Africa Study Bible Sampler - Flipbook - Page 34
INTRODUCTION TO THE
N E W L I V I N G T R A N S L AT I O N
Translation Philosophy and Methodology
English Bible translations tend to be governed by
one of two general translation theories. The first
theory has been called “formal-equivalence,”
“literal,” or “word-for-word” translation. Accord-
ing to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into English and seeks to preserve the original syntax
and sentence structure as much as possible in
translation. (The King James Version, New American Standard Bible, and English Standard Version fall generally into this category.) The second
theory has been called “dynamic-equivalence,”
“functional-equivalence,” or “thought-for
-thought” translation. The goal of this translation theory is to produce in English the
closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text, both
in meaning and in style. (The New Living
Translation and New International Version
lean more towards this category.)
Both of these translation theories have their
strengths. A formal-equivalence translation
preserves aspects of the original text—including ancient idioms, term consistency, and
original-language syntax—that are valuable
for scholars and professional study. It allows a reader to trace formal elements of the
original-language text through the English
translation. A dynamic-equivalence translation, on the other hand, focuses on translating the message of the original-language
text. It ensures that the meaning of the text is
readily apparent to the contemporary reader.
This allows the message to come through with
immediacy, without requiring the reader to
struggle with foreign idioms and awkward
syntax. It also facilitates serious study of the
text’s message and clarity in both devotional
and public reading.
The pure application of either of these translation philosophies would create translations at
opposite ends of the translation spectrum. But
in reality, all translations contain a mixture of
these two philosophies. A purely formal-equivalence translation would be unintelligible in
English, and a purely dynamic-equivalence
translation would risk being unfaithful to the
original. That is why translations shaped by
33
dynamic-equivalence theory are usually quite
literal when the original text is relatively clear,
and the translations shaped by formal-equivalence theory are sometimes quite dynamic
when the original text is obscure.
The translators of the New Living Translation
set out to render the message of the original
texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of
both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when
that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and
natural English text. Many words and phrases
were rendered literally and consistently into
English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word
choices that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to
the next.
On the other hand, the translators rendered
the message more dynamically when the literal
rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording.
They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to
aid in the reader’s understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the
words and phrases in the ancient context; then
they rendered the message into clear, natural
English. Their goal was to be both faithful to
the ancient texts and eminently readable. The
result is a translation that is both exegetically
accurate and idiomatically powerful.
Translation Process and Team
To produce an accurate translation of the Bible
into contemporary English, the translation team
needed the skills necessary to enter into the
thought patterns of the ancient authors and
then to render their ideas, connotations, and
effects into clear, contemporary English. To
begin this process, qualified biblical scholars were needed to interpret the meaning of
the original text and to check it against our
base English translation. In order to guard
against personal and theological biases, the
scholars needed to represent a diverse group
of evangelicals who would employ the best
exegetical tools. Then to work alongside