The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence

[John of Japan]

10 Jesus answered, “You are a great teacher in Israel, and you don't know this?
10 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις;
JoJ: Once again, the GNB leaves out the words from John’s unique narration style, “and said.” It also leaves out “to him.” (This once again highlights the difference between a translation theory based on neoorthodoxy (DE) and one based on verbal-plenary inspiration, which says we must translate every word possible to translate.) The GNB also adds the word “great,” which unnecessarily adds semantic content to the verse and misses the nuance. Jesus is not complimenting Nicodemus, but rebuking him. Again, the original is “teacher of Israel,” so one who teaches Jews, not “teacher in Israel,” a teacher who lives in that country. Again, the original has “these things,” not “this.”

11 I am telling you the truth: we speak of what we know and report what we have seen, yet none of you is willing to accept our message.
11 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν λαλοῦμεν καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε.
JoJ: Here he goes again, ignoring the discourse style of Jesus by paraphrasing “Truly, truly…. ” The rest of the verse is pretty good, except translating the noun for “witness” (μαρτυρίαν) as “message.” In the verse, Jesus is acting as a witness of things seen and known, not specifically delivering a message (for which there are other Greek words).

12 You do not believe me when I tell you about the things of this world; how will you ever believe me, then, when I tell you about the things of heaven?
12 εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς ἐὰν εἴπω ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια πιστεύσετε;
JoJ: This is the best translation of a verse yet. I’d accept this.

 

[Just_Ahead]

... agenda driven mistranslations.

 

[John of Japan]

13 And no one has ever gone up to heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from heaven.”
13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
JoJ: Again, this is a pretty good rendering, one I would accept.

14 As Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the desert, in the same way the Son of Man must be lifted up,
14 Καὶ καθὼς Μωϋσῆς ὕψωσεν τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,
JoJ: The GNB adds “bronze” here, but the original just has “snake.” Again, the GNB adds “on a pole” here, but the original just has “lifted up.” (Both are the same verb, just with different tense and voice.) Adding these words to the text is not acceptable in a translation faithful to the original. The GNB translator did not just transfer meaning (the supposed goal of DE), but added meaning from the OT, presuming that the reader was incompetent to search the OT historical record for elucidation. Furthermore, since the two verbs are the same, the unknowing reader might assume that Jesus was crucified on a pole instead of a cross—validating the position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses!

15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
15 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
JoJ: The only problem I have with this verse is that it changes “the one believing” (the substantival usage of a singular participle) to “everyone who believes.” What’s wrong with that? It takes away some of the personal impact of Jesus speaking directly to one person, Nicodemus. In this pericope, Christ was seeking to win one person to Himself, Nicodemus, not “everyone.”

 

[Just_Ahead]

John, this is a most interesting thread. Thank you for your contribution of research and time on this topic.

 

[Jerome]

I do not think you can have a meaningful discussion about the history of the Good News Bible (TEV, GNT) without bringing up the name of Annie Vallotton, the artist

When I first picked up my copy, I was fascinated by those drawings. I think they added to the actual book, though not part of the translation per se.

I'm puzzled [not really!] at what she did with this illustration in the 'Good News Bible':

 

[Van]

Not sure what your point was, but I guess you wanted an example of an agenda driven mistranslation.

Take a look at the ESV at Revelation 13:8, which reads "before the foundation of the world." The doctrinal idea is that since people were individually chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), then our names were entered in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world. To fulfill this mistaken doctrinal view, the verse was mistranslated (a word meaning from or since was translated as "before"). The NIV originally contained the same error, but has since corrected the verse.

This illustrates one of the main problems with DE, if the translators misunderstand the meaning of the verse, they will translate that misconception into the text.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Not sure what your point was, but I guess you wanted an example of an agenda driven mistranslation.

Take a look at the ESV at Revelation 13:8, which reads "before the foundation of the world." The doctrinal idea is that since people were individually chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), then our names were entered in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world. To fulfill this mistaken doctrinal view, the verse was mistranslated (a word meaning from or since was translated as "before"). The NIV originally contained the same error, but has since corrected the verse.

This illustrates one of the main problems with DE, if the translators misunderstand the meaning of the verse, they will translate that misconception into the text.

I agree. Appears to be another example where the ESV team picked up some text from the published RSV and just ran with it in their publishing rush.

 

[Van]

I agree. Appears to be another example where the ESV team picked up some text from the published RSV and just ran with it in their publishing rush.

Spot on!! Note the NRSV had fixed the verse, but the ESV is based on the earlier RSV

 

[Just_Ahead]

I'm puzzled [not really!] at what she did with this illustration in the 'Good News Bible':

View attachment 3193

In my personal library I have two Good News Bibles with Annie Vallotton illustrations--both 2nd editions (circa 1992, 1994). After a quick thumb-thru I found a similar--but different illustration--of the baptism of Jesus with the caption "I saw the Spirit come down like a dove" (John 1.32).

Below is an illustration of Annie Vallotton from the United Bible Societies.

