# Accuracy of Translation (Formal Equivalence v Dynamic Equivalence)



## Eoghan (Oct 30, 2011)

“Accuracy of Translation” by Robert Martin, published by Banner of Truth, 1997, ISBN 0-85151-735-8

This is a small book with a good index and index of scriptures. This latter is a very useful addition to any book and when extensive is reassuring as here.

The question addressed is that of the criteria used for translating the scriptures from the original language. This comes down to a choice of two philosophies: dynamic equivalence or formal equivalence. I was surprised to find the extent to which these philosophies have consequences. Obviously such a discussion cannot take place in the abstract so Robert Martin has focused on the NIV translation (that I was using when I was converted). 

One of the problem areas that I had not anticipated is that of sentence structure. There is a tendency today to write in short sentences. If you read older literature however the sentences can be lengthy. This is deliberate and sets forth a premise then develops this with subordinate points. Given that it is one sentence it is fairly easy to see what is subordinate. The modern tendency is to break this down into smaller sentences making it more difficult to trace the argument from it’s origin. Confused? I was until the examples were given i.e. Ephesians 1:3-14. This is a single sentence in the Greek. 
ASV 1 sentence
KJV 3 sentences
NKJV	3 sentences
NASB 4 sentences
RSV 6 sentences
NIV	8 sentences
GNB 15 sentences

The other issue I was aware of was the addition of words. In my NASB the added words are in italics. This made me sit up when a preacher based a doctrinal point in his sermon on such an added word. What I was not aware of was that my NASB has not used italics in every case. What I was not aware of was the extent to which the choice of words can lend themselves to a particular theological interpretation, or heresy!

It also made me question my understanding of the doctrine of inspiration. The verbal and plenary inspiration of scripture is pretty abstract, until you discuss the translation of scripture from the original languages. This is not well understood today and young church members are far more likely to encounter a doctrinal statement of faith when joining a Christian Union and not when joining a church!

I enjoyed the book, which confirmed me in my preference for formal equivalence. What frustrated me was that having come down firmly on the side of formal equivalence, it failed in the next logical step, to recommend a sound formal equivalence translation.


----------



## rbcbob (Oct 30, 2011)

I read Martin's book when it first came out. Good intro to the subject. The ASV and the NKJB are fair, though imperfect formal equivalence translations. But, after all, translating from one language into another requires some decisions to be made even after you have settled the translating philosophy issue.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 30, 2011)

The number of words is not necessarily related to literal or dynamic translations:

The word count of the Hebrew and Greek text in the standard critical editions is 545,202. A few stats:

• Original KJV 774,746

• Current KJV 790,676 (Blayney 1769 version: 788,280)

• ESV 765,432

• NLT 747,891

• NIV 726,109

• HCSB 718,943

• NKJV 770,430

• NRSV 895,891

• NASB 782,815

• TNIV 723,393

AMR


----------

