The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation: A Comparative Analysis of Translation Philosophies

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction

The task of translating ancient biblical texts into contemporary languages presents translators with profound challenges that extend beyond mere linguistic conversion. At stake are questions of theological accuracy, cultural transmission, and the preservation of authorial intent across millennia. The choice of translation philosophy fundamentally shapes how readers encounter these foundational texts, influencing everything from doctrinal understanding to devotional practice. This essay examines three primary approaches to biblical translation—formal equivalence, functional equivalence, and optimal equivalence—and argues that an essentially literal approach, properly understood, provides the most faithful and reliable method for rendering biblical texts into modern languages.

The significance of this debate cannot be overstated. Bible translations serve as the primary interface between ancient revelation and contemporary faith communities. The translator's philosophical commitments directly impact how millions of readers understand divine communication, making the choice of translation methodology a matter of both scholarly and spiritual consequence. While each approach offers distinct advantages, the evidence suggests that formal equivalence, when executed with linguistic sophistication and cultural sensitivity, best preserves the integrity of the original texts and offers readers the most authentic encounter with biblical literature.

Formal Equivalence: The Foundation of Literal Translation

Formal equivalence, often termed "essentially literal" translation, operates on the principle that fidelity to the source text requires maximum preservation of its linguistic structures, vocabulary choices, and syntactic patterns. This approach assumes that the form of the original text is inextricably linked to its meaning, and that significant alterations to structure or vocabulary inevitably compromise the translator's ability to convey the author's intended message. Prominent examples of formally equivalent translations include the King James Version (KJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New King James Version (NKJV).

Strengths of Formal Equivalence

The primary strength of formal equivalence lies in its commitment to textual precision. By maintaining close adherence to the grammatical structures and lexical choices of the original languages, formally equivalent translations provide readers with the most direct access to the thought patterns and expressions of biblical authors. This precision proves particularly valuable in passages where theological concepts are tightly bound to specific terminology or where the author's argument depends upon particular grammatical constructions.

Formal equivalence also demonstrates superior performance in maintaining consistency across related passages. When the Hebrew or Greek text employs the same word or phrase in multiple contexts, a formally equivalent translation will typically preserve this consistency, allowing readers to trace theological themes and concepts throughout the biblical corpus. This consistency enables more sophisticated intertextual analysis and helps preserve the Bible's internal theological coherence.

Furthermore, formal equivalence provides the foundation for serious biblical study. Students and scholars require access to the precise language choices of biblical authors to engage in meaningful exegesis. While formal equivalence does not eliminate the need for original language study, it offers the closest approximation to the source texts available to readers without specialized linguistic training.

This approach also demonstrates greater humility toward the text itself. Rather than presuming to modernize or improve the expression of biblical authors, formal equivalence allows the ancient texts to speak in their own voice, trusting readers to grapple with difficult or unfamiliar concepts rather than pre-interpreting them through contemporary cultural filters. This principle can be observed in how formally equivalent translations handle Romans 3:25, where the ESV preserves Paul's precise theological terminology: "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." While "propitiation" requires explanation, it preserves Paul's specific choice of the Greek term hilasterion, which carries significant theological weight.

Weaknesses of Formal Equivalence

Critics of formal equivalence identify several legitimate challenges. The most frequently cited concern involves readability. Ancient Hebrew and Greek often employ syntactic structures that, when rendered literally into English, may result in awkward or unclear sentences. The outcome can be translations that, while technically accurate, are less accessible to modern readers.

Formal equivalence also struggles with idiomatic expressions and culturally specific references. Ancient metaphors and figures of speech may lose their communicative force when translated literally. For example, a literal rendering of "gird up your loins" accurately preserves Hebrew imagery but may fail to convey the intended sense of readiness to readers unfamiliar with ancient clothing practices. Similarly, in Matthew 23:24, "You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" (ESV) preserves Jesus' hyperbolic contrast, though readers may require cultural background to grasp the reference.

Additionally, formal equivalence encounters difficulty with grammatical structures that lack direct English equivalents. Hebrew's use of the infinitive absolute for emphasis, or Greek's complex participial constructions, cannot always be maintained without producing cumbersome English. In such cases, translators must make interpretive decisions that depart from strict formal correspondence.

Finally, overly rigid adherence to original syntax may obscure rather than clarify the author's meaning, particularly when differences between languages introduce unintended ambiguity.

