Definitions Again

[John of Japan]

Now, why did Nida rename his theory from DE to functional equivalence (FE)? Here is his explanation:

“Unfortunately, the expression 'dynamic equivalence' has often been misunderstood as referring to anything which might have special impact and appeal for receptors. Some Bible translators have seriously violated the principle of dynamic equivalence as described in Theory and Practice of Translating and Toward a Science of Translating. It is hoped, therefore, that the use of the expression 'functional equivalence' may serve to highlight the communicative functions of translating and to avoid misunderstanding” (Eugene Nida and Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another, pp. vii, viii).

So, this is why I refuse to call any rendering from before Nida's theory was developed DE or FE. I'm simply obeying Nida's own wishes. He did not wish anything to be called DE except renderings which concentrated on receptor (reader) response. So, to willynilly call this or that translation DE without showing where it seeks reader response is irresponsible.

 

[John of Japan]

Along the same line, here is another quote:

“Nida later felt that the term 'dynamic equivalence' had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term 'dynamic' to refer to translations that had impact and appeal. But since he had in fact defined 'dynamic equivalence in terms of 'functional equivalence,' he began to use this latter term instead. ‘Functional equivalence' was introduced in From One Language to Another, co-authored with Jan de Waard” (Philip Stine, Let the Words Be Written, p. 51).

 

[Rippon2]

So, this is why I refuse to call any rendering from before Nida's theory was developed DE or FE. I'm simply obeying Nida's own wishes. He did not wish anything to be called DE except renderings which concentrated on receptor (reader) response. So, to willynilly call this or that translation DE without showing where it seeks reader response is irresponsible.

You have contradicted yourself. On 6/9/2013 you said "Again, my argument against the NIV is the translation theory behind it, dynamic equivalence."

On 6/11/2013 you said : "So, it's good to read that you finally acknowledge the NIV translation method as DE/FE!"

Another quote of yours from the same date :"Here is a rendering which IMO is a dynamic equivalence rendering in the NIV."

And as for what you refer to as "willy nilly" business, the onus is on you. You have called the NIV DE multiple times, now you call those that do in disrepute. Scholars across the spectrum have used the terms 'functional equivalence,' 'dynamic equivalence' and 'formal equivalence.' Shall I name a few? Ryken (though he alone on the list is not a NT scholar), Grudem, Piper, D.A. Carson, Philip Comfort, Doug Moo, Moises Silva, Daniel Block, Rod Decker, Gordon Fee, Mark Strauss, David Bell, Dave Brunn, Daniel Wallace, Robert L. Thomas,Thomas Nass, David Black and Ernest R. Wendland.

You have met the last two. Dr. Wendland, whom I have quoted on the BB many times wrote a paper called Martin Luther : The Father Of Confessional Functional Equivalence Translation.

 

[John of Japan]

You have contradicted yourself. On 6/9/2013 you said "Again, my argument against the NIV is the translation theory behind it, dynamic equivalence."

On 6/11/2013 you said : "So, it's good to read that you finally acknowledge the NIV translation method as DE/FE!"

Another quote of yours from the same date :"Here is a rendering which IMO is a dynamic equivalence rendering in the NIV."

I have no idea what you mean here. The NIV was translated after Nida invented DE, so of course it can be DE, as various scholars (not just me) have said. (Good grief, folks, Rippon is quoting me from almost seven years ago!!! He's obsessed! How does little old me deserve such wonderful attention? )

And as for what you refer to as "willy nilly" business, the onus is on you. You have called the NIV DE multiple times, now you call those that do in disrepute. Scholars across the spectrum have used the terms 'functional equivalence,' 'dynamic equivalence' and 'formal equivalence.' Shall I name a few? Ryken (though he alone on the list is not a NT scholar), Grudem, Piper, D.A. Carson, Philip Comfort, Doug Moo, Moises Silva, Daniel Block, Rod Decker, Gordon Fee, Mark Strauss, David Bell, Dave Brunn, Daniel Wallace, Robert L. Thomas,Thomas Nass, David Black and Ernest R. Wendland.

You have met the last two. Dr. Wendland, whom I have quoted on the BB many times wrote a paper called Martin Luther : The Father Of Confessional Functional Equivalence Translation.

So what is your point? Just to hassle me again? Or are you saying that good men are not allowed to differ?

Dr. Black and Dr. Wendsland, who as you say I have met, are good men. But they are not infallible.

(For the record, I don't believe that all of the men Rippon2 listed write just like he says they do. For example, Dr. Black does not use the term "receptor" in either his beginning Greek grammar or his intermediate Greek grammar.)

 

[Rippon2]

I have no idea what you mean here. The NIV was translated after Nida invented DE, so of course it can be DE, as various scholars (not just me) have said.

Even though it doesn't use the reader's response in the literature, especially the Preface of the NIV?

are you saying that good men are not allowed to differ?

