Bible Translations: Translation Philosophy Analysis

As UK John pointed out in the previous posts, there are strengths and weaknesses to each of the translation philosophies. These strengths and weaknesses suit each philosophy best for a certain purpose or purposes. Once we examine the relative strengths and weaknesses of each translation philosophy, the application of each becomes nearly self evident.

Formal Equivalence (Word-for-word) – Includes King James Version (KJV), NKJV, New American Standard (NASB), Revised Standard Version (RSV), English Standard Version (ESV), and the Amplified Bible (AMP).

Strengths:
1) Best demonstrates the actual words of the original languages
2) Words accurately convey the meaning of the original words
3) Less interpretation of the original texts, and therefore less reliance upon the translator for an accurate translation
4) Easier to trace the same form of a word used by the Biblical writers
5) More precision by using complex vocabulary and theological terminology
Weaknesses:
1) Awkward English at times; less readable
2) More ambiguity in the meaning of the English; relies on the reader for more interpretation
3) May lead readers to reach wrong interpretive conclusions in casual reading

Dynamic Equivalence (Thought-for-thought) – Includes TLB, CEV, New Living Translation (NLT), New Century Version (NCV), And the Good News Bible (GNT).

Strengths:
1) More readable for casual reading
2) Priority on conveying meaning; less ambiguity in the meaning of the English text
3) More interpretation of the original text
Weaknesses:
1) More interpretation of the original text!
2) Impossible to trace the same form of the word used by Biblical writers
3) Often more expansive by using a phrase or sentence to explain a technical term

Optimal Equivalence – Includes HCSB, New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New American Bible (NAB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

Optimal equivalence translations are a combination of both formal and dynamic translations. They seek to maximize the strengths of both while minimizing the weaknesses. Ideally, they apply each method to translate the meaning of the original with optimal accuracy. When word-for-word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. When it is unclear in modern English, a dynamic translation is used.

The Paraphrase type (The Message, the Living Bible) accentuate the strengths and weaknesses of the Dynamic equivalence type. Thus, it can be grouped with Thought-for-thought translations when discussing application.

Applications – each type of translation philosophy suits it best for certain uses. Here are some examples:

Word-for-word:
1) Best for in-depth bible study
2) Best for doctrinal questions
3) Best for determining connections between passages based upon vocabulary

Thought-for-thought
1) Good for casual reading
2) Best for reading and comprehension by non-Christians or new Christians

Optimal Equivalence
1) Good for using as supporting information in other written works
2) Good for supporting study of a word-for-word translation

In summary, word-for-word translations are best for serious study and serious research. They are the best for answering questions between believers. Also, the sometimes choppy language of the word-for-word translations make them best suited for memorization, as the human mind remembers best not the trivial or mundane, but the out-of-the-ordinary. Thought-for-thought translations are best for those who are not familiar with the Bible, those with less education and those not interested in answering doctrinal questions.

The weaknesses of the dynamic equivalence translations and dynamic equivalence portions of optimal translations are best engaged by three questions:
1) Can a modern translation be certain of the original author’s intent?
2) Can a modern person ever know the impact of the original text upon its readers?
3) Why not insure accuracy of meaning by using words that are as close to the original as possible?

When encountering a word that may have several close meanings, the word-for-word translators will err to the vague, while the thought-for-thought translators will make the decision for you based upon their theology. On its surface, this may seem better for the readers (and in the situations suggested above, it is), the problems arise not because the words are interpreted, but what they are based upon. This will be examined further in the later posts.

The next section will be a discussion of the differing textual philosophies that underlie different translations – in essence, which text did they translate?