Formal equivalence is a translation philosophy that prioritizes accuracy and faithfulness to the original language and text structure of the Bible over readability and naturalness in the target language. The goal of formal equivalence is to preserve as much of the original form, meaning, and content as possible while still producing an understandable translation.
Some key characteristics of formal equivalent Bible translations include:
- Word-for-word: Translating the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words and phrases as literally as possible into the receptor language.
- Preserving original word order and grammar: Following the word order and grammatical structures of the original languages as closely as the receptor language allows.
- Consistency in translating recurring words/phrases: Using the same English word or phrase to translate recurring words or phrases in the original text.
- Preferring concordance alignment over readability: Choosing translation options that match up with existing concordances and key word studies, even if it diminishes readability somewhat.
- Original figure of speech preservation: Keeping figures of speech like metaphors and idioms intact rather than converting them to understandable equivalents.
Translators who use the formal equivalence philosophy believe it is vital to preserve as much of the form and literal content of the original text as possible for the most accurate transfer of meaning. Readers can then do further study through word studies, grammars, and other resources to fully understand the text in its original linguistic and historical context.
While formal equivalent translations may be less natural and harder to read, advocates argue this approach is better for in-depth Bible study. The literal rendering allows readers to see more directly how the original text is constructed and interact with the form and content. Formal equivalence also allows for closer alignment with study tools tied to the original language texts.
Some examples of English Bible translations that aim for formal equivalence include:
- King James Version (KJV)
- New King James Version (NKJV)
- English Standard Version (ESV)
- Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
- Modern English Version (MEV)
The KJV and NKJV attempt to closely follow the original 1611 KJV translation in adhering as literally as possible to the Hebrew and Greek. The ESV and HCSB use updated language while maintaining many formal equivalence priorities. The MEV is a recent translation that also stays close to the formal equivalence philosophy.
Key Components of Formal Equivalence
Let’s look more closely at some of the key components of formal equivalence and how they are applied in Bible translation:
Word-for-Word Translation
Formal equivalence translations adhere as literally as possible to the original word forms and phrases in the source text. Translators reproduce Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words and phrases with corresponding English ones on a very direct word-for-word basis.
When the original language word order and sentence structure can be reproduced smoothly in understandable English, formal equivalence translations will maintain the original form. For example:
John 11:35 (ESV): “Jesus wept.”
The underlying Greek in this verse is only two words: “Iēsous eklausen.” The ESV translated this very literally to show the terse, compact nature of the original text. Formal equivalence translators avoid paraphrasing or using many English words where fewer literal ones will suffice.
Original Grammar and Word Order
Along with translating words literally, formal equivalence translations retain the original grammatical forms of verbs, nouns, adjectives, and word order from the source text where possible. For example, they will keep Greek verb tenses and Hebrew active/passive forms. Consider Ephesians 2:8 from the ESV:
Ephesians 2:8 (ESV): “For by grace you have been saved through faith.”
The underlying Greek uses a perfect passive verb form: “For by grace you have been saved.” The ESV keeps this precise verbal construction to convey the sense of completed past action with ongoing results in the present.
Formal equivalence translations will also retain unique Hebrew sentence structures like predicate adjectives/nouns:
Psalm 1:1 (ESV): “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked.”
“Blessed is the man” reflects the Hebrew predicate noun/adjective form that the ESV preserves. Keeping the original grammar and word order reveals the compositional style and syntax of the original text.
Consistency in Recurring Words and Phrases
Since formal equivalence prioritizes accuracy, translators aim to translate recurring words and phrases in the original text with the same corresponding English word or phrase. This allows for word study by tracking how a given Greek or Hebrew word is used throughout Scripture. For example, the ESV consistently translates the Greek “sarx” as “flesh”:
Romans 8:8 (ESV): “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
Galatians 5:19 (ESV): “Now the works of the flesh are evident.”
The word “flesh” links these verses for teaching on the sinful fallen human nature apart from God. Keeping recurring words consistent allows readers to make these connections for detailed study.
Concordance Alignment Over Readability
Since formal equivalence aims for accuracy over readability, translators often choose translation options that match with existing concordances and key word studies even if it lessens naturalness. This allows for consistency with existing reference tools tied to original language word forms.
For example, the Greek adjective “agathos” fundamentally means “good.” But the KJV and NKJV translators often rendered it as “good” or “well” to match the text with Strong’s Concordance listings:
Luke 6:45 (NKJV): “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good.”
Mark 7:37 (NKJV): “He has done all things well.”
This shows how formal equivalent translators favor concordance alignment over readability when faced with translation options.
Preserving Original Figures of Speech
Since formal equivalence aims to preserve the form of the original text, translators strive to keep intact any figures of speech used like metaphors, similes, and idioms. They avoid converting these literary devices into straightforward explanations that would distort their rhetorical form. For example:
Psalm 42:1 (ESV): “As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God.”
The ESV keeps the original poetic simile comparing the thirsting soul to a panting deer, rather than explaining the meaning of this metaphor. This allows readers to interact with the image directly as it was penned originally.
