Think Wink.

One of the hot topics in the blogosphere is which translation philosophy is the best and which translation is the best translation. There are basically two philosophies and myriads of translations available in English-speaking Christianity, and America in particular. They are dynamic equivalent and formal equivalent. Each philosophy has its own strengths about them and their own weaknesses.

The dynamic equivalent is a “thought-for-thought” translation and tends to focus on readability and using contemporary English to convey the Greek and Hebrew texts. This allows people to read the Scriptures in a style of English that is closer to what they speak and understand. Its main draw back is that it requires a great deal of interpretation to do so. The reader will also loose a lot of transparency to the original. Some examples of this type of translation are the TNIV/NIV, NLT, Message.

The formal equivalent is a “word-for-word” translation that tends to focus on putting the words of the original language into the target language. In doing so, these translations tend to sacrifice its readability and become difficult for people to read. However, when one reads a formal equivalent text, they can see more of the original structure, style, and wording. This minimizes interpretation, but because formal equivalents are not Greek and Hebrew there is still interpretation going on. These translations also tend to use theological jargon such as propitiation, expiation, predestination and election. Thus making it more confusing. Some examples of this type of translation are the ESV, NASB, KJV/NKJV, RSV, ASV.

Now my personal translation is ESV. There are many reasons why I use this translation and prefer the formal equivalent over the dynamic equivalent. Before I go into them, let me make clear that I speak as a pastor and a beginner in the original languages. My biases are different from a person who is not in this position. I also know that no translation is perfect and that is why I have really taken an interest in the original languages.

The primary reason why I switched from NASB to ESV was because in my pastorate, the church uses the KJV. The ESV uses some of the same language and so it is easier for them to follow me in their KJV Bibles when I preach and yet I can use a more modern translation that doesn’t use Elizabethan English (I know I could have used the NKJV). If a church uses a translation like the NIV or RSV as a pew Bible, then the pastor might want to preach out of the NIV/TNIV or RSV/NRSV so that it is easier for the congregation to follow him.

The reason I used the NASB before that was because of how I preach. My style is more like a John Piper or John MacAruthur, all of my points come straight from the text as I focus on exegetical and expositional preaching. Thus I want a translation that is going to allow me the confidence that what I am basing my points on are original languages’ words, even if it is difficult English. My preaching, as I have been told, is more stronger and penetrating.

The next reason why I use a formal equivalent as my primary translation goes back to me being a preacher. My job is to give the meaning of Scripture. That is what I have been called to do. Therefore I need a translation that is not going to do my job for me and compromise my ministry to the body of Christ. I need a translation that will preserve the difficulties and ambiguities that translation creates so that I can give the congregation my rendering of the text and teach from there. I realize that I can come back and correct any translation, and I even often correct the ESV and NASB, but if the translation minimizes the times it uses interpretive license to make sense of the text, I don’t have to back track before going forward. As a preacher I prefer a formal equivalent translation.

As to which translation philosophy I would promote I would first say it depends upon the person I am talking to. If they are a youth or a more immature Christian, I would seriously consider a dynamic equivalent like NIV/TNIV (even though I am a little uncomfortable with the gender choices it makes) or NLT. In fact, I believe the NLT is written for an eight grader. But for a more mature Christian or an older reader, I would promote a formal equivalent translation.

But in general, I still prefer the formal equivalent because it has been my experience that people are forced to study the text more. Now I am not saying that a person isn’t led to serious study with a dynamic equivalent. However, American Christians that I have known put a lot of trust in the translators to give them the most accurate translation (I also realize that accuracy can be measured differently) in terms of readability and transparency. They some times forget the that Scripture was written in Greek and Hebrew and just take the English as the Word of God. When a formal equivalent is used, they see the awkwardness and often ask me questions about what that particular text means because they just aren’t getting it. I get questions like “What is propitiation?” or “That text is confusing, what does it mean?” Then I can take them back to the Greek or Hebrew and show them what was written by the biblical authors. Or the people who have these questions often study up for themselves, checking multiple translations and looking up the original language. In doing so, they find themselves becoming for biblically literate, which I see being one of the biggest problems in the Church today if not the biggest. They know the meaning of a text more intimately and have a deeper understanding of God and Christ.

In conclusion, no translation is perfect. Each philosophy has its own strengths and weaknesses that one must weigh out in order to figure out which translation they prefer. The only real advice I could give to anyone is two-fold: a.) read multiple translations (make sure you have translations and not paraphrases i.e. Message is a paraphrase) the use both methods; b.) consider learning how to look up and study the original languages behind the English to determine for yourself who gets it right.

Related posts:

Some Things of Interest

Translation Issues Part Two

Nahum’s Literary Device and Translation