The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence

[John of Japan]

Truly sorry you feel that way about it, JoJ. I didn’t and wouldn’t dare try to lecture you on it. If I misunderstood, I would say it is because sometimes you are either too unaware of what you are saying or have said, or you don’t mean it at all the way you say it.

Well, it was a very short lecture. (JoJ mollified)

This has nothing to do with Japanese, Chinese, Sanskrit, or any other foreign language. This has been strictly about translating into English, creating an acceptable English version, with the GNB in the crosshairs. Your bringing the others into it seems to cloud your thinking and thus the discussion and the issue. It’s as if you are trying to embody a corollary of your signature quote.

In my mind English translations have everything to do with missionary Bible translations. I cannot separate them in my mind. With literally hundreds of Bible translations in English, and thousands in other languages with not even a Bible portion, I consider it a waste to publish another. What I am posting here will never be published in book form. In fact, once when I mentioned to one of my students that I'd been asked to consider helping translate a new version from the Byzantine Textform, he was offended and reminded me of that position, that we do not need a new English translation. (I'm not participating in the proposed committee.)

Now, if you'll go back to my OP, you'll note that I spoke of "the Good News Bible, often the source text (ST) for Wycliffe people and other Bible translators." And I mention the impetus for the thread to be a question by one of my "translation students." We offer an MA in Bible Translation designed for missionary translators, not English translators. (In fact, I've never heard of a degree for strictly English Bible translators.) So maybe I should have spent more time on the missionary Bible translator idea, since that was definitely in my head.

I brought in Japanese, Chinese, etc., to show that many languages have several levels of literary language. So I chose a certain level for my translation here on this thread.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Well, it was a very short lecture. (JoJ mollified)

In that case, I'm going to lengthen it just a tad, but perhaps I should address this, “To who it may concern.” If you think “whom” archaic rather than of a high English level, I must leave you be, or let it be.

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.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

In my mind English translations have everything to do with missionary Bible translations. I cannot separate them in my mind. With literally hundreds of Bible translations in English, and thousands in other languages with not even a Bible portion, I consider it a waste to publish another. What I am posting here will never be published in book form. In fact, once when I mentioned to one of my students that I'd been asked to consider helping translate a new version from the Byzantine Textform, he was offended and reminded me of that position, that we do not need a new English translation. (I'm not participating in the proposed committee.)

Now, if you'll go back to my OP, you'll note that I spoke of "the Good News Bible, often the source text (ST) for Wycliffe people and other Bible translators." And I mention the impetus for the thread to be a question by one of my "translation students." We offer an MA in Bible Translation designed for missionary translators, not English translators. (In fact, I've never heard of a degree for strictly English Bible translators.) So maybe I should have spent more time on the missionary Bible translator idea, since that was definitely in my head.

I brought in Japanese, Chinese, etc., to show that many languages have several levels of literary language. So I chose a certain level for my translation here on this thread.

I appreciate and find fascinating the information related to other languages and cultures. I can also understand your wanting an English translation to be such that missionaries could use it, and can see how there should be such a translation, yet not require every one to be such.

However, I would rather demand that missionaries be much more cognizant of the Bible than a single translation could hope to provide, and capable of impressing upon church leaders the pitfalls of relying on a translation for doctrine.

Regarding known problematic passages, missionaries, translators, translation aids, leaders, and interpreters should all beware. Still, this will not prevent creating new ones in the target language.

The next question is how many levels of language exist (or remain) in unwritten ones, for this is the work that seems most pressing now.

 

[John of Japan]

In that case, I'm going to lengthen it just a tad, but perhaps I should address this, “To who it may concern.” If you think “whom” archaic rather than of a high English level, I must leave you be, or let it be.

Indeed. I consider "whom" to be recently archaic. And the sentence which I underlined is nicely literary. Good job!

 

[John of Japan]

I appreciate and find fascinating the information related to other languages and cultures. I can also understand your wanting an English translation to be such that missionaries could use it, and can see how there should be such a translation, yet not require every one to be such.

