Skip to content

Course 5 · Lesson 5.1

Formal and dynamic equivalence, and the middle positions

11 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 5 outline

Module 1: What the Languages Are and What This Course Can Do

  1. The languages of the Bible: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek
  2. What an introduction can and cannot do: no fluency, and why
  3. Biblical Hebrew in brief: history, script and sound
  4. Koine Greek in brief: history, script and sound

Module 2: Hebrew Fundamentals

  1. The Hebrew alphabet, reading right to left, and the vowel points
  2. Roots, nouns, gender, number and the construct chain
  3. Hebrew verbs: perfect, imperfect and the seven stems in outline
  4. A core Hebrew vocabulary and how to learn it

Module 3: Greek Fundamentals

  1. The Greek alphabet, accents and breathing marks
  2. Nouns, cases and the definite article
  3. Greek verbs: tense, aspect, voice and mood in outline
  4. A core Greek vocabulary and how to learn it

Module 4: The Texts: Masoretic, Septuagint and New Testament Manuscripts

  1. The Masoretic Text and the codices that preserve it
  2. The Septuagint and where translators consult it
  3. Greek New Testament manuscripts and printed editions
  4. How variants are recorded in footnotes and critical editions

Module 5: How Translations Are Made

  1. Formal and dynamic equivalence, and the middle positions
  2. Who translates: committees, churches and traditions of translation
  3. Hard cases: idioms, word play, gender and untranslatable words
  4. Reading a translation’s preface to learn its principles

Module 6: Tools for the Reader

  1. Interlinear Bibles: what they show and what they hide
  2. Lexicons and concordances: how to read an entry
  3. How to do a word study, step by step
  4. Common word study errors and how to avoid them

Module 7: Evaluating Translation Differences

  1. Locating the Hebrew or Greek words behind a verse
  2. Types of translation differences: text, grammar, word meaning and style
  3. A worked example from the Old Testament
  4. A worked example from the New Testament
  5. Knowing your limits, and when to ask a specialist

All courses

Program / Course 5: Biblical Languages / Lesson 5.1

What you will learn

  • Define formal equivalence, dynamic (functional) equivalence and the middle positions.
  • Place well known English translations along the range between them.
  • Name the strengths and weaknesses of each approach honestly.
  • Choose translations for comparison with a clear reason.

The big idea

Translators of the Bible must choose how closely to follow the form of the original. Formal equivalence keeps the wording and structure as close as English allows. Dynamic or functional equivalence aims to produce in the reader the effect that the original had, even if the structure changes. Most translations lie between the two. Each approach has costs: closeness can hide idiom, and freedom brings more interpretation. No approach is neutral, and a good reader uses translations from several parts of the range.

Key terms

Formal equivalence
A translation approach that keeps the words, order and structure of the original as far as English allows. Often called word for word.
Dynamic equivalence
An approach that seeks the closest natural equivalent in the receiving language, even if the form changes. Often called thought for thought. Its best known theorist was Eugene Nida.
Functional equivalence
A later name for much the same approach, preferred by some translators.
Optimal equivalence
A name used by the Christian Standard Bible translators for a middle approach that keeps form where it makes sense and changes it where clarity needs.
Paraphrase
A free restatement of a text in other words. Some Bibles call themselves paraphrases.
Idiom
A phrase whose meaning is not the sum of its words, such as to kick the bucket.
Target language
The language into which a text is translated. Here it is English.

Background

No translation is a perfect copy of the original. Hebrew and Greek words do not match English words one to one, and word order, idiom and grammar differ. A translator has to decide at each step how much of the original form to keep. The two poles of the choice are often described as word for word and thought for thought, though real translations mix them.

The language of dynamic equivalence became prominent through the work of Eugene Nida in the 1960s, who wrote for Bible translators working in many languages. He argued that the aim should be the response of the receiver, to match the response of the original readers. Critics replied that this required translators to decide what the original readers felt and understood, which involves a good deal of interpretation. The debate continues.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Formal equivalence

A formal translation tries to keep a trace of the original wording. It renders the same Hebrew or Greek word by the same English word where it can, keeps the order of clauses where it can, and preserves figures of speech. The King James Version, the Revised Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version and, in many places, the Revised Standard Version fall in this range. So do some Jewish translations.

The strengths are that a reader can see more of the original’s shape, can trace repeated words and can compare passages. The weaknesses are that the English may be awkward or unclear, that some idioms are carried over without meaning, and that no translation can really be literal. Even the most formal choices involve judgments. The King James Version of 1 Peter 1:13 says gird up the loins of your mind, a figure that many modern readers do not understand.

Step 2: Dynamic or functional equivalence

A dynamic translation tries to give the sense in natural English. It may turn an idiom into a plain statement, change word order, add words needed to make the meaning clear or replace a figure with its meaning. The Good News Bible, the Contemporary English Version and the New Living Translation are examples. The New International Version stands between the formal and dynamic types, though nearer to the dynamic. The Message is a free paraphrase by a single author.

The strengths are that such translations are easy to read, they can make clear what a literal one leaves obscure, and they suit those new to the Bible. The weaknesses are that the translator makes more decisions about what the text means, that readers may not see that other readings are possible, and that repeated words in the original may be hidden. In 1 Peter 1:13 the New International Version has prepare your minds for action, which makes the sense clear and loses the figure.

