Featured Dynamic Equivalence--Again!

Well, I'm a literal translator, so I can't see leaving any information out of the target text that can be translated.

 

Let me recap.

1. DE/FE is not just a way to translate, it is a theory of translation that emphasizes man's understanding more than God's original message.

2. It is based philosophically on existentialism, a very harmful humanistic philosophy, and in theology it is based on the heresy of neo-orthodoxy, which teaches that the Bible is not the Word of God, but can become the Word of God when a person experiences it. Nida himself touted the false philosophy and false theology.

3. The theory seeks for "reader response" as its goal, so the most important thing is how does the reader understand and respond, rather than exactly what does the Author mean. This is also called equivalent effect.

 

Now a word about the terminology of DE/FE. The term "receptor" refers to the reader of the translated text. The term "receptor language" refers to the language that the text has been translated into. These terms are drawn from "reader response" theory, i.e. Nida's existentialism.

His friend wrote, "“The terms ‘source,’ ‘message’ and ‘receptor’ all make totally explicit Nida’s starting assumption: translation is a form of communication. His communication model in its simplest form describes how a message requires a source, a content or meaning, and a receptor. In translation, a translator can function both as a receptor of a source language message and a source in the target language…. But Nida points out how much more is actually involved, especially since interpersonal communication takes place in a sociolinguistic, historical and cultural context. The meaning of the message and the way the reader responds to the message are shaped by these factors.”
Stine, Philip C. Let the Words Be Written. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005. 40.

Unfortunately many evangelicals have latched onto Nida's terms, even those who oppose his method. This is no doubt because they don't understand his method and terminology. Plus I guess it sounds cool to them. The world of secular professional translators have not followed Nida, but use terms like "target language" and "target text," and that is my terminology.

One secular scholar wrote, "He makes a point of talking about receptor language instead of target language so as to stress the fact that in translation a message is 'received' by readers rather than 'shot' at a target." (Giuseppe Palumbo, Key Terms in Translation Studies. New York: Continuum, 2009, 69).

 

The first NT translation done with Nida's methodology was the Today's English Version (TEV), for which the book title was Good News for Modern Man. (The difference in titles was Nida's weird idea.) The first edition, which I have was notable for translating "blood" (Gr. αἷμα, haima) as "death." The reason for the purposeful mistranslation is that Bratcher was a liberal, and did not like the idea of a "bloody religion," as a scholar friend who had talked to him personally told me.

Fundamentalists hit the roof. Charles Woodbridge wrote, “In my opinion, the version of the New Testament known as Good News for Modern Man is not only a poor work of exegetical scholarship. It also poses a deadly threat to Biblical orthodoxy.”
Charles Woodbridge, “Cutting Out Redemption by the Blood” (Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Rapids Christian Press, ND, 1-2) 1-2.

Stewart Custer and Marshall Neil wrote, “There are some serious errors in the TEV, however, that distort the plain message of the New Testament. We cannot keep silent and see the perversion of the truth of God.”
Stewart Custer and Marshall Neil, Good News for Modern Man: a Critique (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1970), 3.

E. L. Bynum wrote, “Thank God for a few who have spoken out on the subject. May this cause others to make a serious study of this poor translation of the Bible, and to sound the alarm.”
E. L. Bynum, “Why We Reject This Version” (Gospel Tract Society, Inc., ND).

M. L. Moser, Jr., wrote, “Some may accuse us of ignoring favorable things that could be said about the TEV but when there is arsenic in a loaf of bread, one does not spend time discussing the good ingredients of the bread, but warns against the arsenic. The changes and defects in TEV (sic) we have pointed out here are more dangerous to human souls than arsenic to the body.”
M. L. Moser, Jr., Good News for Modern Man, ‘The Devil’s Masterpiece’” (Little Rock, AR: The Challenge Press, 1970).

Because of the widespread opposition to "death" instead of "blood," the TEV was revised to say "blood."

 

Here is Colossians 1:15-23 from the TEV first edition of 1966, then the Greek, then my correct translation. Now that you know what DE/FE does, you should be able to see why these renderings were chosen by Bratcher, the liberal DE translator.

15. Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things.
15. ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως·
JJ—15. Who is the image of the unseen God, the firstborn over all creation.

16. For through him God created everything in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen things, including spiritual powers, lords, rulers, and authorities. God created the whole universe through him and for him.
16. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ1 ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ2 ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι, εἴτε κυριότητες, εἴτε ἀρχαί, εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
JJ—16. Because by Him all things were created, both the things in the heavens, the things which are seen and the things which are unseen, whether thrones or dominions or leaders or powers. All things were created through Him and by Him.

17 Christ existed before all things, and in union with him all things have their proper place.
17. καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.
JJ—17. And He exists before everything, and in Him all things have their existence.

18. He is the head of his body, the church; he is the source of the body's life. He is the first-born Son, who was raised from death, in order that he alone might have the first place in all things.
18. Καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων·
JJ—18. And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the cause, the firstborn out of the dead, so that in all things He might be the highest in rank,

19. For it was by God's own decision that the Son has in himself the full nature of God.
19. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι,
JJ—19. because it pleased the Father that in Him all fullness resides,

20. Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son's death on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven.
20. καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
JJ—20. and through Him to restore all things to Himself, whether the things on the earth or the things in Heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

21. At one time you were far away from God and made yourself his enemies by the evil things you did and thought.
21. Καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτὲ ὄντας ἀπηλλοτριωμένους καὶ ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς, νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν
JJ—21, And you who were formerly alienated, even enemies in your mind by evil works, but now reconciled.

22. But now, by means of the physical death of his Son, God has made you his friends, in order to bring you, holy, pure, and faultless, into his presence.
22. ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου, παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ·
JJ—22. in the body of His flesh through death, to present you saints and blameless, and irreproachable in His presence.

23. You must, of course, continue faithful on a firm and sure foundation, and must not allow yourselves to be shaken from the hope you gained when you heard the gospel. It is of this gospel that I, Paul, became a servant—this gospel which has been preached to everybody in the world.
23. εἴγε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ ἑδραῖοι, καὶ μὴ μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε, τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, οὗ ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος.
JJ—23. if you indeed continue in the faith, established and steadfast, and are not moved from the hope of the Gospel which you heard, the Gospel which was preached to every creature under Heaven, of which I Paul became a minister.

 

Why? It expresses neo-orthodoxy.

Forgive me, but I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

I completely agree. But DE/FE does seriously alter the sacred text, as shown by the "death" instead of "blood" rendering in the TEV. I could give many other examples.

 

Well said. However, IMO the term "target" points to the shooter, who is the Lord. In Bible translation, I believe authorial intent is much more important than reader response. And it is the Holy Spirit who teaches the Word to the believing heart, of course.

That's true. But the typical evangelical user of the term, including some scholars, doesn't understand its origin.

Agreed.

 

Thanks. I agree with this explanation.

Strangely, there are KJVOs who think it is wrong to have footnotes in the translated text, such as H. D. Williams in his book, Word-for-Word Translating of the Received Texts.

 

My scholar friend who spoke to Bratcher tells me that what the liberal Bible translator actually said to him was, ""I don't believe in a slaughterhouse religion."

Then, the publishers, the American Bible Society, first changed Bratcher's "death" rendering to "sacrificial death," then finally to "blood," but leaving "sacrificial death" in the footnotes.

 

I've been incredibly busy today, so I haven't had time to post, and my wife is coming to pick me up shortly. I'll just add two quotes I had already in a file from Nida's friend Stine who I have already quoted, showing that Nida did not believe in verbal inspiration. Is that the man you'd want translating the Bible for you, or teaching how to translate?

"Nida's approach...appeared to challenge the view of Scripture that many translators from conservative theological backgrounds had always held (and many Bible translators came from such backgrounds). Most Bible translators and church leaders would affirm that in some way God provides the ultimate source of the Bible. But many also hold a view of how the Bible expresses that divine source, a view that connects the divine source with actual words and forms. They see God directing in some way the writing and canonization process. For translators who believe that not only were the thoughts of the Bible inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, but also the words themselves, a translation approach such as Nida's contradicts their theology because it puts a premium on the message rather than the form" (Stine, p. 59).

