Defining Literalness Without Confusing It With Woodenness

“Literal” is one of the most misused labels in Bible translation. Many readers equate literalness with a harsh, awkward English style, as though “literal” means “word-for-word at all costs,” even when English grammar cannot carry the same structure. That definition is not only mistaken; it guarantees misunderstanding. A truly literal translation is lexical-linguistic first. It is governed by the words of the source text, not by the translator’s impulse to pre-interpret. It recognizes that Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek communicate meaning through vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and discourse markers. Therefore, a faithful literal translation brings over the corresponding English words according to English grammar and syntax, while still remaining as close as clarity allows to the author’s own lexical choices, emphases, and connections.

The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) articulates this principle plainly. It treats literal translation as more than swapping words; it is the disciplined selection of the best corresponding term from the lexicon within context, remaining faithful to that rendering unless the result would be misunderstood. In other words, the default is lexical correspondence, and departures are exceptional, justified, and openly signaled. This is the controlling difference between the UASV and the ESV.

The ESV, by contrast, describes itself as “essentially literal,” and in many passages it truly is. Yet “essentially literal” is not the same as consistently literal. The category itself admits elasticity: when readability and perceived “natural English” compete with formal transparency, the ESV allows more smoothing, more restructuring, and more interpretive adjustment. Those decisions are not always wrong, but they do mean the reader is sometimes given what the translators concluded the text means rather than what the text itself explicitly says, word by word, connector by connector, and term by term.

Literalness, properly defined, is not about sounding wooden. It is about preserving the authority and directness of the original text by refusing to move interpretation from the reader’s task into the translator’s pen.

The Competing Goals That Produce the Gap Between the UASV and the ESV

Translation always involves competing goods. Accuracy is non-negotiable, but translators still decide where to locate the burden of interpretation. If the translator places that burden primarily on the reader, he will preserve ambiguity, keep the author’s connective tissue visible, and retain repeated vocabulary as repeated vocabulary, even when English style would prefer variation. If the translator places that burden primarily on the translator, he will clarify, smooth, and sometimes replace the author’s forms with idioms that “mean the same thing” in his judgment.

The UASV openly embraces the first approach. Its stated aim is to give Bible readers what God said through His human authors, not what the translator thinks God meant in its place. That is not a slogan; it is a governing discipline. It means the UASV does not treat the text as raw material for a simplified paraphrase. It treats the text as an authoritative artifact whose words carry the meaning, and therefore whose words must be seen.

The ESV embraces a blended aim: it wants formal correspondence, but it also wants broad public readability and liturgical smoothness. That blended aim produces real strengths in public reading, memorability, and general accessibility. It also produces the predictable weakness of mixed-method translations: inconsistency. The ESV is often literal, sometimes exceptionally so, but it is not relentlessly committed to lexical transparency in the way the UASV is.

The Divine Name as a Test Case of Literal Translation Philosophy

No comparison between the UASV and the ESV can ignore the most repeated “word” in the Hebrew Scriptures: the Tetragrammaton. The issue is not minor. It is a direct window into whether a translation privileges inherited tradition or manuscript reality.

The UASV retains the Father’s personal name, Jehovah, throughout the Old Testament wherever the Hebrew text contains it. This is not an aesthetic choice. It is a literal-translation choice. When the Hebrew says Jehovah, the UASV says Jehovah. When the Hebrew says “Lord” (’Adonai) or uses compound forms (such as constructions that many English Bibles render “Lord GOD”), the UASV distinguishes those patterns in translation and often renders forms such as “Sovereign Lord Jehovah,” making visible what the Hebrew actually contains.

The ESV substitutes the title “LORD” for the divine name, following a long tradition. That tradition is historically explainable, but it is not lexically literal. It replaces a personal name with a title. Whatever motivations are given—reverence, convention, continuity—none of them change the translation fact: the source-text name is not being translated as a name. The reader, therefore, loses a recurring theological emphasis that the Hebrew writers intentionally encoded: Jehovah is the covenant Name, used in oath, worship, judgment, mercy, and self-revelation.

