Complete Equivalence in Translation
So far in our studies of the New King James Version we have seen in the first part of the book the great importance of accuracy in communicating God’s Word to today’s reader of English. This consists of building on the excellent work of our predecessors and bringing their work up to date with new findings and changes in our language.
Next we surveyed the beauty of the Tyndale-King James tradition and how we sought to retain and even enhance that beauty where possible. Much of the Bible’s beauty was seen largely to emerge from the original texts themselves, not from the genius of the translators.
In this third and last section of the book we have talked of the necessity of providing relatively complete data (for a translation) regarding both the Old and New Testament texts.
The area of controversy is the New Testament text, though even that was seen as firmly established except for a small part of the text. As to this small area of disagreement, the decision of the teams that produced the NKJV was to retain the traditional text rather than to delete or change material that lays claim to being part of the inspired Word. However, the rather full notes that present both of two alternative positions—the critical and majority texts—give the interested reader variant readings of significance. Also, rather than labeling any of them as “best” or “most reliable” (which is a question of theoretical interpretation) we classify them as to the school of thought which prefers these readings.
As we sum up the contribution of the New King James Version as a standard Bible, we would like to propose our basic theory of translation. This is most important.
Dr. James Price, an expert in the area of linguistics, in his booklet Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation, writes:
A translation is no better than the theory on which it is based. A sound translation theory produces a sound translation. Yet Bible translators are not agreed on what constitutes “sound translation theory” for Bible translation. The disagreement centers on how much of the original language structure can be represented in the receiving language without decreasing either the accuracy or understandability of the translation.1
The solution to the problem of whether to stress the original language from which one is translating or the “receptor” language into which the original is being rendered, has spawned translations as rigid as an interlinear at one extreme (stressing the original) to a loose paraphrase on the other (stressing the receptor language). There are several shades of translation theory in between.
Since no one has proposed that an interlinear should be used for a standard Bible, we will not include it in our discussion. We will examine the handful of translation theories that are widely recommended today.
Literal Translation
The oldest and most traditional method of translation seeks to follow the structure and wording of the original language wherever the receptor language allows, and to be more free and idiomatic where a literal rendering would be misleading or confusing.
Nearly all of the famous versions of Judeo-Christian history fall into this category: the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Luther’s German Bible, Tyndale and its revisions, down to the KJV and its later revisions.
Some of these revisions (such as the English Revised Version of 1885 and the U.S. counterpart, the American Standard Version of 1901) go too far in their literal renderings. They have been rightly criticized for being too rigid and have even been called “school-boy” translations. They have been a favorite with Greek and Hebrew students for that very reason, often much to the chagrin of their professors!
The King James Version is actually more idiomatic than either of these later revisions, and also is in much better English style.
Those who criticize the literal method tend to agree with Eugene Glassman’s description of it:
Those who follow this [literal] method assume that languages are largely alike, at least enough so that a translator can move directly from one language to another. The approach is generally called formal correspondence, in which the word formal is used in the sense of being concerned with the outward form of something as distinguished from its content. In other words, the emphasis is on the form of the original or source language, with the assumption that the form can largely be carried across into the new or receptor language.2
Especially bad examples are usually chosen to show the failings of the literal method.
The question remains, though: Why did the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and the Authorized Version have such magnificent spiritual and literary harvests if their method of translation was so faulty?
Paraphrase
On a fairly recent national television interview on today’s Bible translations, the proponent of one of the most popular paraphrases said, “There’s no real difference between translation and paraphrase.”
We beg to differ! Granted that there are some translations on the border between translation and paraphrase, the theory, practice, and results are really quite different.
A paraphrase takes great liberties in word order: adding words and phrases, rewriting, and altering the style. Because of this freedom of rendering, the translator has a great deal of opportunity (and temptation) to inject his own interpretations into the text even if he seeks to be objective.
An example of this can be seen in comparing the literal rendering of Acts 13:48 with the Living Bible’s paraphrase:
First of all “the word of the Lord” is a much broader term than “Paul’s message,” because even the great apostle to the Gentiles didn’t have all of God’s truth.
More serious is the rendering of the verb explaining why these people believed. Theologically, both things are true—God’s appointment and man’s desire to be saved. But the question is, “What did Luke write?” By no stretch of the imagination can the passive voice of the Greek verb here3 mean “wanted” or even the first alternative in the Living Bible’s margin, “were disposed to.” The second Living Bible alternative, “ordained to,” is accurate (it’s the KJV rendering), but today it suggests church ordination, so the simpler and quite literal “appointed to” of the NKJV is clearer.
Paraphrases have their place. They are useful for rapid reading of a book to get the sweep of the content. They are not accurate enough for doctrinal studies or standard church uses, such as memorization and public worship.