Again from Stine: "In the translation studies perspective of Bassnett and Lefevere, the Jerome model rests on a particular conviction about the nature of the Bible itself. This conviction, also held by many later translators, asserted that God had inspired the words, idioms, and grammar of Scriptures, so translators should retain these words, idioms and grammar to the maximum degree possible" (p. 159).

 

Now, someone might object that some great scholars have touted DE/FE, and that is true. However, some of the leading scholars of Greek or translation have not really understood Nida's theory. For example, Stanley Porter is one of the leading Greek scholars of the day, but he got it wrong in a major work on translation. He wrote about the position of secular scholar Lawrence Venuti:

“He [Venuti] contends that Nida’s emphasis upon ‘naturalness of expression’ involves domestication, such that unrecognizable source language features are replaced by those in the target language. When Nida argues for accuracy in translation, Venuti claims, he is arguing for creating the same effect in the target-language readers as was produced in the source-language readers.”
Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda, ed., Translating the New Testament, Stanley E. Porter, “Assessing Translation Theory,” by p. 140.

Now I haven't been able to track down where in Venuti Porter was referring to exactly, though I have three of Venuti's books, but the irony is that Venuti was exactly right. I've already pointed out where Nida specifically said what Porter seems to think Venuti misunderstood: the goal of translation is reader response.

In Venuti's thinking, Nida's method was just paraphrase. He wrote,
“Eugene Nida, drawing on research from the American Bible Society, considers the problem of translating between different realities. He argues that solutions need to be ethnological, based on the translator’s acquisition of sufficient ‘cultural information.’ Since ‘it is inconceivable to a Maya Indian that any place should not have vegetation unless it has been cleared for a maize-field,’ Nida concludes that the Bible translator ‘must translate “desert” as an “abandoned place”’ to establish ‘the cultural equivalent of the desert of Palestine’ (Nida 1945:197). Here translation is paraphrase. It works to reduce linguistic and cultural differences to a shared referent. Yet the referent is clearly a core of meaning constructed by the translator and weighted toward the receiving culture so as to be comprehensible there.”
Lawrence Venuti, p. 113 in his preface to the 1940’s to 1950’s section in The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed., which he edited. New York: Routledge, 2004.

 

Here is another telling criticism of DE/FE by Venuti:

"Communication here is controlled by or for the receptors, it is in fact an interested interpretation, and therefore it seems less an exchange of information than an appropriation of a foreign text to serve a purpose in the receiving culture. Nida’s theory of translation as communication does not adequately take into account the ethnocentric violence that is inherent in every translation process—but especially in one governed by dynamic equivalence. In view of this violence, how can a translation possibly produce an effect on the receptors that is equivalent to the effect produced by the foreign text on its initial audience?”
Lawrence Venuti, The Translator’s Invisibility. New York: Routledge, 1995, 17.

 

If I'm not mistaken, I first put the following on the BB over ten years ago. It may help to put it on again here. This is an analysis of a TNIV passage showing how it is DE/FE.

Dynamic Equivalence in Matthew 8 of the TNIV
A Study by John R. Himes

For the purposes of this study, I chose a chapter in the Today’s New International Version (TNIV; accessed on the Internet) at random to examine: Matthew 8. I did not remember the content when I chose it. Note that I have not dealt with every place I would translate differently, but only those places that I believe are clearly DE renderings.

First of all, all through this chapter (in every verse but vv. 12, 13, 17, 22, 23; arguably in 16,) the translation does not translate conjunctions at the beginning of sentences such as καί (and, also) and δέ (and, but). There is a theory that in Greek these conjunctions are often just sentence markers, telling where a new sentence starts, and therefore don’t always need to be translated. Even if that is true, there are still places where these words are meaningful at the beginning of the sentence and should be translated. To almost never translate them means the translators were thinking that the impression received by the modern reader is more important than the peculiar syntax of the original. This concept is called “reader response” or “receptor response” in DE. It is an extremely important principle for DE advocates. A recent issue of the United Bible Society journal The Bible Translator had an article on “P46 as a Paradigm for Reader-Response Criticism,” which is an ugly stepchild of form criticism.