Actually, we advocate translating from the original languages, so our students must take 2 years of Greek undergrad, 3 credits of seminary Greek, and a year of Hebrew. One of our men has been asked to teach Hebrew to an African translation effort. (The missionary taught them Greek.)

Translating from English (a double translation) is a last resort. I wish Wycliffe taught the original languages, but they major on linguistics and let the original languages slide.

However, I would rather demand that missionaries be much more cognizant of the Bible than a single translation could hope to provide, and capable of impressing upon church leaders the pitfalls of relying on a translation for doctrine.

Agreed. That is why I taught Greek in two different Bible institutes in Japan.

Regarding known problematic passages, missionaries, translators, translation aids, leaders, and interpreters should all beware. Still, this will not prevent creating new ones in the target language.

Well said.

The next question is how many levels of language exist (or remain) in unwritten ones, for this is the work that seems most pressing now.

Yes, the greatest need of the day is reaching jungle tribes with no written language. Usually such languages have a story telling tradition with somewhat of a literary language.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Indeed. I consider "whom" to be recently archaic. And the sentence which I underlined is nicely literary. Good job!

You are certainly welcome to your misguided opinion. I do miss my favorite computer dictionary, which showed results of polls of experts, wherein they always disagreed, sometimes sharply. But here is a quote from a popular online source.

whom or who?: Usage Guide

Observers of the language have been predicting the demise of whom from about 1870 down to the present day. // one of the pronoun cases is visibly disappearing—the objective case whom // — R. G. White (1870) // whom is dying out in England, where "Whom did you see?" sounds affected // — Anthony Burgess (1980) Our evidence shows that no one—English or not—should expect whom to disappear momentarily; it shows every indication of persisting quite a while yet. Actual usage of who and whom—accurately described at the entries in this dictionary—does not appear to be markedly different from the usage of Shakespeare's time. But the 18th century grammarians, propounding rules and analogies, rejecting other rules and analogies, and usually justifying both with appeals to Latin or Greek, have intervened between us and Shakespeare. It seems clear that the grammarians' rules have had little effect on the traditional uses. One thing they have accomplished is to encourage hypercorrect uses of whom. // whom shall I say is calling? // Another is that they have made some people unsure of themselves. // said he was asked to step down, although it is not known exactly who or whom asked him // — Redding (Conn.) Pilot

Definition of WHOM​

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Yes, the greatest need of the day is reaching jungle tribes with no written language. Usually such languages have a story telling tradition with somewhat of a literary language.

That's what I suspected--preserving stories would at least somewhat preserve a form of language not generally spoken.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, the greatest need of the day is reaching jungle tribes with no written language. Usually such languages have a story telling tradition with somewhat of a literary language.

It is also true of American Indian tribes as well. For instance the Navajo's have only had a written language for a little more than a 100 years. Most do not read and write their own language even though they would like to. While Christianity is not new to them there are quite a few traditionalists who still hold on to the NAC (Native American Church) and Navajo Tradition. It used to be that they believed in worshiping the Sun, Moon, stars, etc. in recent years they have begun to recognize there is a creator. This has opened the door for the gospel, however it cannot be delivered in what we would call the traditional sense. There has been recently an effort to prepare a gospel that begins with the creation story and it is delivered through a story telling method that is completed in a series of meetings. This is done in a setting that is traditional in nature to them i.e. a hogan (a traditional Navajo one room house). It takes time with them and the Americanized 5 minute presentation with the intention of getting them to prayer in one meeting will not work with them.

 

[Shoostie]

Indeed. I consider "whom" to be recently archaic.

One benefit of the KJV over modern translation is the preservation of singular and plural variants of "you", which is also fond in the native languages of the Bible. When a modern Bible says "you", you have to look at the context, and maybe even that's not enough, to know if the speaker means just the person he's talking to or a whole group.

No one but a savage should a willful party to the loss of linguistic precision. One big reason English is lingua franca today is because it offers greater precision than other languages.

Is it your position that educated people should capitulate to the ignorant on any common grammatical error?

 

[John of Japan]

One benefit of the KJV over modern translation is the preservation of singular and plural variants of "you", which is also fond in the native languages of the Bible. When a modern Bible says "you", you have to look at the context, and maybe even that's not enough, to know if the speaker means just the person he's talking to or a whole group.