Step 3: The middle positions

Many translations aim at balance. The New Revised Standard Version describes itself as keeping as close to the original as is possible while using clear English. The Christian Standard Bible uses the term optimal equivalence. The New American Bible Revised Edition, a Catholic translation, and the New Jerusalem Bible, also Catholic, follow the original with attention to readability. The Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James Version for the New Testament and its own translation of the Septuagint for the Old.

A translation is seldom consistent throughout. A formal translation may paraphrase in a hard passage, and a dynamic translation may keep literal wording where it is clear. The preface and the translators’ notes are the best guide to how a version works.

Step 4: Liturgical translation

The Catholic Church has addressed this question for the texts used in worship. In 2001 the Vatican issued an instruction, Liturgiam authenticam, which asked for translations of liturgical texts that follow the Latin original more closely, and led to revised English Mass texts. Supporters said the change gave greater fidelity and a more sacred style. Critics said it produced stiff English. The example shows that the question is not only academic, and that communities have reasons to prefer one approach for public reading and another for private study.

  1. Where does this translation fall on the range, according to its preface?
  2. How does it handle an idiom, such as gird up the loins?
  3. Does it use the same English word for a repeated Hebrew or Greek word?
  4. Where has the translator added words that are not in the original?
  5. Which kind of translation would I choose for study, for reading aloud and for a first reading?
  6. Which decisions did the translator make for me, and which can I see?

Examples

An idiom in three translations

Take 1 Peter 1:13. The King James Version has gird up the loins of your mind. Another formal translation may have prepare your minds for action, and a dynamic one may have be ready and alert. Comparing them shows the image behind the Greek, the tying up of a long robe for work, and shows the sense.

A repeated word

A Hebrew word may occur several times in a short passage, linking the verses. A formal translation keeps the same English word each time, so that the link is visible. A dynamic one may vary the English word for style, and the link is lost. Neither choice is wrong, but the reader should know that it was made.

Choosing for a purpose

A reader chooses a formal translation for slow study, a dynamic one for reading a whole book in a sitting, and a middle one for use in a group. They keep a copy of each and consult the others when a verse puzzles them.

Different perspectives

Catholic

Catholic translators have worked in both modes, and the Church has asked for fidelity to the original together with a language suited to worship. Catholic scholars take a variety of positions on how literal a translation should be.

Orthodox

Orthodox translators often favor a translation that follows the Greek closely, since the Greek text of the Septuagint and the New Testament is held to carry the church’s tradition. Choices about sacred style matter greatly for liturgical language.

Protestant

Protestants are divided in public on this question. Some argue that the essentially literal approach honors the words of Scripture. Others argue that dynamic translations serve readers, as well as missionaries working in new languages, better. Both groups include careful scholars.

Jewish

Jewish translations vary. Some, such as the Jewish Publication Society version, aim at a faithful and readable text, and the tradition values reading the Hebrew with commentary beside the translation.

Scholarly

Translation scholars agree that a spectrum exists and that no translation is purely literal or purely free. They debate how far the receiver’s response can serve as a standard, and whether the labels word for word and thought for thought are useful.

Why it matters

A student who knows where a translation falls on the range can read it fairly. A difference between two versions may reflect their approach and not a disagreement about meaning. Comparing across the range is the best way to see what the original may contain.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: A word for word translation is the most accurate, since it adds nothing.

Correction: No translation is truly word for word. Literal wording can mislead when idiom or grammar differs, and accuracy is a matter of conveying the sense as well as the form.

Misunderstanding: A dynamic translation is a paraphrase that changes the Bible.

Correction: Dynamic translations are made by scholars from the original languages. They do involve more interpretation, but so does any translation. Free paraphrases by single authors are a different case.

Misunderstanding: One approach is correct and the others are errors.

Correction: Each approach serves some purposes better than others, and careful people hold different views on it.

Misunderstanding: A translation described as literal never interprets.

Correction: Even a formal translation makes many decisions about grammar and word meaning. The decisions are less visible.

Knowledge check

What is the difference between formal and dynamic equivalence?

Formal equivalence keeps the wording and structure of the original as far as English allows, and is often called word for word. Dynamic equivalence aims to give the sense in natural English, even if the form changes, and is called thought for thought. Most translations lie between the two.

Name one strength and one weakness of each approach.

A formal translation shows more of the original’s shape and repeated words, but it can be awkward or hide idioms. A dynamic translation is clear and natural, but the translator makes more interpretive decisions and the reader may not see other possible readings. Both are legitimate tools with limits.

Where do the King James Version, the New International Version and The Message fall?

The King James Version is formal. The New International Version stands between the formal and the dynamic, nearer to the dynamic. The Message is a free paraphrase by one author. A reader should confirm each placement from its preface, which states the principles.

Why compare translations from different parts of the range?

Each approach shows different things. A formal translation shows form and repeated words. A dynamic one shows the sense in clear English. Comparing them helps a reader notice where the original is ambiguous, where decisions were made and where further study is needed.

Think it through

  1. Which kind of translation do you usually read, and what might you be missing?
  2. What is gained and lost when an idiom is replaced by a plain statement?
  3. Why might a church choose a more literal translation for worship than for teaching?
  4. How would you explain to a friend why two good translations disagree?

Independent assignment

One passage along the range

In your own notebook, write 350 to 500 words. Choose a passage of about five verses, such as the opening of Psalm 23 or 1 Peter 1:13 to 16. Copy it from five translations that fall at different points on the range, including one Catholic or Orthodox edition. Mark the differences and say which come from the approach and which from the text. Read each preface to confirm its method. Write which version you would use for what purpose and why. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study