Translation Philosophy of the Holman CSB®

Many discussions of Bible translations speak as if there are two opposite approaches: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. While the terms themselves are helpful, Bible translations can’t be sorted neatly into these two categories any more than people can be sorted into two categories like “short” and “tall.” In developing the Holman CSB, Holman Bible Publishers has advocated a third category of translation philosophy that capitalizes on the strengths of the other two. To better appreciate the Holman approach, it helps to understand exactly what each method offers.

Formal Equivalence

Often called “word-for-word” (or “literal”) translation, the principle of formal equivalence seeks as nearly as possible to preserve the structure of the original language. It tries to represent each word of the biblical text with an exact translation counterpart so the reader can see word for word what the original author wrote.

The merits of this approach include its respect for a conviction that the Holy Spirit inspired each and every word of Scripture in the original manuscripts. It also provides the English Bible student some access to the structure of the text in the original languages.

Formal equivalence can achieve accuracy to the degree that English has an exact equivalent for each word and that the grammatical patterns of the original language can be reproduced in understandable English. However, it sometimes results in awkward—if not incomprehensible—English or in a misrepresentation of the author’s intent. The literal rendering of ancient idioms (figures of speech) is especially difficult to comprehend.

Dynamic or Functional Equivalence

Often called “thought-for-thought” translation, dynamic equivalence rejects a preference for preserving the structure of the original language. It distinguishes the meaning of a text from the its original form, and renders the text so that it makes “the same impact” on modern readers that the ancient source made on its original readers.

Strengths of this approach include a high degree of readability, especially in places where the original is difficult to render word for word. It also acknowledges that accurate and effective translation requires a certain degree of interpretation.

On the downside, the meaning of a text can’t always be neatly separated from its form, nor can it always be precisely determined. A biblical author may have intended multiple meanings, but in striving for readability, dynamic equivalence sometimes eliminates some of the less prominent possible meanings. In addition, lack of literal correspondence to the original makes it difficult to verify accuracy and can affect the viability of the translation for in-depth Bible study.

Optimal Equivalence

Optimal equivalence recognizes that form can’t always be separated from meaning and should not be changed (for example, nouns to verbs or third person “they” to second person “you”) unless comprehension demands it. The primary goal of translation is to convey the sense of the original with as much clarity as the original text and the translation language permit. While optimal equivalence share the formal equivalence goal with respect to the verbal inspiration of Scripture, it also recognizes the limitations of word-for-word equivalency.

The optimal approach starts with an exhaustive analysis of the text at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse) in the original language to determine its original meaning and purpose. Then, relying on the latest and best language tools and experts, the nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to faithfully convey the information and intent of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures maximum transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the original.

In creating the Holman CSB, if a more literal, word-for-word translation best communicated the text, it was used. When clarity demanded a more “dynamic” translation, that became the rendering of choice. And to make sure there’s no doubt about what the original words said, generous footnotes offer the reader additional explanation of the original text.

<< back to Accuracy and Readability