Consider how the UASV reads in a passage as simple and familiar as Psalm 23: “Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall lack nothing.” The reader is not forced to infer which “Lord” is meant; the Name stands in the text with the same force and intimacy it has in Hebrew. The same is true in narratives and prophetic texts where Jehovah speaks repeatedly in the first person, where the Name is not a decorative feature but an anchor of identity and authority.

A translation that removes the Name cannot be called “more literal” at the very place where literalness is easiest: translating a proper name as a proper name. This single feature, by itself, demonstrates why the UASV remains more literal than the ESV in the Old Testament.

Consistency of Key Terms and the Reader’s Right to See Repetition

Literal translation is not merely accuracy at the verse level; it is transparency at the discourse level. Biblical authors repeat words deliberately. They use repetition to bind arguments, to highlight motifs, to connect paragraphs, and to create theological coherence. When translators vary vocabulary for style, they often sever those threads, and the reader no longer sees the author’s own structure.

The UASV explicitly commits itself to rendering a Hebrew or Greek word the same way whenever context allows. This is not mechanical; context rules. But the default is consistency. That discipline exposes what the authors meant by the words that they used because the reader can watch patterns develop across chapters and across books.

One clear example in the UASV is its handling of ἐπίγνωσις (epignōsis). Rather than flattening it into the same English word used for simpler “knowledge,” the UASV frequently renders it “accurate knowledge,” preserving the intensified sense in contexts where that nuance matters. When Paul prays that believers “may be filled with the accurate knowledge of his will,” the reader is given the author’s emphasis rather than a generalized devotional impression. The same is true when the UASV speaks of believers “being renewed through accurate knowledge,” maintaining lexical continuity across contexts where Paul is building a theology of transformed understanding.

The ESV often renders such terms with less differentiation. It does not lack accuracy, but it more readily collapses fine lexical distinctions into smoother, more familiar English. That may be helpful for casual reading, but it reduces the reader’s ability to trace authorial intent through repeated vocabulary.

This is one of the quiet reasons the UASV is more literal: it refuses to treat stylistic variation as a virtue when the source text is intentionally repetitive.

“Congregation,” “Holy Ones,” and “Slave” as Windows Into Translation Commitments

A translation’s vocabulary reveals whether it is protecting the reader from unfamiliar terms or allowing Scripture to define its own categories.

The UASV often renders ἐκκλησία as “congregation,” not because “church” is wrong as a possible meaning, but because “church” is loaded with centuries of institutional connotations that can mislead the modern reader. “Congregation” forces the reader to see the core idea: an assembly of called-out people, not a building and not an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. When the UASV calls Christ “the head of the body, the congregation,” the reader sees the social and organic reality Paul is describing without importing later structures.

Likewise, the UASV frequently renders ἅγιοι as “holy ones.” The ESV typically uses “saints,” which is historically rooted and often accurate, but it can suggest a special class of exceptionally holy individuals. “Holy ones” keeps the term closer to its basic semantic value and helps the reader recognize that Paul is addressing all set-apart believers, not an elite subset.

The same principle is even more obvious in the UASV’s use of “slave” for δοῦλος. Many translations, including the ESV, frequently soften the term to “servant,” sometimes “bondservant.” Yet δοῦλος denotes ownership and absolute obligation, not mere employment. “Slave” is jarring in English, but the jarring quality is part of the honesty. The UASV refuses to sanitize the word. It forces the reader to grapple with the radical nature of apostolic self-description and Christian identity under Christ’s lordship. That is literalness functioning as theological integrity: it does not allow cultural discomfort to rewrite the text.

“Obeisance” Versus “Worship” and the Refusal to Pre-Interpret

Few Greek verbs illustrate interpretive drift as clearly as προσκυνέω (proskyneō). The core sense is an act of bowing, kneeling, prostration, or reverential homage. In some contexts, it is worship; in others, it is honor shown to a superior, including human authorities. When English translations render it “worship” everywhere, they decide the theological category in advance, even when the narrative leaves room for the reader to observe the act and then interpret its significance.

