One Bible, Many Versions by David Brunn. An informative book on Bible translation. One need not agree with this author hear his insights to translation.
https://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Many-Versions-Translations/dp/0830827153
I have Brunn's book and have read it. I do thank 37818 for mentioning it.
I respect the author for being a Bible translator for an unreached people group. I don't oppose the book--it's useful to a certain degree. However, the reader should know that Brunn is almost completely on the side of dynamic (functional) equivalence (DE). Having said that, a number of factual errors and errors of translation in his book make be think he doesn't really understand Nida's theory or some other aspects of translation. (He only quotes Nida's briefly; his name only occurs four times in the index.)
1. He says that "the Bible does not give instructions on how to translate a written message from one language to another" (p. 20). Technically he is correct; however, the Bible does translate words or phrases many times, and always literally.
2. He writes, "In response to the rise in popularity of dynamic equivalence translation, the antithetical term 'formal equivalence' was coined" (p. 40). He is dead wrong about this and should know better. Nida himself coined the term, and used it many times in his first explanation of his theory,
Toward a Science of Translating (1964). In fact, in this book Nida has a whole section on formal equivalence (pp. 170-175).
3. Brunn never deals with "reader response," a very important concept in DE.
4. In Ch. 2, Brunn says about "form," "The form includes the letters words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and so on" (pp. 37-38). I suspect from this that Brunn never took Greek or Hebrew, because "paragraph" is never an issue when discussing the form of those languages. The original mss never had paragraph breaks in either language. Advocates of more literal methods therefore never discuss paragraph breaks, but put them where appropriate in the target language.
4. In Ch. 2, "Form and Meaning," Brunn spends a lot of space in discussing idioms, and why they should not usually be translated literally. This is a standard ploy by DE advocates to supposedly prove why literal translation is a bad idea. However, every translator, literal or DE, knows what an idiom is and translates accordingly--by meaning rather than literally. (He cites "spill the beans" and "let the cat out of the bag" on p. 41, for example.)
For the record, an idiom is “A set expression in which two or more words are syntactically related, but with a meaning like that of a single lexical unit: e.g. ‘spill the beans’ in
Someone has spilled the beans about the bank raid, or ‘put one’s foot in it’ in
Her husband can never make a speech without putting his foot in it.”
P. H. Matthews,
Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2007), 183.
5. On pp. 74 on, he discusses
logos (λόγος) and its translation as if the many ways the word is used in Greek proves DE. Note that I said "used in Greek" rather than "translated." The truth is that its usage is very complicated, and anyone who knows Greek will admit that. So the fact that it is rendered with many different English words proves nothing except that it has a complicated lexical meaning.
6. Surprisingly (to me, anyway), though he is ostensibly a linguist, he makes a basic error on grammar on p. 76, writing, "The most basic meaning of 'word' in English is the smallest grammatical unit that can stand alone." Well, a word is a lexical unit, but may or may not be a "grammatical unit." In an inflected language (one with infixes that change in grammatical form), this may be true, but if there are no infixes then the word is not a grammatical unit but just a lexical unit.
7. Of all authors, he quotes Strong's concordance in discussing the lexical meaning of
logos (p. 78). As a professional in the area of translating, he should know (but apparently does not) that Strong's is way out of date, due to papyri discoveries after its writing.
8. On p. 113, he criticizes several more literal versions for supposedly omitting the phrase
eis aphedrona (εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα, "into a latrine" in Matthew 15:17 & Mark 7:19), and simply saying "eliminated." What he did not realize is that "eliminated" is an appropriate equivalent in English: a medical term for "going #2" if you will. See this page:
Definition of ELIMINATE
9. Brunn actually takes the position on p. 128 that the coin taken out of the fish's mouth by Peter was "probably" a Hebrew
sekel (shekel), not a Greek
stater (στατήρ) as Matthew clearly puts it (Matthew 17:27). So he says, "When Matthew used the word stater here, he was employing dynamic equivalence, or meaning-based, translation principles." This is his most egregious error, because Matthew was not translating, he was writing inspired Scripture!! For the life of me, I can't understand Brunn's usage of this passage to make his point. He is simply speculating, and thus appears to be saying the Bible is not accurate here! The truth is, Israel was inundated at that point in history with Greek culture, and a Greek coin would have been useful anywhere.
I could spend a lot more time on Brunn's book, but I'm sure you get the point by now.
Afterthought: Brunn's education is not given in the author's blurb on the back of the book--very strange. A book like this almost always gives the author's education. There's nothing about it on his Amazon page, either. Google all I know how to do, I've not discovered his education. The Ethnos 360 (formerly New Tribes) has nothing either.