Bible Translation Spectrum

[[Jan Krohn: Source&Affiliation >> https://community.logos.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/147/1348.Unbenannt.PNG]]

}}}

Bible Translating has a spectrum of target equivalence approaches ranging from formal to functional with dynamic in between. *Formal* seeks literal rendering of original language into target language, which wants to preserve original word order as much as practical. Also literal goal is one translated word for one original word. In contrast, *functional* equivalence focuses on phrasing meaning using contemporary colloquialism. In a sense, functional equivalence is an application commentary of the original text. In the middle of the spectrum is *dynamic* thought for thought, which seeks a mediating balance from stilted literal expression and current colloquialism.

Bible Translating has a spectrum of target equivalence approaches ranging from formal to functional with dynamic in between. *Formal* seeks literal rendering of original language into target language, which wants to preserve original word order as much as practical. Also literal goal is one translated word for one original word.Thistranslationphilosophyassumesthatthereaderisfamiliarwiththecultureoftheoriginaltext. In contrast, *functional* equivalence focuses on phrasing meaning using contemporary colloquialism.Heretheassumptionisthatthereaderisnotfamiliarwiththeoriginalculturebutmusthavetheculturalmeaningtranslated. In a sense, functional equivalence is an application commentary of the original text. In the middle of the spectrum is *dynamic* thought for thought, which seeks a mediating balance from stilted literal expression and current colloquialism.

 

Comparing Bibles from across spectrum of equivalent approaches can be insightful. Essentially all Bible translations are a commentary on the original text (within bounds of translator's believability) so look for commonality (agreement) between apparently different renditions.