The UASV frequently renders proskyneō with terms such as “did obeisance,” as seen when disciples respond to Jesus. That choice is more literal because it preserves the visible action without collapsing it into a single theological label. It also keeps the reader alert to the Gospel writers’ presentation: the outward act is described; the reader then follows the unfolding revelation about Who Jesus is and what the act signifies. This is translation as transparency rather than translation as commentary.

The ESV more often uses “worshiped” in those contexts. Sometimes that is interpretively correct; Jesus is worthy of worship. But the question is not whether the conclusion is true. The question is whether the translation preserved the author’s own chosen level of explicitness. The UASV more consistently preserves it.

Handling Textual Variants: Brackets, Omissions, and Honesty About the Manuscript Evidence

Literal translation does not end with lexicon and syntax; it begins with the text itself. Translators must decide what wording belongs in the main text and what belongs in notes. Those decisions intersect with manuscript evidence from Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, Caesarean streams, along with early papyri and versions. The practical question for the English reader is simple: does the translation openly show where the text is disputed, or does it quietly settle debates in the main text while relegating uncertainty to footnotes?

The UASV demonstrates a preference for visible honesty in the main text. In Mark 1:1 it reads, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, [the Son of God].” The brackets communicate in plain sight that “the Son of God” is a variant reading with serious manuscript considerations. The reader is not forced to hunt for a footnote to realize a textual issue exists.

Similarly, in John 5 the UASV’s formatting signals the absence of a contested verse. After describing the sick ones lying by the pool, the text moves from verse 3 directly to a marker and then to verse 5, indicating that the traditional explanatory verse is not part of the earliest recoverable text. Again, the reader is not being manipulated. The evidence is being respected, and the translation refuses to pretend that later expansions are part of the original text.

The ESV often handles these matters responsibly as well, commonly with brackets and footnotes, especially in well-known disputed passages. Yet the UASV’s overall approach is more consistently documentary in presentation: it shows the reader where the text is debated and does so with a higher commitment to visible transparency rather than relying primarily on footnote infrastructure.

This is not skepticism; it is confidence. It reflects the conviction that the Scriptures are trustworthy and that the manuscript evidence can be handled openly without fear. A translation that hides textual questions is not protecting faith; it is protecting habit.

The UASV’s Treatment of Theological Vocabulary That English Tradition Has Blurred

A translation becomes less literal when it preserves inherited theological language that no longer matches what the original terms actually denote for modern readers. This is not a call to novelty. It is a call to precision.

The UASV’s vocabulary choices repeatedly aim at restoring precision. Terms such as Sheol and Hades, for example, are not equivalent to medieval concepts of a fiery underworld where conscious souls are tormented forever. The biblical usage points to the grave, the realm of the dead, gravedom. When translations collapse these terms into “hell,” they import later theology and blur biblical categories. Likewise, Gehenna in the Gospels refers to final destruction, not a metaphysical chamber of perpetual torture. A literal translation either transliterates or carefully distinguishes these terms so that Scripture can speak with its own categories.

The ESV sometimes retains traditional English theological terms that are familiar, but familiarity is not the same as lexical accuracy in the modern ear. The UASV’s general direction is to keep categories distinct and transparent so that interpretation is driven by the text rather than by inherited English religious vocabulary.

Syntax, Connectors, and the Visibility of the Apostolic Argument

Greek argumentation is packed with small words that English readers often miss because translations smooth them away. Particles and conjunctions—“for,” “therefore,” “so then,” “and,” “but,” “now,” “in order that”—often function like road signs. They show how the author is moving from premise to inference, from explanation to application, from contrast to conclusion.

The UASV tends to preserve these connectors with greater frequency and less stylistic pruning. In Romans 8, for example, the translation keeps the repeated “for” clauses and causal links prominent, making Paul’s reasoning easier to follow precisely because it is less “polished.” In Colossians 1, the UASV’s flow preserves the structure of Paul’s prayer and purpose clauses, including the stated aim “so as to walk,” then the cascade of results. This is not clunky; it is faithful to the discourse logic.

