance among churches underscores its deficiencies in their view.
Sample Passages From Young’s Literal Translation
Looking at sample passages helps illustrate the unique characteristics of Young’s Literal Translation. Here are some examples with key points about the translation style:
Genesis 1:1-5
In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth —
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
and God saith, ‘Let light be;’ and light is.
And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
and God calleth to the light ‘Day,’ and to the darkness He hath called ‘Night;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day one.
Key observations:
- Very literal rendering of the Hebrew into English
- Unusual phrasing like “fluttering” and “God saith”
- Retention of Hebrew idioms
- Awkward and stilted English
Psalm 23:1-4
Jehovah [is] my shepherd, I do not lack,
In pastures of tender grass He causeth me to lie down,
By quiet waters He doth lead me.
My soul He refresheth, He leadeth me in paths of righteousness, For His name’s sake.
Observations:
- “Jehovah” used instead of LORD
- Archaic verb endings like “causeth” and “doth”
- Unusual phrasing like “paths of righteousness”
- Very literal but still familiar
John 3:16
for God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.
Observations:
- “Did so love” instead of “so loved”
- “Age-during” used for eternal
- Word order follows Greek rather than English
- Still recognizes this famous verse
Young’s Literal Translation: Conclusion
Young’s Literal Translation stands apart from most English Bible versions because of its unwavering commitment to formal equivalence translation. It consistently represents the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek with as much precision as possible.
The resulting translation has significant weaknesses in terms of English readability and comprehension. But it does offer unique insight into the form, grammar, and word choices of the original texts.
For detailed Bible study by those knowledgeable in the original languages, Young’s Literal Translation can provide an interlinear-style resource. It connects readers as closely as possible with the very words God inspired. But for general Bible reading and teaching, its wooden style makes it less suitable.
Young’s hyper-literal approach serves as an important reminder of the importance of formal word-for-word accuracy. Yet modern essentially literal versions like the ESV strive for the right balance between accuracy and clarity. By combining the best of formal and dynamic equivalence, they maximize faithfulness and understandability.