Functional Equivalence: The Dynamic Alternative

Functional equivalence, or dynamic equivalence, emerged as a response to the limitations of formal approaches. Championed by Eugene Nida, this philosophy emphasizes the receptor's experience, seeking to evoke in modern readers the same effect the text would have produced in its original audience. Notable examples include the New International Version (NIV), the New Living Translation (NLT), the Good News Translation (GNT), and the Contemporary English Version (CEV).

Strengths of Functional Equivalence

Functional equivalence excels in clarity and accessibility. By prioritizing the reader's comprehension, it produces translations that are more immediately intelligible, especially for those unfamiliar with biblical idioms or cultural contexts. Complex expressions are recast in natural English, and ancient metaphors are often translated into contemporary analogues.

This philosophy also shines in its pastoral sensitivity. Functional translations are often more suitable for public reading, devotion, and evangelistic outreach. For instance, the NIV translates 1 Peter 1:13 as "prepare your minds for action," clarifying the intent behind "gird up the loins of your mind."

Moreover, dynamic translations can bridge cultural gaps. Ancient concepts of honor, shame, or kinship are often opaque to modern readers. Functionally equivalent translations sometimes incorporate explanatory elements into the text itself, enhancing comprehension without the need for footnotes or study aids.

Weaknesses of Functional Equivalence

Despite these strengths, functional equivalence raises significant concerns. Chief among them is the expansion of the translator's role. By determining how a text should be received, translators effectively become interpreters, embedding their own theological assumptions into the translation.

This interpretive license can result in inconsistency. Key theological terms, such as the Greek sarx, may be rendered as "flesh," "sinful nature," or "human nature" depending on the context. Such inconsistency hampers intertextual study and can obscure the author's argument.

Additionally, this approach often underestimates the foreignness of Scripture. By domesticating the text, it risks reshaping ancient ideas to fit contemporary categories, rather than challenging readers to enter the world of the biblical authors.

Ultimately, functional equivalence may prioritize the reader's comfort over the text's integrity. In doing so, it may produce translations that are more readable but less faithful.

Optimal Equivalence: A Mediating Approach

Optimal equivalence attempts to bridge the gap between formal and functional methodologies. Advocated by figures such as Peter Williams and embodied in translations like the Christian Standard Bible (CSB), the New English Translation (NET), and to some degree the ESV, this philosophy seeks to maintain formal accuracy while allowing functional adjustments when necessary.

Strengths of Optimal Equivalence

The principal advantage of optimal equivalence is flexibility. By evaluating each passage on its own terms, translators can choose the most suitable strategy. Poetic texts may retain more formal elements, while narrative or dialogue may be rendered more dynamically.

This approach is also genre-sensitive. It acknowledges that different parts of Scripture (poetry, prophecy, epistle, law) require different translational considerations. Optimal equivalence offers the tools to adapt accordingly.

Further, this philosophy can produce translations that are both accurate and accessible. The CSB, for example, translates Philippians 4:13 as "I am able to do all things through him who strengthens me," preserving form while using natural English.

Weaknesses of Optimal Equivalence

The chief criticism of optimal equivalence is its methodological ambiguity. Without clear principles to govern when and how to alternate between formal and functional strategies, the approach risks inconsistency.

Moreover, in practice, some "optimal" translations tend to privilege readability over precision. Market pressures and contemporary sensibilities may push translators toward dynamic renderings even when formal ones would be preferable.

Finally, the attempt to serve multiple objectives can result in a product that fully satisfies none. Such translations may lack the transparency needed for study and the simplicity desired for public use.

The Case for Essentially Literal Translation

Having considered the merits and liabilities of each philosophy, the case for formal equivalence remains the strongest. Rooted in theological conviction, this approach best preserves the authority, clarity, and integrity of Scripture.

Theological Considerations

Formal equivalence aligns with the doctrine of verbal inspiration: that every word of Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). If God inspired not only ideas but words, then translators should prioritize preserving those words as faithfully as possible.

It also honors the principle of perspicuity. While not all Scripture is equally clear, essentially literal translations enable readers to wrestle with the text directly, encouraging interpretive engagement rather than replacing it with mediated paraphrase.

Pedagogical Advantages

For students of Scripture, formal equivalence is an indispensable tool. It acquaints readers with biblical vocabulary and idioms, preparing them for original language study and facilitating sound exegesis.

It also trains the interpretive instincts of readers. By preserving the internal consistency of key terms and structures, formal translations promote deeper thematic and theological exploration.

