Is a formal or dynamic equivalence Bible translation better?
In a culture that enjoys a wide range of Bible translations, it can be easy to lose sight of just how complex a task it is to render the words of Scripture from their original language into another target language. In this article, we will think through the fact that all English versions engage in translation, and that this always entails complex decisions about exactly how to render the words of Scripture in clear English that is faithful to the original languages. Along the way, we will consider the fact that formal and dynamic Bible translation approaches are complementary rather than contradictory of one another.
Moisés Silva outlines what is involved in the process of translation:
A successful translation requires (1) mastery of the source language—certainly a much more sophisticated knowledge than one can acquire over a period of four or five years; (2) superb interpretation skills and breadth of knowledge so as not to miss the nuances of the original; and (3) a very high aptitude for writing in the target language so as to express accurately both the cognitive and the affective elements of the message.[1]
Our gratitude to God for translators should greatly increase as we weigh the expertise required in this process. Knowing what the Bible says in its original form is crucial, but this only serves Christians and the church if there is a corresponding clarity in the target language, if it ‘makes sense’ to ordinary believers like you and me, who have limited or no skills in the actual task of translating.
At one end of the translation spectrum is the idea of dynamic equivalence. If we think of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as being the source language and English as the target language, dynamic equivalence will have a prominent concern with the latter. Dynamic equivalence seeks to render the Bible into language which is immediately accessible and understandable by an average reader, privileging flow and fluency. Occasionally, this can mean sacrificing some literal renderings of words or syntax.
The truth is that all translation has to rely on dynamic equivalence at key points, which is part of the old Italian play on words, trauttore, traditore: translator, traitor. This is surely an exaggeration, but it does lay bare how translation simply cannot be uniformly literal at all times.
This is where proponents of strictly formal equivalence can occasionally overstate their case. Formal equivalence privileges the syntax and wording of the source language of Scripture and is willing at times to sacrifice a degree of clarity in the target language. This means that formal equivalence translations can give us quite a clear picture of things like the word order of the original text, but contemporary meaning can be lost, or the flow of the text can be made somewhat staccato. But even for formal equivalence advocates, it has to be admitted that some degree of dynamic translation takes place when they arrive in English.
For a period of time my family and I lived in Perú, South America. Learning Spanish was a joy and an adventure and, with my love of English, I was fascinated by some differences in language. In common English usage we will ask a taxi driver to ‘take the next left’, whereas in Spanish we were literally asking the driver to ‘fold (or bend) to the next left’. If I had adopted the Spanish phrasing literally when I returned home, demanding formal equivalence, I would have left almost every driver in the UK and Ireland confused by my request for them to fold into the corner! My desire to honour exactly what was said in Perú would obscure what I needed to say in English. Dynamic equivalence was required in both contexts for my speech to make sense.
Establishing this fact is important for our consideration of Bible versions. All commonly used English translations are exactly that: translations, moving meaning across languages so as to make sense to the target audience. This means that when a Bible version places itself in the market as more literal, it is really communicating the fact that there is less dynamic equivalence than in other translations.
It is at this point that the CSB’s adoption of optimal equivalence shows its considerable strength. The translators of the CSB articulate their approach in the following way,
In the many places throughout Scripture where a word-for-word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. In places where a word-for-word rendering might obscure the meaning for a modern audience, a more dynamic translation is favored. This process assures that both the words and thoughts contained in the original text are conveyed as accurately as possible.
Optimal equivalence really gives us the best of all worlds, assuring the reader that the Bible they are reading is fiercely true to the original languages but also concerned to communicate in a way that is intelligible and crystal clear for modern recipients of the text.
The binary of formal vs. dynamic is often portrayed in an unintentionally artificial way, obscuring the skill and balance required of Bible translation committees in their vital work. Recognising the fine balance of formal and dynamic philosophies allows us to be realistic about what translation does, and to seek to adopt a version that owns and embodies the happy harmony that can be found in harnessing the strengths of both approaches.
[1] Silva, God, Language and Scripture, 134.