Expanded Translation
Since many words can have more than one meaning, and Greek words often have subtle shades of meaning that are difficult to transmit in a strictly literal translation, some translators seek to insert extra words, explanatory comments, and paraphrases of verb tenses. Wuest’s Expanded Translation and The Amplified Bible are popular examples of this method.
One of the main problems with this type of version is that it gives the impression to one who doesn’t know Greek or Hebrew that the text is very fluid and uncertain in meaning. While it is true that many words can have a number of meanings when they appear on a list, in context, the precise meaning of a word is generally pinned down rather successfully.
As to the readability and literary value of works produced by this method of translation, Price comments:
The result is complex, wordy, often hard to understand, lacking any literary beauty. Such work is actually a running commentary, the author’s interpretation, not a translation. Expanded translations may be helpful for study purposes, but they confuse those who cannot distinguish what part of the translation comes from the original language, and what part comes from the translator. The multiplicity of meanings may lead to doctrinal error.4
Dynamic Equivalence
Dynamic equivalence is a modern method of translation that basically amounts to scientific paraphrase. While it often totally restructures the text to fit the receptor language (the one into which one is translating), ideally it does so according to scientific principles.
The Ideals of Dynamic Equivalence
The goals of the method are high, namely
to produce in the reader or hearer in the receptor language the same reaction to the message that the original author sought to produce in the immediate readers or listeners. It assumes that the original message was natural and meaningful and that the grammatical structure and words were not discouragingly difficult but that people used them in their everyday lives.5 Those who seek dynamic equivalence in translation attempt to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the message contained in the source language, keeping in mind both the meaning and the style. They recognize, of course, that no translation can succeed one hundred per cent; every translation suffers some loss of information, some addition of information, and possibly also some distortion of information. For all that, however, one can find the closest equivalent possible.6
The method is too complex to review here in detail.7
Suffice it to say that the original text is subjected to analysis, the information is transferred to the receptor language, various adjustments are made, and the whole text is restructured to fit the new language.
If done with extreme care and by translators who know both linguistics and sound theology, the results can be very helpful, especially in languages that are very different from Hebrew and Greek. (English and Greek are both Indo-European languages and have much in common. Hebrew also translates nicely into English without major restructuring.)
The Problems of Dynamic Equivalence
The problem with dynamic equivalence is the area of subjectivity in the transfer of information to the receptor language. Glassman admits this:
Transfer is essentially a subjective process that goes on in the minds of translators as they struggle in their roles as “bridge” between the meanings of the source language and the various options open to them in expressing that meaning in the receptor language.8
As in ordinary paraphrase, there is too much opportunity to introduce interpretive material into the receptor language.
Also, on the other hand, such expressions as “and,” “behold,” “it came to pass,” and so forth tend to be freely eliminated in dynamic-equivalence translations of the Old Testament.
In languages that have no passive voice, for example, an expression such as “they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9) has to be put in the active voice: “[Someone] will call them the children of God.” Whether it is God, other people, or both is not specified by our Lord. English does have the passive voice and therefore a dynamic-equivalence rendering such as the New English Bible’s (NEB) “God shall call them his sons” is unnecessarily interpretive.
Such a literal translation as the New American Standard Bible’s (NASB) “covenant and lovingkindness” (Nehemiah 1:5) or “covenant and mercy” (NKJV) contains two items, following the Hebrew. Sometimes two items, one subordinate to the other, just constitute a literary way of saying one thing.9
Dynamic-equivalence translations such as the Jerusalem Bible (JB) read “covenant of faithful love” or “covenant of love” (NIV).
In the first place the word they translate as “love” is quoted in the New Testament as “mercy” even by the JB and NIV (Matthew 9:13; 12:7, quoting Hosea 6:6). The lexical meaning of the word is not really “love.”
Secondly the two items are different enough to merit separate English terms.
The NEB translates the phrase in a verbal way: “faithfully keepest covenant,” as does Today’s English Version (TEV).
Scientific analysis of language is a fascinating and helpful discipline. When exercised in a modified way to communicate idioms that do not translate literally from one language to another, it can make a fine contribution to a basically literal translation. However, the Bible contains difficult doctrinal discussions, and there is real danger of inserting what the translator believes rather than what the New Testament says.
To demonstrate how seriously dynamic equivalence translation can undermine the Christian faith, one has only to read the TEV New Testament, which gives “death” as an equivalent of “blood” in such atonement passages as Ephesians 1:7. A death could be nonviolent, or at least not entail bloodshed. In light of the requirement for blood atonement in Leviticus, Hebrews, and also New Testament theology, such a reading seems rather undynamic and certainly is not equivalent!
