He is Sufficient

There’s been an interesting tangental discussion in TC’s recent post on “Whatever Happened to the HCSB?” regarding categorizing a translation like the ESV. We all know that the ESV’s publisher has utilized the term “essentially literal” to describe their approach, which is a pithy restatement of the classic RSV motto: “as literal as possible, as free as necessary.”

I want to throw out the thought that what we mean by “literal” or “formal” translation is actually “traditional” translation in the line of the Tyndale/KJV legacy. Consider the following chart from Zondervan:

Has there been any translation effort in the past 100 years that claimed to be “word for word” or “formal” and was not based on the KJV line? Keep in mind that this line includes the following major translations: KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NRSV and ESV. Beyond these translations, the Amplified (AMP) was largely based on the ASV and the NKJV was obviously based on the KJV.

Only the HCSB stands out from the left side of this spectrum as from a wholy new translation tradition, using what Homan calls “optimal equivalence”, a mix of formal and functional translation techniques. The HCSB aside, it is undeniable that virtually every *new* translation project of the past 100+ years has been functional in nature.

I would argue that the goals of the Revised Version (1881-1895) have persisted through all these “formal” translations:

• adapt [the KJV] to the present state of the English language without changing the idiom and vocabulary
• adapt [the KJV] to the present standard of Biblical scholarship

In essence, the idiom and vocabulary of the KJV have defined the starting point for formal translation, regardless of whether they hew to a slightly more literal or a “freer” approach.

Perhaps we should speak in terms of “traditional vs. contemporary” translations instead “formal vs. functional”, even though they essentially mean the same thing.

* * * * *

Update - Here’s another chart from IBS, though perhaps an older one given the absence of the ESV and HCSB:

I prefer this layout to the Zondervan chart above, not only for its inclusion of the REB, but by acknowledging that almost all translations engage in dynamic equivalency to some level, with word-for-word and paraphrase being extreme examples.

HT: Cross Cultural Impact via Better Bibles.

John Hobbins at Ancient Hebrew Poetry has posted a new series of posts comparing the opening verses of Psalm 1 from contemporary formal (ESV) and functional (NLT) translation approaches, as well as his own rendering, which he labels as a Stylistic Equivalent (SE) translation:

• Psalm 1: A Translator’s Nightmare
• The Pros and Cons of ESV Psalm 1:1-2
• The Pros and Cons of JHV Psalm 1:1-2

For summary sake, the following table presents the basic texts that John is working with:

Stylistic Equivalency seems to be the latest iteration of a concept that’s been bandied about numerous times in blogdom - flavors of which were previously discussed here and elsewhere as “literary equivalency“, though ultimately I seem to recall that the LE term ended up being clarified as Dynamic Equivalancy executed at literary levels that hewed to those of the original texts, rather than the flat simplified texts that are currently representative of this approach.

John hedges his translation and commentary with the admission that “the ideal reader of an SE [translation is] someone who is thoroughly conversant with the parent text”, meaning the original Hebrew. The critical difference between LE and SE, as far as I understand it, is that the former would/could/should be fully presented in idiomatic English without recourse to understanding the Greek and Hebrew, while SE is essentially English for the person who knows the underlying Hebrew and Greek.

To that end, I wonder if SE is an idealized presentation of formal translation, just as LE was an idealized form of functional/dynamic translation, especially since the goal of formal translations like the NASB and ESV is to get the reader closer to the original languages.

It would be interesting to get more of John’s thoughts on how he views the differences and similarities of SE vs. formal translation.