Cultural and Historical Integrity

Essentially literal translation preserves the foreignness of Scripture. It respects the historical distance between the modern reader and the ancient text, encouraging humility and study rather than presumption.

This preservation guards against the tendency to read modern assumptions into the text. By maintaining the strangeness of biblical idioms and worldviews, formal equivalence fosters a more faithful engagement with revelation.

Addressing Common Objections

Some argue that formal equivalence results in wooden or inaccessible translations. While this may be true of poorly executed examples, recent translations such as the ESV demonstrate that linguistic clarity and formal accuracy can coexist.

The objection that formal translations are too difficult presumes that Scripture must always be immediately accessible. In reality, the Bible often challenges its readers. The role of pastors, teachers, and study aids is to equip the Church to understand Scripture, not to dilute it.

Similarly, concerns about cultural inaccessibility can be addressed through explanatory notes, teaching, and contextual instruction—not by rewriting the text itself.

Contemporary Applications and Recommendations

Given the superiority of formal equivalence, several practical recommendations follow. Translation committees should adopt an essentially literal philosophy, permitting minimal functional adjustments only when necessitated by clarity. These changes should be noted transparently.

Churches should train their members to use formal translations, equipping them through preaching, teaching, and discipleship to navigate difficult texts. The result will be deeper biblical literacy and richer theological understanding.

Comparative Translation Examples

Consider Isaiah 53:5:

• KJV: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities..."
• NASB: "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities..."
• NIV: "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities..."
• NLT: "But he was crushed for our sins, crushed for our guilt. He was beaten so we could be whole."
• CSB: "But he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities..."

The formal translations preserve the Hebrew parallelism and specific terminology. The dynamic renderings adjust for contemporary readability. The CSB blends both aims.

Romans 1:17 offers another contrast:

• ESV: "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith..."
• NIV: "...a righteousness that is by faith from first to last..."
• NLT: "This Good News tells about God's righteousness..."

The formal rendering preserves Paul's compact phrasing; the functional ones expand the thought interpretively. Each reveals different commitments.

Conclusion

The debate over translation philosophy is not merely academic. It touches on how the Church hears God's voice in Scripture. While functional and optimal approaches have their uses, the principles underlying formal equivalence offer the most faithful path forward.

Essentially literal translation, when executed with care and clarity, preserves the inspired language of Scripture, respects its cultural distance, and invites readers into a serious, transformative encounter with the biblical text. Such translations demand more from readers, but they also offer more: a faithful rendering of the words through which God speaks.

Appendix: Categorization of Major English Bible Translations by Translation Philosophy

This appendix classifies widely used English Bible translations by the predominant translation philosophy that shaped their development. While many involve some degree of overlap, they are grouped here according to their guiding translational principles.

I. Formal Equivalence (Essentially Literal)

King James Version (KJV)
Completed in 1611 by 47 scholars under the authority of King James I, the KJV became the dominant English Bible for centuries. It was based on the Textus Receptus and reflects the literary and theological standards of early 17th-century Anglican scholarship.

New King James Version (NKJV)
Published in 1982 by Thomas Nelson, the NKJV updates the KJV's archaic language while retaining its underlying textual base (Textus Receptus) and literary style, with the goal of preserving continuity for traditional KJV readers.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
First issued in 1971 and updated in 1995 and 2020, the NASB is one of the most formally literal translations available, aiming for word-for-word accuracy from the Hebrew and Greek texts while using modern English syntax.

English Standard Version (ESV)
First published in 2001 and revised in 2007, 2011, and 2016, the ESV updates the RSV with a strong commitment to essentially literal translation, maintaining both theological precision and literary style within the Tyndale-KJV tradition.

Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)
Completed in 2021 by The Master's Seminary and the Lockman Foundation, the LSB seeks to maximize concordance and theological accuracy, especially in rendering the divine name consistently as “Yahweh.”

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
First published in 1952, the RSV was a mid-century update of the ASV. It aimed to preserve the formal structure of the biblical texts while modernizing vocabulary. Though criticized for certain theological choices, it remains influential.

American Standard Version (ASV)
Released in 1901 as a revision of the English Revised Version (ERV), the ASV is notable for its literal rendering and use of “Jehovah” for the divine name. It formed the textual basis for several later translations including the NASB.

Modern English Version (MEV)
Published in 2014, the MEV updates the KJV using the Textus Receptus but modernizes the language for contemporary readers, aiming to maintain both tradition and accessibility.

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
First published by Robert Young in 1862, the YLT is a hyper-literal rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, notable for its strict adherence to word order and verb tenses, often at the expense of readability.

Green’s Literal Translation (LITV)
Compiled by Jay P. Green Sr., this translation adheres closely to the original word forms and syntax. First published in the mid-20th century, it is often used alongside interlinear tools.

James Quiggle Translation New Testament (JQTNT)

Completed in the early 21st century by theologian and Bible teacher James Quiggle, the JQTNT is a privately published, literal translation of the Greek New Testament. It adheres to formal equivalence principles and seeks to provide clarity and accuracy through precise rendering of grammar and vocabulary.

II. Functional Equivalence (Dynamic Equivalence)

New International Version (NIV)
Launched in 1978 by the Committee on Bible Translation and updated in 1984 and 2011, the NIV sought to create a Bible in contemporary English that communicated the meaning of the text clearly and naturally across diverse cultures.

New Living Translation (NLT)
Initially released in 1996 and revised in 2004 and 2015, the NLT began as a revision of The Living Bible. It is a meaning-based translation intended to be highly readable while faithful to the dynamic intent of the text.

Good News Translation (GNT)
Also called Today’s English Version, the GNT was completed in 1966 by the American Bible Society. It prioritized accessibility and simplicity, especially for readers without theological training or for use in international contexts.

Contemporary English Version (CEV)
First published in 1995, the CEV was designed with clarity and simplicity in mind, particularly for children, non-native English speakers, and those with limited literacy. It avoids technical theological terms and complex sentence structures.

The Living Bible (TLB)
A paraphrase completed by Kenneth Taylor in 1971, the TLB rephrased the American Standard Version into everyday English to make Scripture accessible to children and families, especially in devotional contexts.

J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
First released in the 1950s, J.B. Phillips' translation of the New Testament uses contemporary British idiom and emphasizes readability and relevance for 20th-century readers.

New Century Version (NCV)
Originally developed for children as the International Children's Bible, the NCV was released in 1991 for a general audience. It uses a simplified vocabulary and sentence structure to ensure high accessibility.

III. Optimal Equivalence (Mediating or Balanced Philosophy)

Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
Published in 2017 as a revision of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), the CSB was developed by a team of Southern Baptist scholars to pursue “optimal equivalence,” balancing accuracy and clarity with readability.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
First published in 2004, the HCSB attempted to combine formal and functional principles. Its use of “Yahweh” in some Old Testament passages and its contemporary idioms reflect its blended methodology.

New English Translation (NET)
Completed in 2005 with extensive translator’s notes, the NET Bible balances formal and functional elements and is particularly valued for its transparency in revealing translation decisions, making it popular in academic and digital settings.

Revised English Bible (REB)
Published in 1989 as a revision of the New English Bible (NEB), the REB reflects a British academic tradition and pursues literary quality while incorporating both formal and dynamic techniques, making it a representative of mediating philosophy.

Common English Bible (CEB)
Released in 2011, the CEB was produced by a broad ecumenical team and aims for clarity in everyday English while maintaining theological integrity. It often simplifies idioms and introduces gender-inclusive language where contextually appropriate.

New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)
Completed in 1985 as an update to the Jerusalem Bible, the NJB reflects a balance between formal equivalence and literary elegance, with particular influence from French biblical scholarship and Catholic interpretive traditions.

For Further Study

Carson, D. A. The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

“Complete Guide to Bible Versions: Comparison, History, and Choosing the Right Translation.” Bible Gateway, accessed June 13, 2025. https://www.biblegateway.com/learn/bible-101/bible-versions-guide/. 

Fee, Gordon D., and Mark L. Strauss. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Grudem, Wayne. “Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God? Why Plenary Inspiration Favors 'Essentially Literal' Bible Translation.” In Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation, edited by Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, C. John Collins, Vern S. Poythress, and Bruce Winter, 19–56. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.

Huff, Wesley. “One Bible, Many Versions.” Wesley Huff (blog), October 13, 2020. Accessed June 13, 2025. https://www.wesleyhuff.com/blog/2020/10/13/one-bible-many-versions. 

Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Modern Bible Translations and the Use of Gender-Neutral Language.” Faith & Mission 22.2 (2005): 19–33.

Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1982.

Poythress, Vern S., and Wayne Grudem. The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000.

Ryken, Leland. The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002.

Ryken, Leland. Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009.

Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Strauss, Mark L. Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.

Tors, James E. “A Call for Serious Evangelical Engagement with Textual Criticism.” Themelios 43.3 (2018): 394–407.