Annie Vallotton blessing the world with her illustrations -- by United Bible Societies

 

[robycop3]

Those are a lotta the reasons why I stick to LITERAL translations, as I believe Scripture literally as possible anyway.

 

[Just_Ahead]

One more post about Bible artist Annie Vallotton.

A few years ago I attempted to purchase some of her illustrated Christian books for children. The only one I could find at that time was FROM THE APPLE TO THE MOON, written and illustrated by Annie Vallotton, published by Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1970. There are still a few used copies available on Amazon. I got my copy as a discard from the Thomas Winston Cole, Sr., Library, Wiley College, Marshall, Texas. The book has the notation on the title page: "Book not in catalog."

The apple, of course, is the Garden of Eden Apple; the Moon represents NASA's race to land on the Moon during the 1960s and 1970s.

Her illustrations toward the end of this book include the following captions:

Could man's greatest discovery be the choice of life with the Spirit?
The acceptance of a gift freely offered?
To accept the Spirit is to accept life...
For the Spirit is life.
Man is free to choose.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm puzzled [not really!] at what she did with this illustration in the 'Good News Bible':

View attachment 3193

Her illustrations had a kind of modern art feel to them--not necessarily bad, though.

 

[John of Japan]

John, this is a most interesting thread. Thank you for your contribution of research and time on this topic.

It's been a while since I posted about DE, and my vociferous opponent on that subject is gone from the BB now, so....

 

[John of Japan]

Here is one more set of comments on 3 verses for the weekend:

16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.
16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
JoJ: Like many others, the translator has misunderstood houtos (οὕτως) as “so much,” when the Greek word in this context really means “in this way.” (This word can intensify meaning if followed by an adjective or adverb, but there are none after it here.) Again, he goes with the plural “everyone” instead of the singular, thus taking the onus off Nicodemus. The word “die” does not literally translate the verb ἀπόληται (be destroyed), but is not necessarily an incorrect rendering.

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be its savior.
17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
JoJ: This verse illustrates a key difference between DE and such literal methods as optimal equivalence. The DE advocates call a literal translation “formal equivalent” (FE), because it seeks to translate the form, since it carries meaning. Granted, sometimes translating the form is impossible (many languages have no future tense) or may even be unclear, but in this case it is perfectly possible to translate the forms (“judge” and “be saved” are verbs, not nouns) and have a perfectly clear translation.

18 Those who believe in the Son are not judged; but those who do not believe have already been judged, because they have not believed in God's only Son.
18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.
JoJ: Three times in this verse he has “everyone” again, instead of the singular of the original. As I have pointed out, this takes away much of the personal impact on Nicodemus that Jesus intended with the singular. Authorial intent is not nearly as important in DE as in literal methods. I have less problem with “only son,” since it is generally agreed nowadays that monogenes (μονογενοῦς here) usually means “unique,” but I still prefer “only begotten.”

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I have no frustration with DE. I simply oppose it. But go ahead and yank my chain.

Evidently I did just that.

To me it's poor Engish--idiomatic perhaps, but not good English. In a Bible translation I believe we should have a high level of English (and I don't mean archaic language). I once talked to a Buddhist man in Japan who bemoaned the modern Japanese versions as lacking dignity. He believed a holy book should sound elevated. It wasn't too long ago that the only Bibles in Japanese were in the beautiful classical Japanese.

Good one. Koine Greek is common Greek, not classical Greek. Idiomatic speech is not at all the same as poor grammar, especially in this case. And self-immolating Buddhists have far more problems than worrying about the supposed indignity of certain Bible translations--the fate of their eternal souls, for example. Should I expect that next you'll say he thought Jesus elevated on that cross was dignified?

Nicodemus was highly educated, and certainly not stupid. And I don't believe he thought Jesus was stupid, but he couldn't follow the metaphor Jesus was using. So he simply used a rhetorical question to show what he thought of the ideas Jesus was expressing. There may have been some sarcasm in that question.

How quaintly amusing to attempt defending ol' Nic here based on his credentials, when that is precisely what makes the encounter so striking. This high-ranking rabbi is obviously in a spiritual stupor so thick only the Spirit's sword could cut through it. It's just the kind of stupid we all suffer.

We'll agree to differ, then.

Be wrong if you wish , but English and Greek differ. Greek word order and English word order are just not the same. There is no real fault here.

Nope, won't do that. The Greek word ἀμὴν in this context means "Truly." It has turned into a loan word in English and many other languages, but a loan word rarely means the same as the word in the language it came from. Example: California sushi (寿司) would be laughed at in Japan, and the American idea of the ninja (忍者) is so far from the Japanese original as to be a joke.

Sushi? What a stretch. But are you now claiming that "amen" originates from Greek rather than Hebrew?

The redundancy is unnecessary, since in the context it is clear in the Greek that a human is meant (τις in v. 5).

The context in the Greek? That is precisely what is missing in the target language—the Greek. Or did you forget? But that's OK, since you're just a translator.

 

[agedman]

Not sure what your point was, but I guess you wanted an example of an agenda driven mistranslation.