Complete Equivalence
The term “complete equivalence” was coined by the NKJV Old Testament Editor, in discussions with the Old Testament Executive Review Committee.10
We have briefly discussed the literal method and the dynamic-equivalence method of translating. Complete equivalence is basically the literal method updated to include scientific insights from linguistic analysis. To the extent that modern usage allows, a complete-equivalence translation of such a book as the Bible will reflect as much of the original as possible.
Summarizing this method, Price writes:
Modern research in structural linguistics has revealed the importance of syntactic structures. A great deal of the information contained in a phrase, clause, or paragraph is encoded in its syntax. Translations that do not produce structural equivalence as well as semantic equivalence have failed to reproduce important information.11
Creative Connectives
A good illustration of the difference between a strictly literal rendering (here, NASB), a dynamic-equivalence translation (NIV), and a literal rendering tempered by the stylistic demands of the receptor language (NKJV), is their varied treatment of connectives, which is illustrated below.
It is well known to students of the original languages of the Scriptures that the biblical tongues are fond of short conjunctions.
In the Old Testament a very large percentage of sentences begin with the little Hebrew word we (or ve in modern Hebrew pronunciation). This is usually translated and, or sometimes but or now in the KJV. The result is hundreds of verses beginning with and.
In the New Testament there are two little words, kai and de, that connect sentences and clauses. These also are usually translated and in the KJV, though sometimes also, but, or now. The Evangelist Mark is so fond of the word kai that in the KJV you will sometimes notice several verses in a row in his Gospel that begin with and.
The dilemma here is that English style does not favor sentences starting with and, except on a limited scale. Should we make a wholesale deletion of these connectives in favor of English style and thus perhaps violate our strict view of verbal inspiration? Or should we translate nearly all of them as and and violate good English style?
Most modern versions, such as the NIV, choose the first option. Thousands of Hebrew wes, as well as Greek kais and des, are summarily dismissed. On the other hand, should we go the route of the KJV, ASV (1901), and NASB, and have myriads of verses starting with and? Or could there be a better way to translate?
There is a chart in a widely used intermediate Greek grammar12 that highlights the fact that the little connectives kai and de can have many meanings depending on context. Semitic writers—and all the New Testament writers were Jewish with the probable exception of Luke—would often think Hebrew thoughts and put them in Greek words. Could the New Testament writers have felt more subtle nuances from their Hebrew roots when they wrote kai and de? Even first-year Greek students sometimes sense that one of these little words demands the translation but in certain contexts.
One of the tasks of our English Editor, Dr. William McDowell,13 was to vary the English connectives in both the Old Testament and New Testament for literary variety, but according to context. The lexicons allow many meanings. The contexts suggest several subtle nuances of thought. Why not retain as many of these connectives as English style will permit? Of course, even the 1611 KJV omits some of these little connectives, but a wholesale deletion seemed too radical to our scholars.
Working both with the Greek and Hebrew words and the demands of the context, McDowell carefully chose the so, the now, the then—as well as the and and the but—to begin the many sentences in both Testaments that use connectives.
The result is smoother translations, especially in the New Testament, where the Greek text often builds its argument partly by means of various logical connectives. This variety of translation is both refreshing and helpful in keeping the action moving along. Notice for example Mark 1:29–34 in the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV. A dash means that a connective is left untranslated.
The NASB is to be commended for retaining all the connectives, but five out of six verses starting with And is poor English style. (Verses 35–44 all start with And as well!).
At the other extreme is the NIV, which (characteristically) deletes almost all the connectives. They are also deleted in verses 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.
The NKJV deletes the connective in verse 32 to suggest the break in time, and translates the rest according to context. Not only is the text more complete, but it flows better, since, we believe, those little words were put in for a purpose—to connect sentences in a logical chain of thought.
Conclusion
For a standard Bible, then, we believe that a basically literal translation method, assisted by the findings of modern linguistics, will yield the optimum version.
Therefore, we respectfully request you, the reader, to examine the NKJV in the light of the guidelines and criteria we have presented. Then make your own informed decision as to whether the New King James Version is for you. We hope it is.
Notes
1. James D. Price, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), p. 5.
2. Eugene H. Glassman, The Translation Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 48.
3. The Greek words are ēsan tetagmenoi, a periphrastic perfect passive of the verb tassō, “appoint,” “set in order,” “arrange,” “constitute.”
4. Price, Complete Equivalence, p. 17.
5. Glassman, Debate, p. 52.
6. Ibid., pp. 56–57.
7. A concise and fair treatment of this method is included in Price’s booklet, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation.
8. Glassman, Debate, p. 61.
9. This is called “hendiadys,” from the Greek for “one by means of two.”
10. Dr. Price now prefers the term “Optimum Equivalence” because of the possible misreading of “complete” to mean “absolute.” But see the explanations of “complete” at the beginning of this section of our book.
11. James D. Price, unpublished monograph on Bible translating.
12. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 257.
13. See Appendix A for his credentials.