Summary: The main goals of Bible translation are to be accurate and readable but translators have various approaches to accomplishing these goals, mainly formal versus functional equivalence.
There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and none is incapable of meaning. So if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be unintelligible to the one who speaks, and the one who speaks will be unintelligible to me. – 1 Cor. 14:10-12 (NASB)
Word for Word or Meaning for Meaning?
Historically, there have been two main philosophies or methods of translation: form focus versus function focus. Word for word or “literal” translation strives to replicate the form of the source text as much as possible and is called formal equivalence. In contrast, meaning for meaning, thought for thought, idiomatic or free translation seeks to reproduce the meaning of the source text regardless of form and is called functional equivalence. What is the difference between these two philosophies and which one is better?
Meaning in Context or Lexical Concordance?
Formal equivalent translations use the same English word to translate a particular Hebrew or Greek word whenever possible. For instance, the Greek word nomos, which is commonly translated as “law,” occurs 74 times in the book of Romans.
The ESV is considered a more formal equivalent version and translates the word as “law” in all 74 cases. Similarly, another formal equivalent version, the NASB, translates 73 as “law.” On the other hand, the NLT, a functional equivalent version, translates nomos in a variety of ways depending on the context.
Below is a comparison of Romans 7:21-23 in the ESV (formal) where the word “law” is used 5 times versus the NLT (functional) where it is only used once.
- ESV – So I find it to be a law [nomos] that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law [nomos] of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law [nomos] waging war against the law [nomos] of my mind and making me captive to the law [nomos] of sin that dwells in my members.
- NLT – I have discovered this principle of life [nomos]—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. I love God’s law [nomos] with all my heart. But there is another power [nomos] within me that is at war with my mind. This power [nomos] makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me.
The ESV seeks to be consistent by translating nomos as “law” every time, whereas the NLT chooses the closest English equivalent, making the meaning clearer for the reader. While formal versions aim to be consistent, the range of meanings for one word doesn’t always make that possible.
For example, the NASB uses “law” 4 times but uses the word “principle” in verse 21. The NASB then has a footnote telling the reader that the word “principle” is nomos in Greek.
- NASB – “I find then the principle that evil is present in me.”
Translating nomos as “principle” may be linguistically or formally inaccurate but, because words have more than one meaning, it is functionally correct. The Greek word nomos has many definitions: custom, rule, law, principle, norm, standard, regulation, command, legal system, sacred ordinance or even the first five books of the Old Testament. Because words have a semantic range, it is not even truly accurate to say that a word has a single “literal” meaning (Strauss, Mark. 2022. 40 Questions About Bible Translation, 23). It is also true that sometimes finding exact equivalents for a Hebrew or Greek word or phrase in the language of a translation is impossible.
Bible Versions and Their Acronyms
- NASB – New American Standard Bible
- AMP – Amplified Bible
- ESV – English Standard Version
- RSV – Revised Standard Version
- KJV – King James Version
- NKJV – New King James Version
- NRSV – New Revised Standard Version
- NIV – New International Version
- NLT – New Living Translation
- NIRV – New International Readers Version
- GNT – Good News Translation
- CEV – Contemporary English Version
- MSG – The Message
All of these English Bible versions, plus many more, can be found for free on BibleGateway.com as well as other websites.
Versions on a Spectrum
If we were to categorize different versions of the Bible according to translation priority of “form” versus “function” it would look something like the chart above. This is helpful when deciding on a version for yourself and for comparison sake.
Formal, word for word, versions are on the far left side of the chart. They aim to modify the form of the Hebrew or Greek until it is comprehensible, while keeping the grammatical structures of sentences as close to the source text as possible, even if it may not be clear or natural language for the reader. A common slogan used for formal versions is, “As literal as possible; as free as necessary.” These versions include the ESV, NASB and KJV.
The category of “mediating” can be added in between. These versions, such as the NIV, try to take a middle of the line approach, with the goal of modifying the form until it is comprehensible and clear. Functional, or thought for thought, versions keep modifying until the text sounds more natural. These versions are on the right side of the spectrum, such as the MSG.
An example from Romans 7:23a is helpful for comparison.
- ESV – (Formal) – But I see in my members another law…
- NIV – (Mediating) – But I see another law at work in me, …
- NLT – (Functional) – But there is another power within me…
The ESV reproduces the form of the Greek but at the expense of clear and natural language. It may not be clear what “in my members” means. And is “law” referring to the Old Testament law?
On the other hand, the NLT translates the obscure phrase “in my members” as simply “within me” and the word “law” as “power.” The NIV is somewhere in between leaving the word “law” but changing the idiom “in my members” to “in me.” One danger of the thought-for-thought approach is that it can introduce an extra layer of interpretation (deciding which meaning the word or verse is trying to convey) into the translation, an interpretation that may or may not be correct. As you can see, Bible translation can be a complicated process and different readers will prefer different versions.
Historical Advocates for Meaning-Based Translation
From the Greco-Roman world, Roman statesman and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) created his own translation of several Greek orators into Latin. He rejected “word for word” translation and instead claimed to render the “same ideas.”
“I did not translate them as an interpreter, but as an orator, keeping the same ideas and forms, or as one might say, the “figures” of thought, but in language which conforms to our usage. And in doing so, I did not hold it necessary to render word for word, but I preserved the general style and force of the language” (Cicero, De Optimo Genere Oratorum).
Later in the fourth century, Church Father Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate a new Latin version of the Bible (Vulgate) that became the standard Bible of the Western church for a thousand years. Jerome also became a strong supporter of functional translation as he progressed in his work. He supported Cicero’s previous ideas of meaning-based translation because when he tried to be too literal he found it produced an absurd reading.
Martin Luther (1483-1586) wrote a German translation of the Bible in the sixteenth century and in speaking of the process said,
“I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses… Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it – once he understands the Hebrew author – that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, ‘Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?’… Let him drop the Hebrew word and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows” (Luther’s Works, 1960, 35:193).
A century after Luther, English poet John Dryen (1631-1700) defined three approaches to translation in the preface of his rendering of Ovid’s Epistles in 1680. He called the “word for word” approach, metaphrase, similar to formal equivalence. He used the word paraphrase to describe following the “sense” of the text and not the exact words, comparable to functional. The third category he named imitation, which was using the source text as a pattern to write what the author would have said in modern language or re-contextualization. Dryer favored paraphrase which he said was a balance between the other two.
Lastly, the most influential work on meaning-based translation in modern times came from the so-called “father of modern Bible translation,” Eugene Nida (1914-2011). Nida was a linguist and international Bible translator. His goal was to establish a “science” to translation where a text could be broken down into basic meaning components called “kernel structures” that could be restructured to transfer the meaning of the source text into very different structures of the receptor language. Nida coined the term functional equivalence.
Conclusion
There has been a long standing debate about how to best translate the Bible within the goals of accuracy and readability. Some translators stress formal equivalence and others lean towards functional equivalence. There are strengths and weaknesses on both sides and using a variety of Bible versions can help a reader find balance and understanding.
TOP PHOTO: Simbiti girl holding a New Testament. (credit: Andrew J. Olson, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