Take a look at the ESV at Revelation 13:8, which reads "before the foundation of the world." The doctrinal idea is that since people were individually chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), then our names were entered in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world. To fulfill this mistaken doctrinal view, the verse was mistranslated (a word meaning from or since was translated as "before"). The NIV originally contained the same error, but has since corrected the verse.

This illustrates one of the main problems with DE, if the translators misunderstand the meaning of the verse, they will translate that misconception into the text.

I really, ...
really, ...
tried to just let this misinformation go.

Van, you do just have to be interrupting a very good thread with your own agenda?

It is sad that you would make such a very poor attempt at rendering a word:

1) apparently you are unconcerned that, in every use, the specific word is conditional upon the verb that occurs prior.
2) because of such being necessary, it is very correct for the translators to use “before” just as the KJV and others may use “from.” It makes no doctrinal difference.​

The use of “before” or “from” have no bearing upon your agenda other than to disprove it.

Neither discredits that action was taken prior to the foundations.

The action was not after the foundations but already existent at the point of the foundations.

To bring agreement to your scheme would destroy the factual sequence presented no matter which word (from or before) tickles your fancy.

@John of Japan, I apologize for my part in bring distraction to an extremely well presented thread.

I trust you will continue to present other passages, too.

Would not your work also extend to the NIV?

 

[Van]

Post #36 is typical deflection.
The posting rule is to address the topic, not the poster.
DE allows mistaken views, as espoused by Agedman's post #36, to be poured into the text.
To translate "apo" as before is an agenda driven mistranslation
To claim before the foundation and since the foundation refers to the same period is ludicrous.

Revelation 13:8 (ESV) illustrates one of the main problems with DE, if the translators misunderstand the meaning of the verse, they will translate that misconception into the text. Earlier versions of the NIV contained the same agenda driven mistranslation.

 

[John of Japan]

Evidently I did just that.

Good! I appreciate the interaction and will answer to the best of my ability.

Good one. Koine Greek is common Greek, not classical Greek. Idiomatic speech is not at all the same as poor grammar, especially in this case. And self-immolating Buddhists have far more problems than worrying about the supposed indignity of certain Bible translations--the fate of their eternal souls, for example. Should I expect that next you'll say he thought Jesus elevated on that cross was dignified?

You missed my point. I distinctly said "and I don't mean archaic language." What I was referring to is literary language, not at all the same as a classical version of a language. There is a classical version of Japanese into which I would not translate. But our translation effort has used a literary version of Japanese, though our young lady proofreaders wish to make it more colloquial.

In the Greek NT, Luke has a very high literary level of koine, since he was highly educated. Hebrews is a pretty literary book, too. Revelation is not at all ordinary koine, but apocalyptic. And so on.

Optimal equivalence “Seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form."[1]
[1] Preface, New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), v.

How quaintly amusing to attempt defending ol' Nic here based on his credentials, when that is precisely what makes the encounter so striking. This high-ranking rabbi is obviously in a spiritual stupor so thick only the Spirit's sword could cut through it. It's just the kind of stupid we all suffer.

I'm not real sure what your point is here r.e. my notes on the GNB.

Be wrong if you wish , but English and Greek differ. Greek word order and English word order are just not the same. There is no real fault here.

Yes, I'm aware of the difference in word order, which, by the way, is much less important in Greek than English.

Sushi? What a stretch. But are you now claiming that "amen" originates from Greek rather than Hebrew?

Again, you miss my point. Our English loan word "amen" comes from Greek, which got it from Hebrew. Each time it changed somewhat in meaning from the original, as loan words usually do. My reference to sushi was to illustrate that linguistic fact. I've eaten sushi in both Japan and America, and the versions are different. Japanese sushi chefs don't make a "California roll," and I've never had beef or egg sushi in the US, or inarizushi (delicious).

The context in the Greek? That is precisely what is missing in the target language—the Greek. Or did you forget? But that's OK, since you're just a translator.

I don't know what point you are trying to make here. How is the Greek context missing in the target language?

And just for the record, I'm a translator, and also teach Greek 101 & 102, "Translation Theory and Practice," etc.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan, I apologize for my part in bring distraction to an extremely well presented thread.

I trust you will continue to present other passages, too.

Quite all right. There is probably room on the thread for you and Van to spar.

Would not your work also extend to the NIV?

I actually did a similar thread on the NIV years ago. It's not as dynamic as the GNB, but problematic.

 

[John of Japan]

19 This is how the judgment works: the light has come into the world, but people love the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil.
19 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς· ἦν γὰρ αὐτῶν πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα.
JoJ: There is nothing about “how it works” in the original, which simply says, “This is the judgment.” So the GNB misleads the reader with extraneous information. Also, there is no “but” in the original, which has “and,” but that’s not a big problem.

20 Those who do evil things hate the light and will not come to the light, because they do not want their evil deeds to be shown up.
20 πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ·
JoJ: The GNB leaves “all” untranslated. Other than that, not too bad.

21 But those who do what is true come to the light in order that the light may show that what they did was in obedience to God.
21 ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα.
JoH: The GNB is more free in this verse than I am comfortable with, but generally gets the meaning across.