At the beginning of verse 2, καὶ ἰδού was not translated at all. This would be translated literally, “And behold,” or “And look.” A sense-for-sense rendering might be “So look now” (a little less literal). But most folk do not talk like this nowadays, and the translators probably left it out so that their translation would be a “closest natural equivalent” of the original. This is a DE principle.

In a literal translation, verse 6 would continue the sentence starting in verse 5, since what the TNIV has as “he said” is a participle. This is a case where the translator did not feel that the form of the original was important enough to preserve in the translation. That is another DE principle. However, a literal translator would believe there was an important nuance in the grammatical form of the original.

In v. 11 the TNIV has “take their places at the feast.” The Greek for “take their places at the feast” is ἀνακλιθήσονται, which is sometimes problematic for the translator. It generally means to sit or in many cases to recline at the table as was the custom in the first century. I think “recline” or “sit” are both good literal equivalents, though “recline” may need a footnote to explain the first century meal-time custom. However, there is no “at the feast” in the word. Sometimes when it is used there is no feast (Matt. 14:19, Luke 2:7, etc.). So “take their places at the feast” is a DE rendering, an unnecessary paraphrase adding an extra word designed to produce a “natural equivalent” and a “clear meaning” which probably didn’t exist in the minds of the Divine and human authors.

Verse 12 has the interesting rendering, “the subjects of the kingdom.” The Greek here is υἱοι τῆς βασιλείας which would be translated “sons of the kingdom” by a literal translator. This gets into the criticism of the TNIV that it is gender neutral, but I am not going to argue that right now. My focus is how the DE translation method allows this rendering while a literal method does not. Literal methods will translate an idiom as is if it makes sense in the target language, and this one does. So-called “meaning-based translation” methods (as if all translation was not meaning-based) such as DE often will not literally translate idioms, even if the idiom makes sense in the target language. DE translators look for that “closest natural equivalent,” meaning they believe it should never sound like a translation. But as one of my fellow translators once said, “But it is a translation!”

A literal translation of the words of Jesus in v. 13 would be “Go and…” but the TNIV leaves out the “and” (καὶ) and makes it two sentences, thus losing a nuance: “Go! Let it be done….” The DE method looks to simplify difficulties in favor of understanding, and is often not interested in preserving the nuances and ambiguities of the original, especially if the translated document is then hard to understand. Thus Nida invented the term “formal equivalence” to use instead of “literal” or “word-for-word.” He meant that a “formal” translation tries to preserve the “form” of the original.

The TNIV has in v. 16 “he drove out the spirits” (ἐξέβαλεν τὰ πνεύματα). The Greek word here is usually translated cast out, throw out, etc. It is translated “cast out” in various translations but can be translated “drive out” as in Gen. 3:24 in the Septuagint. No doubt the translators were striving for the best natural equivalent here, thinking “cast out” to be archaic, but think about it. The English “drive” is normally a process, as in “He drove his wife nuts” or “The boy drove the sheep to market.” However, Christ’s act was instantaneous.

In verse 20 the TNIV has “Jesus replied,” but the original is “He said” (λέγει). I have no problem with using “Jesus” instead of “he” and thus replacing a pronoun with a proper name. We do this often in Japanese for clarity, since Japanese syntax handles pronouns very poorly. However, I see a nuance in “said” that is lost in the TNIV rendering of “replied.” The translator was no doubt trying to make more sense in English, but in my view if Jesus “replied” then He was merely responding to the man, whereas if He “said,” then He was initiating something that the would-be disciple needed to know. This may seem picky, but once again this rendering depends on your translation method.

In verse 21 we have, “Another disciple,” but the original is Ἕτερος δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν [αὐτοῦ], or “another of [his] disciples” (the brackets show a textual problem with the word “his,” not relevant in this analysis). Why would the TNIV make the plural into a singular? This was probably for clarity. The DE method strives for clarity in the translation over keeping to the exact form of the original. But to a literal translator, “authorial intent” (what the divine Author was communicating) would come first, so he would keep it plural, believing there is meaning in the plural form that needs to be preserved in the translation.

