Why Are there So Many Translations of the Bible? (Part 2)

In Part 1 of Why Are there So Many Translations of the Bible?, we stated that there are three big reasons for all of the different translations: 

• Changes in Language 

• Advances in Knowledge

• Translation Methods

We looked in some detail as to why Changes in Language and Advances in Knowledge will inevitably call for the updating of translations.  Now, in Part 2, we will consider why there are different translations due to Translation Methods.   We will also see how understanding these differences can be used to deepen our understanding and application of God’s Word.   

Lost in Translation?

Before we go too deep into translation methods, let’s begin by answering a big question people raise: Because translations render the Bible so differently from each other, how can we really be sure of the original meaning? Good question, but in reality, even when different translations use different words for the same Greek or Hebrew phrase, the ultimate meaning of the text still comes through clearly. 

For example, let’s look at the four different readings of Matthew 9:20:  

 The New International Version conveys the verse as follows: 

Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak.

Matthew 9:20 (NIV)

New Living Translation voices it this way: 

Just then a woman who had suffered for twelve years with constant bleeding came up behind him. She touched the fringe of his robe,

Matthew 9:20 (NLT)

English Standard Version says: 

And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment,

Matthew 9:20 (ESV)

King James Bible declares: 

And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:

Matthew 9:20 (KJV)

How are we going to get our heads around what Matthew 9:20 is saying? All translations agree that this woman came up behind Jesus, but did she touch the “fringe,” (NLT, ESV) “edge” (NIV) or “hem” (KJV) of his clothing? Furthermore, was the piece of clothing a “robe” (NLT), a “cloak” (NIV) or just a “garment” (ESV, KJV)?  And did this lady have an “issue” (KJV), “discharge” (ESV) or “constant bleeding” (NLT)?

For all the differences between these four translations, isn’t it really clear what’s going on? The woman comes from behind Jesus, and she touches the lower part of an outer piece of his clothing. As a result, she is healed of an affliction which has caused her to bleed for twelve years. Whether she touched the “fringe,” “edge,” or “hem” of his clothing makes no change to what the original text ultimately means. What we do see is that reading several translations side-by-side can help to actually fill out the picture of what occurred. To do this, it helps to understand that different translations approach the text with different methods of translating. When we understand this we can gain a more complete understanding of the passage. What are these methods, then?

Translation Methods

Generally speaking, there are two basic methods by which the Scriptures are translated. They are known as formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

Formal equivalent translations are more word-for-word translations. They attempt to bring out, as much as possible, the same words and grammar as is found in the original languages. This includes the word order of the original which makes these translations more literal. Examples of formal equivalence or literal translations are the English Standard Version (ESV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), New King James Version (NKJV), King James Version (KJV), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

Dynamic equivalence translations are more thought-for-thought. They attempt to bring out what the passage would mean to those who originally read or heard it. In other words, when we read it in English, the goal of these translations is that we hear it in the same way the original Greek or Hebrew speaking audience heard it.  Keeping the same word order or grammar is not a focus. Some translations which employ this method are Good News Translation (GNT), New Living Translation (NLT), and Contemporary English Version (CEV).

Here is a way to think about the two approaches. In the Eastern United States, soft drinks are called “soda,” but in the Midwestern United States, they’re called “pop.” So if a customer from the East were to visit the Midwest and request a “soda,” that would be similar to formal equivalence. He is using a word common to where he lives, but the person serving him may not know what he is asking for. If that same person were to change his request and ask for a “pop,” that would be similar to dynamic equivalence, because he is using a term familiar to the area where he is visiting. The words mean the same thing, but formal equivalence gives preference to the speaker’s phrasing; dynamic equivalence gives preference to the hearer’s vocabulary.

Examples of the Different Philosophies

Let’s examine how these approaches translate two different verses: 1 Peter 1:13 & Philippians 2:6:  

New King James Version (Formal Equivalence)

Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

1 Peter 1:13 (NKJV)

New Living Translation (Dynamic Equivalence)

So prepare your minds for action and exercise self-control. Put all your hope in the gracious salvation that will come to you when Jesus Christ is revealed to the world.

1 Peter 1:13 (NLT)

A more formal or literal translation of 1 Peter 1:13 as represented by the NKJV uses the expression to “gird up the loins.” The modern reader is left scratching his head in confusion because it involves a cultural expression known to the biblical audience but completely foreign to him.  So, the equivalent meaning, “…prepare your mind for action…,” (NLT) more simply and effectively communicates Peter’s intention.   

New King James Version (Formal Equivalence)

…who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God…

Philippians 2:6 (NKJV)

New Living Translation (Dynamic Equivalence)

Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

Philippians 2:6 (NLT)

The more formal translation of Philippians 2:6 from the NKJV is theologically misleading because it reads: Jesus was “in the form of God.” The more dynamic translation of the NLT clarifies this phrase showing that Jesus is God in his very nature, not just in his form. The dynamic translation does a better job of getting to the meaning of the text.

A common misconception is that a more literal translation is superior. But this fails to take into account the need to translate adequately the subtle but important differences in language.  For example, often when the New Testament speaks of people who were sick, the literal reading of the Greek text is “having it badly.” Therefore, a literal reading of Matthew 4:24 would be, “And they brought to him all the ones having it badly with various diseases and torments.” To the original audience the expression “having it badly,” meant to be sick. Matthew 1:18 speaks of Mary being pregnant. A literal reading of the text says she was “having it in the stomach.” A very literal translation of this would not read well, at all.

What Translation Should You Use?

When studying the Bible, the goal should be to learn from both methods of translation: formal and dynamic equivalence. Using a literal translation and a dynamic translation can bring out the needed angles of the original language balanced with the relevant meaning for the modern reader. As Mark Strauss, professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary, writes:

“Translation is not about replacing words, it’s about reproducing meaning.”

Dr. Mark Strauss

The mixing of both of these methods has also been called “optimal equivalence.” Proponents of this approach believe it produces the best balance of accuracy and readability. They are as literal as possible and as free as necessary. Certain translations are built on blending the best of both of these methods. The New International Version (NIV) is considered a combined translation, placing an emphasis on dynamic equivalence while at the same time consistently tethering itself to the formal or literal understanding. The New English Translation (NET), Christian Standard Bible (CSB), and New Century Bible (NCV) are all combinations of formal and dynamic equivalence. It is for this reason that I most commonly read the NIV because it strives to bring together the best of both methods.

A wise approach to Bible study is to use a mix of several different translations including optimal, literal, and dynamic translations. By comparing the texts against each other, serious Bible readers will gain a fuller meaning of God’s Word. As stated above, I normally use the NIV, then I find it helpful to compare what I am reading using a translation with the dynamic equivalence (e.g., NLT, GNT, CEV) to further understand the basic message of the text. I follow that up by consulting a translation with a more formal equivalence (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) to better discover what the passage meant for its original audience and how that may further deepen our understanding of the text. With these translations at our disposal, we have unprecedented opportunity for understanding, clarity, and obedience to the truth of the Bible.

“Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.”

Psalm 119:105