In another example, the Hebrew idiom “cut off from the tents of Jacob” is preserved rather than explained:
Malachi 2:12 (ESV): “…may the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob any descendant of his who brings an offering to the LORD of hosts.”
Keeping figures of speech intact allows readers to engage the text in its original form and perform analysis on how these literary techniques are used.
Reasons for Using the Formal Equivalence Approach
Those who produce and promote formal equivalent Bible translations put forth several key arguments for why this philosophy is important:
Preserves Original Text Composition
Formal equivalence translations retain the linguistic form and structure of the source text as composed originally. This allows readers to see and interact with the text in almost the same form as the original audience. The compositional word choice, grammar, figures of speech and textual layout are preserved and transparently conveyed from the original languages.
Allows Deeper Study of Text Details
By keeping original words, phrases and grammar intact, formal equivalence allows for deeper study of these finer details that would be lost in freer translations. Students of the Bible can dig into word studies, grammatical analysis, literary devices and more by accessing the Bible text through formal equivalence translations.
Stays Faithful to Original Text
Formal equivalence translators argue their philosophy stays most faithful to representing the original text accurately in the receptor language. Rather than suppliers of meaning, they see themselves as conveyors of the words and form of the text. This protects the integrity of the original text rather than inappropriately filtering it through contemporary understandings.
Uniqueness of Divine Inspiration
Most formal equivalence proponents also see the Bible texts as uniquely inspired by God. Thus they believe modern translators should stay subservient to the original words as the definitive conveyors of meaning rather than imposing their own interpretations. The formal equivalence approach allows the text as inspired to speak with minimal translator interference.
Matches Reference Tools
Formal equivalence translations allow for direct correlation with existing reference tools and resources like Strong’s Concordance, theological dictionaries, lexicons and original language grammars. Using a translation philosophy that matches with these tools allows for deeper study from English without needing original language proficiency.
Criticisms and Challenges of Formal Equivalence
Formal equivalence translation does receive criticisms and challenges from some biblical scholars and linguistics experts. These include:
Readability Problems
Strict formal equivalence can result in awkward, confusing and inaccurate English at times. Rigidly following source text grammar and words results in a lack of clarity, naturalness and readability at points where some paraphrasing or explanation may be warranted. This limits comprehension and smooth reading by those without advanced biblical language skills.
Word-for-Word Falls Short
Critics argue that translating strictly word-for-word fails to fully capture meaning embodied in phrases, figures of speech and full texts. Form cannot be neatly transferred word-for-word across languages. Meaning involves many complex factors beyond formal word equivalents.
Original Culture Gap
Since formal equivalence assumes close transfer of meaning from original text to translated one, it does not adequately account for gaps in historical and cultural understanding between source and receptor audiences. Many details passed smoothly to the original audience do not transfer over into contemporary contexts.
Oversimplified View of Translation
Linguistic experts argue that formal equivalence has an oversimplified, almost mechanical view of translation. Matching up corresponding words and phrases cannot fully bridge between languages with very different structures and backgrounds. Translation involves much more nuance and complexity than formal equivalence allows.
Theological Biases Imposed
While formal equivalence translators aim to avoid theological bias, critics contend that their strict translation rules often impose a theological bias of its own. For example, always translating “sarx” as “flesh” imports a negative physical understanding of sinful human nature that may exceed authorial intent.
So while formal equivalence has its staunch defenders, it also faces questions and opposition from others in biblical scholarship who see its rigid translation standards as problematic in various ways. They argue for more dynamic or optimal equivalence approaches.
The Role of Formal Equivalence in Bible Translation
The merits and difficulties of formal equivalence translation continue to be debated. In practice, few if any major modern English Bible translations adhere to formal equivalence in an absolute sense. Even formal equivalent versions will deviate to more dynamic equivalence at points where readability and comprehension would be too significantly impaired otherwise.
However, formal equivalence principles do exert significant influence on many major translations to this day. For example, consider the following passage from Romans 6:15-18 in the ESV, which shows a mix of formal equivalence priorities along with some dynamic adjustments for readability:
Romans 6:15-18 (ESV): What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
This shows very literal rendering overall – “slaves of sin” is repeated rather than paraphrased, the Greek perfect tense is kept in “have become obedient”, and other unique grammar like the predicate nominative “slaves” is retained.
At the same time, concessions are made to natural English order and comprehension with adjustments like “By no means!” and the explanatory “which leads to death.” So while not rigidly formal, the ESV exhibits a formal equivalence influence in its translation priorities and standards.
This example reflects a common approach of aiming for as much formal equivalence as possible while allowing dynamic adjustments where meaning and comprehension would be unclear otherwise. The resulting translations adhere more to the formal end of the translation spectrum.
Formal equivalence principles remind translators of the importance of accuracy to the source text grammar, words, figures of speech and theological backdrop. But meaning is dynamic, requiring sensitivity to receptor language and culture as well. So most translations use a blend of formal and dynamic approaches, capturing the best of both philosophies.