The ESV often preserves this logic too, but it more readily reshapes sentences into smoother English periods, sometimes turning participles into finite clauses or reordering phrasing for cadence. The result is excellent public English, but the trade-off is that the reader sometimes sees the translator’s preferred English structure rather than Paul’s own sequence of thought.

Literal translation gives the reader access to the author’s reasoning pathways, not merely to the author’s final doctrinal outcome.

Readability as a Secondary Good Rather Than a Governing Master

The central philosophical difference can be stated plainly. The UASV does not treat readability as the master virtue. It treats faithful representation of the source text as the master virtue and accepts that careful readers will learn biblical language patterns through exposure. It recognizes that Scripture is not casual writing. Scripture often demands slow reading, rereading, and meditation. A translation that tries to remove that demand by constantly smoothing rough edges is not helping the reader mature; it is training the reader to expect Scripture to sound like modern English essays.

The ESV aims to be readable in the pew, in family worship, and in public worship, and that aim has succeeded. Yet that very success is achieved by allowing a controlled level of smoothing that the UASV more often refuses. When the two translations diverge, the divergence repeatedly occurs at precisely this point: the UASV preserves the form and lets the reader work; the ESV explains the form and lets the reader glide.

The question, therefore, is not which translation is “better” for every use. The question the title raises is more specific: which remains more literal. By its stated principles and its repeated execution, the UASV remains more literal because it consistently chooses transparency over polish, lexical stability over stylistic variety, and visible textual honesty over traditional concealment.

Why “Essentially Literal” Is Not a Stable Category

A translation that labels itself “essentially literal” is implicitly stating that it will not be consistently literal. The category signals a willingness to depart from formal correspondence when the committee judges it helpful. That is not automatically corrupt; it is simply a different philosophy. Yet it means the reader cannot predict, passage by passage, whether he is seeing the author’s own structure or a translator’s reshaping.

The UASV, by contrast, strives to make its decisions predictable. The same Greek or Hebrew word is ordinarily rendered the same way. When the translation must depart from strict correspondence, it signals that departure and often supplies alternatives through notes and explanatory features. This predictability is not monotony; it is faithfulness. It allows students, teachers, and ordinary readers to trace themes, follow arguments, and build theology with fewer hidden translator interventions.

In 2025 C.E., with a flood of “reader-first” versions on the market, that predictability is not a niche preference; it is a vital safeguard. It protects the boundary between translation and interpretation.

The Practical Result: The UASV Lets Scripture Have the Final Word in the Reader’s Mind

The deepest reason the UASV remains more literal is not merely that it uses certain vocabulary choices or bracket conventions. The deeper reason is that it refuses to compete with Scripture by quietly becoming a commentary. It treats the meaning of words as the reader’s responsibility. That principle restores a healthy relationship between text and student: Scripture speaks; the reader listens carefully; teachers and pastors explain; and theology is built from what the text actually says.

The ESV often operates close to that ideal and has served many believers well. Yet the UASV’s commitment is tighter and more consistent. Its treatment of Jehovah, its lexical consistency, its willingness to use precise but less comfortable terms such as “slave,” its restraint in verbs like proskyneō, and its documentary handling of variants all converge on the same outcome: the reader is closer to the Hebrew and Greek, with fewer interpretive layers introduced by the translation itself.

Why the UASV’s Translation Purpose Must Govern the Comparison

Any fair comparison between the UASV and the ESV must begin with stated purpose, because purpose determines method, and method determines outcome. The UASV does not merely claim to be literal as a stylistic preference; it is governed by a principled conviction about where meaning properly resides. The UASV exists to give Bible readers what God said by way of His human authors, not what a translator believes God meant instead. That distinction is not rhetorical. It defines every major translation decision, from lexical choice to syntax, from consistency to the handling of ambiguity. Truth matters, and therefore words matter. The UASV is built on the conviction that meaning is encoded in the inspired words themselves, not in a translator’s explanatory paraphrase of those words.