This is why we teach Greek to all of our sophomores, men and women both. It distinguishes the singular and plural in several ways.

No one but a savage should a willful party to the loss of linguistic precision. One big reason English is lingua franca today is because it offers greater precision than other languages.

Is it your position that educated people should capitulate to the ignorant on any common grammatical error?

No, that is not my position.

 

[John of Japan]

It is also true of American Indian tribes as well. For instance the Navajo's have only had a written language for a little more than a 100 years. Most do not read and write their own language even though they would like to. While Christianity is not new to them there are quite a few traditionalists who still hold on to the NAC (Native American Church) and Navajo Tradition. It used to be that they believed in worshiping the Sun, Moon, stars, etc. in recent years they have begun to recognize there is a creator.

There are similarities in how the AmerIndian tribes were and are being reached to how African tribal groups are reached to this day. In both cases there is a lingua franca--either English or French in Africa.

This has opened the door for the gospel, however it cannot be delivered in what we would call the traditional sense. There has been recently an effort to prepare a gospel that begins with the creation story and it is delivered through a story telling method that is completed in a series of meetings. This is done in a setting that is traditional in nature to them i.e. a hogan (a traditional Navajo one room house). It takes time with them and the Americanized 5 minute presentation with the intention of getting them to prayer in one meeting will not work with them.

This is a great approach to contextualization. If I'm not mistaken, it was originated in modern missions by the good folk at New Tribes.

 

[Revmitchell]

There are similarities in how the AmerIndian tribes were and are being reached to how African tribal groups are reached to this day. In both cases there is a lingua franca--either English or French in Africa.
This is a great approach to contextualization. If I'm not mistaken, it was originated in modern missions by the good folk at New Tribes.

Maybe, I just know that after three years on the rez and seeing the change to believing in a creator it is what works. I know of new tribes but I never talked with them nor saw any materials by them. Myself and a few others just did what works.

 

[John of Japan]

You are certainly welcome to your misguided opinion.

How gracious of you!

I do miss my favorite computer dictionary, which showed results of polls of experts, wherein they always disagreed, sometimes sharply. But here is a quote from a popular online source.

whom or who?: Usage Guide

Observers of the language have been predicting the demise of whom from about 1870 down to the present day. // one of the pronoun cases is visibly disappearing—the objective case whom // — R. G. White (1870) // whom is dying out in England, where "Whom did you see?" sounds affected // — Anthony Burgess (1980) Our evidence shows that no one—English or not—should expect whom to disappear momentarily; it shows every indication of persisting quite a while yet. Actual usage of who and whom—accurately described at the entries in this dictionary—does not appear to be markedly different from the usage of Shakespeare's time. But the 18th century grammarians, propounding rules and analogies, rejecting other rules and analogies, and usually justifying both with appeals to Latin or Greek, have intervened between us and Shakespeare. It seems clear that the grammarians' rules have had little effect on the traditional uses. One thing they have accomplished is to encourage hypercorrect uses of whom. // whom shall I say is calling? // Another is that they have made some people unsure of themselves. // said he was asked to step down, although it is not known exactly who or whom asked him // — Redding (Conn.) Pilot

Definition of WHOM​

And from the link you gave: "Now often considered stilted especially as an interrogative and especially in oral use."

 

[John of Japan]

Maybe, I just know that after three years on the rez and seeing the change to believing in a creator it is what works. I know of new tribes but I never talked with them nor saw any materials by them. Myself and a few others just did what works.

New Tribes has a complete curriculum for this approach.

I just googled them and found out they changed their name. They are now: https://ethnos360.org/

 

[Just_Ahead]

So, can you speak again about the "harm" of using a dynamic equivalence Bible translation -- when a seeker begins reading the Bible with a dynamic equivalence translation before moving up to a formal equivalence translation?

 

[John of Japan]

So, can you speak again about the "harm" of using a dynamic equivalence Bible translation -- when a seeker begins reading the Bible with a dynamic equivalence translation before moving up to a formal equivalence translation?

If a person is seeking the Lord, I rejoice in that regardless.