The Balanced Translation Philosophy

When translators set out to translate the Bible, one of the first issues they must face is: What type of translation do we want to produce, and what translation philosophy, theory, method, or approach must we follow in order to achieve the desired results? This, in turn, raises another question: What types of Bible translations are there? Bible translators and linguists speak primarily of two major types of translations.

Literal Equivalence Translation

The first is referred to variously as either formal or complete or literal or gloss equivalence. Here the translator pursues a word-for word rendering as much as possible. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the New King James Version (NKJV) are good examples of this approach.

Fortunately, it is frequently possible to translate literally and still retain contemporary English idiom and excellent literary style. For example, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” is a straightforward translation of the Greek text of John 1:1, and it is also good English. So why change it? In fact, why not follow this more literal approach everywhere and all the time, with an absolute minimum of interpretation? Unfortunately, it is often not possible to translate literally and retain natural, idiomatic, clear English.

A translation can be so woodenly literal that the result is a cumbersome, awkward, poorly constructed English sentence. The TNIV, on the other hand, has a natural and smooth style without sacrificing accuracy.

Dynamic Equivalence Translation

The second major type of translation is referred to variously as either dynamic or functional or idiomatic equivalence. Here the translator attempts a thought-forthought rendering. The Good News Bible (GNB; also known as Today's English Version, TEV), the New Living Translation (NLT), God's Word, the New Century Version (NCV), and the Contemporary English Version (CEV) are some of the examples of this approach to the translation task. Such versions seek to find the best modern cultural equivalent that will have the same effect the original message had in its ancient cultures. Obviously this approach is a much freer one.

At this point, the reader may be surprised that the TNIV has not been included as an illustration of either of these two major types of translations. The reason is that, in my opinion, it fits neither. After considerable personal study, and analysis, I have become totally convinced that in order to do complete justice to translations like the TNIV, the NIV and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), scholars simply must recognize the validity of a third major category of translation: the balanced or mediating type.

Balanced or Mediating Translation

The TNIV Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) attempted to make the TNIV a balanced, mediating version—one that would fall about halfway between the most literal and the most free. But is that, in fact, where the TNIV fits?

There are many neutral parties who think it is.

Strictly speaking, then, the TNIV is not a dynamice quivalence translation. If it were, it would read “Greet each other in Christian love” (NLT) instead of  “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (Romans 16:16). Similar illustrations could be given to demonstrate that the TNIV is an idiomatically balanced translation.

How was such a balance achieved? By having a built-in system of checks and balances. We called it the A-B-C-D’s of the TNIV, using those letters as an alphabetic acrostic to represent accuracy, beauty, clarity, and dignity. We wanted to be accurate, that is, as faithful to the original text as possible (see our comments on the rendering of John 1:1 at the beginning of this article). But it is also important to be equally faithful to the target or receptor language—English in this case. So we did not want to make the mistake—in the name of accuracy—of creating “translation English” that would not be beautiful and natural. Accuracy, then, must be balanced by beauty of language. CBT attempted to make the TNIV read and flow the way any great English literature should. To illustrate, many have praised the TNIV rendering of 1 Corinthians 13:4-7:“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

At the same time we did not want to make the mistake—in the name of beauty—of creating lofty, flowery English that would not be clear. So beauty must be balanced by clarity. If a translation is to be both accurate and clear (idiomatic), it cannot be a mechanical exercise; instead, it must be a highly nuanced process. One of my favorite illustrations of lack of clarity is the KJV rendering of 1 Corinthians 10:24: “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.” In the interests of clarity the TNIV reads: “No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.”

The importance of clarity in Bible translations is obvious. On the other hand, the CBT did not want to make the mistake—in the name of clarity—of stooping to slang, vulgarisms, street vernacular, and unnecessarily undignified language. Clarity, then, must be balanced by dignity, particularly since one of our objectives was to produce a general, all-church-use Bible. Some of the dynamic-equivalence versions are at times unnecessarily undignified.

Additional examples could be given. But the point is that when we produced the TNIV, we wanted accuracy, but not at the expense of beauty; we wanted beauty, but not at the expense of clarity; and we wanted clarity, but not at the expense of dignity. We wanted all these in balance.

To sum up, there is a need for a new category in classifying translations—a classification called mediating position. The chart on the next page visually demonstrates what I have in mind. It contains only what I regard as major, standard, committee-produced translations.

A Good Bible Translation

What, then, makes a good Bible translation? In my opinion, a good translation will follow a balanced or mediating translation philosophy. As Donald W. Burdick, Associate Editor of the NIV Study Bible and one of the translators of the NIV, put it:

“In conclusion, we have been saying that a good translation is neither too much nor too little. It is neither too slavish a reproduction of the Greek [and Hebrew], nor is it too free in its handling of the original. It is neither too modern and casual, nor is it too stilted and formal. It is not too much like the KJV, nor does it depart too far from the time-honored beauty and dignity of that seventeenth century classic. In short, the best translation is one that has avoided the extremes and has achieved instead the balance that will appeal to the most people for the longest period of time.”

Bruce M. Metzger, Collard Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Chairperson of the NRSV Bible Committee, provides an appropriate conclusion to this article:

“Translating the Bible is a never-ending task. As long as English remains a living language it will continue to change, and therefore new renderings of the Scriptures will be needed. Furthermore, as other, and perhaps still more ancient manuscripts come to light, scholars will need to evaluate the history of the scribal transmission of the original texts. And, let it be said finally, alongside such developments in translating the Bible there always remains the duty of all believers to translate the teaching of Holy Writ into their personal lives.”

Dr. Barker serves on the Committee on Bible Translation and was one of the original translators of the NIV.