This commitment establishes a clear division of labor. The translator’s responsibility is accuracy and faithfulness to the original-language text. The reader’s responsibility is interpretation. When a translation collapses that division, it quietly shifts authority away from Scripture and toward the translation committee. The UASV refuses to do that. It does not attempt to protect readers from difficulty by pre-deciding meaning where the original text leaves room for careful thought. Instead, it preserves the wording, structure, and lexical signals of the Hebrew and Greek so that readers encounter the text itself, not a filtered explanation of it. Translating truth means allowing Scripture to speak with its own voice, even when that voice demands effort from the reader.

This is why the UASV consistently preserves ambiguity where the original text is ambiguous, precision where the original text is precise, and repetition where the original text repeats itself. The translators do not feel compelled to resolve tensions, harmonize expressions, or smooth conceptual edges in the name of readability. To do so would be to move beyond translation into interpretation. The UASV’s guiding philosophy insists that translators must not assume the role of teacher while pretending to be neutral conveyors of text. When explanation is required, it belongs outside the translation itself.

This purpose-driven restraint stands in deliberate contrast to translations that adopt blended aims. The ESV seeks formal correspondence while also prioritizing broad public readability and liturgical smoothness. That blended aim is not inherently flawed, and it produces genuine strengths in memorability, public reading, and stylistic elegance. However, it necessarily introduces a secondary governing concern alongside accuracy. When readability and clarity are elevated to near-equal status with formal correspondence, translation decisions are sometimes made in favor of what sounds natural or flows well in English rather than what most transparently reflects the original wording and structure.

The issue, therefore, is not whether the ESV is readable or useful. It is whether readability is permitted to override strict lexical and syntactical correspondence at critical points. The UASV answers that question in advance by its stated purpose. Readability is valued, but it is never allowed to displace fidelity. Smoothness is welcomed, but it is never allowed to erase the contours of the inspired text. The translator is not licensed to clarify what God did not clarify or to simplify what the biblical writers expressed with deliberate density.

This difference in purpose explains why the UASV remains more literal even when the ESV is often very close. The UASV is not attempting to balance competing goals; it is pursuing a single governing goal with consistency. It seeks to present the text in such a way that the authority of Scripture rests squarely in the words on the page, not in the invisible judgments of the translators. By assigning interpretation to the reader and accuracy to the translator, the UASV preserves the proper hierarchy: God speaks through His Word, and human beings are responsible for listening carefully.

In this sense, the UASV’s philosophy is not merely more literal; it is more honest. It does not disguise interpretation as translation, nor does it blur the boundary between explanation and transcription. It operates on the conviction that the inspired text is sufficient and trustworthy as it stands, and that readers are best served when they are given access to that text with the fewest possible human intrusions. That is why this principle is more important than stylistic elegance or public-readability goals. It goes to the heart of what a Bible translation is meant to do.

The UASV Is Available As of the Date of This Article HERE …

• e-Sword Bible Software for Free
• Logos Bible Software
• Kindle Direct Publishing (eBook and Audio) [With KDP you can now get UASV and eBook discounted to read and listen.]

The Updated American Standard Version was initially released in a hardcover edition through a print-on-demand provider; however, the resulting quality fell short of the high standards desired for this significant project, and the partner subsequently imposed a policy against books exceeding 1,000 pages—our Bible totals 1,450 pages—leaving us without a suitable printing option. Securing that original provider required six years of effort, as most Bible printing companies mandate large upfront orders of 1,000 to 5,000 copies, which involves substantial inventory storage and shipping responsibilities—requirements that have remained financially unfeasible for our self-funded ministry, which developed the translation over 16 years with minimal donations totaling approximately $200. Despite these obstacles, the digital edition has consistently earned five-star reviews, with numerous individuals earnestly requesting a premium physical copy that reflects the dedicated scholarship invested. Producing such a durable, high-quality printed Bible remains a primary goal; we have explored partnerships with several major Christian publishers for printing and distribution rights, though these inquiries have not yet succeeded. Progress depends on improved financial resources or identification of a capable print-on-demand service equipped for this volume, and we anticipate potential advancement as early as late 2028 or sooner through divine provision. Your continued patience and donations, encouragement, and support are profoundly appreciated during this process.

DONATION

You May Also Enjoy

The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 2022

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS