Literal or Dynamic Translations
by Doy Moyer
It should go without saying that we want to have accurate Scripture translations. For many, that means wanting a “word for word” (aka literal) translation instead of a more “thought for thought” (aka dynamic) translation. While some translations get closer to doing that than others (e.g., NASB vs NIV), the truth is that no translation can be completely word for word, and even the translations that are said to be more literal have places where they use dynamic equivalence. However, we need to understand that translating one language to another has many nuances that need to be taken into account. It’s rarely just going to be a straight across-the-board word-for-word endeavor. Indeed that would be almost unreadable.
Let’s consider the way various translations handle Philippians 2:7 and the phrase there (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν). It seems to me that the most literal way to translate this is “emptied Himself.” And indeed, several translations use exactly that. The NASB, ESV, CSB, and NET all say, “emptied himself.”
The NIV, however, says, “he made himself nothing.” That’s a little more dynamic than literal. But notice what the KJV and NKJV say there: “made himself of no reputation.”
The KJV takes the more dynamic approach among these versions. I have no problem with that, as I think it still captures the idea, but this demonstrates that even the KJV translators took some liberties in the way they translated.
I prefer “emptied himself” because I believe it captures the idea best, but I will still reference the KJV as a way to think about it. This illustrates the value of checking various translations to see how they handle difficult phrases.
What we also need to understand is that you cannot completely do translations without some interpretation. “Emptied himself” is more literal, but “made himself of no reputation” is more interpretive. All translations do this at various points. We just need to be aware of it. We are blessed to have multiple translations to use for study purposes.