If we were to make a translation of the Bible, we would need to think about some foundational elements of how we were going to do the translation, so we would have a consistent result across all the books of the Bible. It would not be like hearing a line in Spanish then seeking to translate it into English. This is a vast amount of material to translate and the most important words we would ever handle. We must decide which way we will go, which direction we will take with our translation.
There are two main directions, or methods, used for translation each with a corresponding philosophy of what a translation should be and what it should be seeking to accomplish. The first is Formal Equivalence also known as word-for-word. The newer method is Dynamic Equivalence also known as thought-for-thought.
The “equivalence” portion of the name carries the idea of seeking a corresponding word or phrase for a word in the original language. The question is what is equivalent in English to what is in the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. How equivalence is judged is different in each approach.
The difficulty for us is proponents of both of these methods make similar claims. Each claiming theirs is the most accurate, most precise, and closest to the original. The first claiming meaning and accuracy comes from form and structure, the second they from impact and understanding.
Before digging in deeper to these two methods, I would like to point out there are some Bibles which do not fit into either of these two groups. The first would be interlinear works. These are Bibles with the original language on one line then an English translation for each word below it. The English words may be numbered to help with correct English word order. The creators of these works are not overly concern with fluidity of the translation or readability of the English text.
Another group would be works such as Kenneth S. Wurst’s expanded translations. These works magnify the English wording to bring out the full meaning of the original words and their grammatical significance. Both works like this and the interlinear Bibles are never intended to be used as a regular reading, preaching or even Bible study. They are Bible “aids,” for lack of a better term; we should use them with our main Bible to help in studying a particular passage. This is not a knock on them; they are immensely helpful. I point this out simply to indicate these are different from the ones we will speak of below.
Formal Equivalence
Formal Equivalence or word-for-word was the method used in early English translation and in many modern translations such as the ESV, NASB or the NKJV. The use of the term “formal” is not meant to suggest use of high-falutin, pretentious or pompous language. It is not as if the wording is putting on a tux and driving a Bentley. No, the idea relates to the form of the original. Formal equivalent translations will seek to stay as close to the original wording and structure (form) as possible. The goal is to convey in English what the original authors said. This does not mean the translation has to be wooden or awkwardly written as if spoken by Yoda, but the translator wishes to convey what the original authors wrote in word choice, style, and figures of speech.
To be clear, with both of these methods no translator stays 100% within that approach. For the Formal Equivalent translator there will be passages which are too difficult or unwieldy to translate in a straight word-for-word manner. The passage would need to be put into English which conveys the original concept clearly yet in a looser manner than the normal formal approach. The use of a looser translation is be done sparingly as the goal remains the same: to give us an English version which is as close as possible to what Paul, Moses, John, and the others wrote.
A more modern term for this method is an Essentially Literal Equivalence. This term has gained traction for it keeps the best of the formal method but tries to drop the reputation these translations are less readable and awkwardly written. In some cases, the reputation is warranted. The Essentially Literal Equivalence promotes the word-for-word philosophy but openly acknowledges the need to translate in a freer manner at times. Unlike the Dynamic Equivalent proponent, Essentially Literal Equivalence supporters would do this as an exception, only if the relationship between the original language and English dictates it.
With this group, the onus is on the reader to do the interpreting not the translator. It is understandable that a translator needs to interpret and understand the passage he is translating in order to be able to put the passage into the best possible English. The translator’s job is to ensure the English says what the original language of the passage was saying. He is not to change the wording, figures of speech, or add explanation so we can “understand it better.” We—with the help of our pastor, Bible study teachers and all the aids such as study Bibles, commentaries, and Bible dictionaries—must do the work of interpreting and applying the Word. Everything done with God’s Word should be done in prayer and with the help from, dependence on, and guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Dynamic Equivalence
Dynamic Equivalence or the thought-for-thought approach has been used in translations since the middle of the twentieth century. It was used in translations such as the NIV, NLT, and Good News Bible (aka Today’s English Version and currently as the Good New Translations).
It should be obvious the name for these methods were popularized by those behind the Dynamic Equivalence. Just think about the terms. “Dynamic” sounds fresh, alive, and exciting while “formal” sounds cold and stuffy. Thus, one of the reasons for the use of Essentially Literal has been to get away from this false association of the term Formal.
The goal of Dynamic Equivalence is to render in English the thought behind the original text, to give us what the passage means not necessarily what it says. This makes us more dependent on the translator’s interpretive handling of the text than in the first approach. What we get is the translator’s understanding of the passage which may or may not be correct or tainted by his theological opinions.
There are some translations which take the Dynamic approach to an extreme. A good example of this—but a bad translation—is the Message. While it insists it is not a paraphrase but a translation, it goes too far afield from the original text to even qualify as simply the far end of the Dynamic method continuum. A paraphrase is a restating of a passage into other words or imagery usually for the purpose of making the passage clearer to understand. This goes beyond translation to changing the passage to what the translator wants to say not what the Author or writers had to say.
On the other end of the spectrum would be the CSB (formerly the HCSB). The CSB calls itself an Optimum Equivalent translation, using the best of both methods. In reality, upon investigation of the translation, it clearly is too willing to move to dynamic methods to even be considered an approach between the formal and dynamic method.
One other translation to mention is the Living Bible. The Living Bible was a great Bible for its time. It clearly and honestly calls itself a paraphrase. Kenneth Taylor made this paraphrase of the American Standard Version so his children could have a Bible they could understand better than the KJV. While the successor to this work is the New Living Translation, the NLT is not a revision of the Living Bible but a new translation work in the Dynamic model.
The Living Bible being a paraphrase of another English translation is open to calling itself a paraphrase, but other paraphrastic works are not willing to do so. The collective understanding is any movement from one language to another is automatically a translation no matter how much of the original content is modified. I find fault with this logic. When moving to a new language if the movement includes wholesale changes to images, metaphors, and figures of speech, it is not simply a translation but a paraphrase of the original work.
In Closing
To be clear, I support the Essentially Literal Equivalence approach to translation. Many of the posts to follow will give you supportive material for my advocating for it. Translations that take this approach are more likely to produce a clear and trustworthy Bible.
At the same time, this should not be taken to mean I oppose the Dynamic Equivalence translation out of hand. Many, such as the NIV and NLT, have much to offer us. They should not be used as your main Bible for reading and study. They should not be used for teaching or preaching, but they are great as a secondary Bible as help by giving us a fresh look at a passage. They can be extremely helpful for those who are at a low reading level, but we should have a goal of moving on to a Bible which can be trusted to give us what the original languages of God’s Word said, not what a translator thinks it means and what he thinks we can understand.
Using these Dynamic Equivalent translations full-time gets us a translation based on the translator’s meaning of the text and dumbed down to the supposed level of the reader.
Until the next time we see you here at CultivatingFaith.org, God Bless! #CultivatingFaithOrg
Photo by Beth Macdonald on Unsplash