It seems that the question of translational theory and how we label those theories is any important one to many people, given how many comments I have gotten on my two post on the Analysis of the ESV and More on the ESV.

Wayne Lehman, one of the bloggers at TNIV Truth, has responded with an excellent post on translational theory and where different translations fit. I wanted to discuss several points he raises.

First, I think those of us who have been discussing this all agree on the relative positions of the translations. The disagreement is over how to label these texts and the approach their translators followed.

Second, I would assume that everyone recognizes that translational theories exist along a spectrum. Lehman certainly does, as indicated by his statement “The NIV is clearly not as literal a translation as the ESV or NASB, but it is not really a DE translation.” Even when we label something as a formal equivalence translation, we need to define it even more closely. ASV and NRSV are both formal equivalence translations, but are obviously quite different.

Third, I should point that the graph I posted only indicates how close the translations are in their wording. The graph does not indicate the translational theory behind the texts. Two versions may take very different approaches to translation and yet come out with similar working.

With those things in mind, I wanted to address Lehman’s statement that the NIV is more of a formal equivalence translation. While I would place in more of a dynamicequivalence model, I think we are only disagreeing over terminology. The NIV advocated itself as a “sentence by sentence” translation when it came out, which to me indicates a dynamic equivalence. Lehman may be defining the categories somewhat differently. There is certainly no single “official” definition of the categories.

In fact, when I taught my Biblical Interpretation class the last time, I used slightly different terminology for the categories:

  • Very Formal: KJV, NKJV, ASV
  • Formal: RSV, NRSV, NAB, ESV, NASB
  • Functional: NIV, TNIV, NLT, NJB
  • Free: LB, The Message, GNB

These categories are taken from Elements of Biblical Exegesis by Michael J. Gorman. I had adoped this book for the class in replacement of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, with which I was not satisfied. As Gorman points out:

Linguists now prefer the terms formal equivalence and functional equivalence to literal and dynamic equivalence for defining the spectrum. Formal-equivalence translations emphasize the similarity in the linguistic forms (such as vocabulary and grammatical structures) between the source language and the target language. Functional-equivalence translations, on the other hand, stress the similarity in linguistic function (meaning) between the two languages.1

Before ending this post, I should point out that Lehman was talking a good deal about TNIV, while I have hardly mentioned it. I have never read TNIV and do not own a copy, so I don’t feel free to comment on it. When I have categorized it in my posts, I have done so based on what others have said about it. That is why I have primarily discussed the location of the NIV instead.


  1. Gorman 43. [back]
Permalink