Verse 24 has “furious storm” in the TNIV for the Greek σεισμὸς μέγας. But this is literally, “great storm” or “large storm.” This is another example of the reader response principle of DE.

Verse 25 has “We’re going to drown” in the TNIV for the Greek ἀπολλύμεθα. However, the Greek word is a passive form meaning to “die” or “be destroyed.” This TNIV rendering is obviously done for “reader response” as per DE theory.

Verse 26 has “It was completely calm” (ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη), which would be literally “There was/became a great calm.” So “completely” is substituted for “great,” another case of the DE goal of clarity at the expense of the form of the original.

In v. 29 it says, “before the appointed time.” However, in the original (πρὸ καιροῦ), there is no “appointed.” The translator no doubt added the word so as to get the right reader response as per DE theory. But the problem with this to a literal translator is that the translator is then thinking and interpreting for the reader. Translating literally, “before the time,” forces the readers to think it through themselves—“What time? Did someone set a time here? Who set it and why?”

Verse 31 has “If you drive us out” (Εἰ ἐκβάλλεις ἡμᾶς). See the note on v. 16.

Conclusions

There are two points in my analysis that can be extended to the whole TNIV. I mentioned the near complete refusal to translate the conjunctions at the beginning of each Greek sentence. A spot check of various passages shows that this omission is very common throughout the New Testament. Therefore this DE rendering (or lack of it) is a characteristic of the TNIV NT. Unfortunately, it is also a characteristic of more literal versions such as the New King James Version.

The second point is the famous TNIV tendency towards gender-equal phraseology. This is certainly a DE tendency based on the reader response principle. That is, the translator wishes the reader to comprehend the document just as the original readers did. In this case, I believe the DE translator would think a 21st century reader would be sidetracked by the “gender discrimination” in the Bible, and so would tone down perceived male dominance in order to better communicate. However, this becomes an archaism—reading modern concepts into an ancient document.

My point here is this. Literal translation methods do their best to present the document in the target language with the original forms, including such perceived “gender discrimination.” Gender neutral language therefore, when not warranted by the text (as in the case of Matt. 8:12 in the TNIV), is dynamic equivalence. The logical conclusion is that TNIV advocates must admit for the sake of honesty that gender neutral language is not in the original, but is supplied by the translators. On the other hand, one who holds to a literal method of translation can be encouraged that they are on the right path in preserving the ambiguities and nuances of the original.

 

Oddly enough, the greatest opposition I've had to my views on Eugene Nida and his DE/FE Bible translation theory was from fundamentalists at a scholarly meeting of Bible faculty profs. I presented an academic paper disagreeing with Nida, and several profs excoriated me. Perhaps the reason for that was my bad timing--a friend of theirs had just died, a fundamentalist named Rod Decker. He was in favor of DE/FE, so my opponents seemed to feel I was walking on his grave.

Maybe I should upload that paper to this thread. Is anyone interested?

 

In the meantime, perhaps the strongest secular opponent of Nida's theories is Edwin Gentzler in his book, Contemporary Translation Theories, 2nd rev. ed. (Clevedon, Eng.: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2001). He has a whole section on DE/FE, pp. 44-76.

Here are some quotes:

“The translated text, according to Nida, should produce a response in a reader in today’s culture that is ‘essentially like’ the response of the ‘original’ receptors; if it does not, he suggests making changes in the text (Gentzler’s emphasis) in order to solicit that initial response (Nida & Taber, 1969: 202).” (Gentzler, pp. 53-54)

“His goal, even with the Bible, is to dispel the mystery, solve the ambiguities, and reduce the complexities for simple consumption” (Gentzler, 57)

“Because of the importance of retaining this meaning, the form the message takes becomes expendable, reducing the surface manifestation of the message to secondary status” (Gentzler, 58).

“Nida believes, as he argued in Message and Mission, that words are essentially labels (Nida, 1960); if they need to be changed or replaced in order to effect communication, then they should be adjusted accordingly. Verbal symbols are only labels of human origin, and the ‘message’ is from a higher source. Texts are equally pliable, adapting themselves to multiple forms without altering the original intention” (Gentzler, 59).