Translation
Philosophy of the Holman CSB®
Most discussions of Bible translations speak of two
opposite approaches: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.
Although this terminology is meaningful, Bible translations
cannot be neatly sorted into these two categories any
more than people can be sorted into two categories according
to height or weight. Holman Bible Publishers is convinced
there is room for another category of translation philosophies
that capitalizes on the strengths of the other two.
1. FORMAL EQUIVALENCE:
Often called “word-for-word” (or “literal”) translation,
the principle of formal equivalence seeks as nearly as possible to preserve
the structure of the original language. It seeks to represent each word of
the translated text with an exact equivalent word in the translation so that
the reader can see word for word what the original human author wrote. The
merits of this approach include its consistency with the conviction that the
Holy Spirit did inspire the very words of Scripture in the original manuscripts.
It also provides the English Bible student some access to the structure of
the text in the original language. Formal equivalence can achieve accuracy
to the degree that English has an exact equivalent for each word and that the
grammatical patterns of the original language
can be reproduced in understandable English. However, it can sometimes result
in awkward, if not incomprehensible, English or in a misunderstanding of the
author’s intent. The literal rendering of ancient idioms is especially
difficult.
2. DYNAMIC OR FUNCTIONALEQUIVALENCE:
Often called “thought-for-thought” translation, the principle of
dynamic equivalence rejects as misguided the desire to preserve the structure
of the original language. It proceeds by distinguishing the meaning of a text
from its form and then translating the meaning so that it makes the same impact
on modern readers that the ancient text made on its original readers. Strengths
of this approach include a high degree of clarity and readability, especially
in places where the original is difficult to render word for word. It also
acknowledges that accurate and effective translation requires interpretation.
However, the meaning of a text cannot always be neatly separated from its form,
nor can it always be precisely determined. A biblical author may have intended
multiple meanings. In striving for readability, dynamic equivalence also sometimes
overlooks some of the less prominent elements of meaning. Furthermore, lack
of formal correspondence to the original makes it difficult to verify accuracy
and thus can
affect the usefulness of the translation for indepth Bible study.
3. OPTIMAL EQUIVALENCE:
In practice, translations are seldom if ever purely formal or dynamic but favor
one theory of Bible translation or the other to varying degrees. Optimal
equivalence as a translation philosophy recognizes that form cannot be neatly
separated from meaning and should not be changed (for example, nouns to verbs
or third person “they” to second person “you”) unless
comprehension demands it. The primary goal of translation is to convey the
sense of the original with as much clarity as the original text and the translation
language permit. Optimal equivalence appreciates the goals of formal equivalence
but also recognizes its limitations. Optimal equivalence starts with an exhaustive
analysis of the text at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse)
in the original language to determine its original meaning and intention
(or purpose). Then relying on the latest and best language tools and experts,
the nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to
convey as much of the information and intention of the original text with
as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures maximum
transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the original.
The Holman CSB uses optimal equivalence as its translation
philosophy. When a literal translation meets these criteria,
it is used. When clarity and readability demand an idiomatic
translation, the reader can still access the form of
the original text by means of a footnote with the abbreviated “Lit.” << back |