It's not a matter of good men differing. You said :"So to willy nilly call this or that translation DE without showing where it seeks reader response is irresponsible."

I say your remark is reckless. If a Bible version does not call itself a dynamic or functionally-equivalent translation, you don't have the right to do so. To do so is irresponsible.

Dr. Black and Dr. Wendsland, who as you say I have met, are good men. But they are not infallible.

It's Dr. Wendland, to be accurate. And to be equally clear Dr. James Price is not infallible.

Dr. Black does not use the term "receptor" in either his beginning Greek grammar or his intermediate Greek grammar.)

And what has that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

I made no mention of the word 'receptor' in my post. When you first came on the BB you were against the use of the term. Then you used it freely with no qualifications. Are you back to square one? It means the target audience. They are synonyms. Don't make a big deal out of microscopic things.

But something you have avoided all along these years is Dr. Wendland's work : Martin Luther : The Father Of Confessional Functional Equivalence Translation.

Here you have a scholarly man who demonstrates that that term can be applied to Martin Luther, centuries before Nida was born. The principles were in Luther's work. You can dislike that fact, but you can't wish it out of existence.

 

[John of Japan]

It's Dr. Wendland, to be accurate.

Thank you for the correction.

When you first came on the BB you were against the use of the term. Then you used it freely with no qualifications. Are you back to square one?

Don't think I ever approved of it except when discussing DE. But and if I did change, so what?

Brother, you seem to be headed down the same path Alexander Cruden did. He called himself "Cruden the Corrector," and spent his life correcting minor details of spelling and morality. But he also spent several stretches in an insane asylum. Please take care of yourself, not only with the Corona virus.

Now, I hope we can actually get back to the OP, which is all about definitions. Got any of those?

 

[John of Japan]

I don't believe anyone has given a definition of "paraphrase" yet. Here are several from various sources.

“paraphrase n. v. an expression of the meaning of the word or phrase using other words or phrases, often in an attempt to make the meaning easier to understand. For example, to make someone (or something) appear or feel younger is a paraphrase of the English word rejuvenate. Dictionary definitions often take the form of paraphrases of the word they are trying to define.” (Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3rd edition, by Jack Richards, Richard Schmidt, Heidi Platt, Marcus Schmidt, p. 384-385.)
JoJ: I like this definition. It might be the best one I have. The example given is on target.

“Paraphrase: The statement of the contents of a passage, text, etc., in the same or another language, without following the original text verbatim.” (Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 159)
JoJ: This one misses the mark. You can paraphrase in the same language, not just into another language.

“When you paraphrase another’s work, use your own words and your own sentence structure, and be sure to use a footnote giving the source of the idea.” (Hodges, John C. and Mary E. Whitten. Harbrace College Handbook. Hew York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1967, p. 407.)
JoJ: Note that this is a little dumbed down, being aimed at college freshmen, teaching them how to write a college paper.

"par·a·phrase (pàr¹e-frâz´) noun
1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.
2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device."
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation.)
JoJ: This is a typical English language dictionary definition; not too bad.

By any of these definitions, The Message is very clearly a paraphrased version. Note the following renderings from Col. 16:10, first The Message and then my own rendering, and then the Byz. for you fellow Greek nerds.

The Message—10 If Timothy shows up, take good care of him. Make him feel completely at home among you. He works so hard for the Master, just as I do.

JoJ—10. But if Timothy should come, see that he is with you without fear. He accomplishes work for the Lord as I do.

10. Ἐὰν δὲ ἔλθῃ Τιμόθεος, βλέπετε ἵνα ἀφόβως γένηται πρὸς ὑμᾶς· τὸ γὰρ ἔργον κυρίου ἐργάζεται ὡς καὶ ἐγώ.

 

[Rippon2]

.

But something you have avoided all along these years is Dr. Wendland's work : Martin Luther : The Father Of Confessional Functional Equivalence Translation.

Here you have a scholarly man who demonstrates that that term can be applied to Martin Luther, centuries before Nida was born. The principles were in Luther's work. You can dislike that fact, but you can't wish it out of existence.

You still have given no response, even an unreasonable one, to the above.

 

[John of Japan]

You still have given no response, even an unreasonable one, to the above.

And I will give no response. It's not answering the OP.

Tell you what, since you insist on making your comments about me rather than the OP, I'll just put you on "Ignore." And then willfully ignore you!

 

[Rippon2]

Here's Nida's definition of "formal equivalence," called "formal correspondence" in this definition (he liked to invent new terms):

“formal correspondence: quality of a translation in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language. Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard.”
Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 201.

By this definition you can see how Nida looked down on any "literal" translation. He uses negative terminology like "mechanical" and "distorts" and "misunderstand" and "labor unduly hard." In other words,you have to modernize and dumb down a translation for it to be effective.

You will note how JJ's interpretation of the Nida & Taber quote mangles their formulation.

 

[John of Japan]

Equivalent effect:
"The term refers to the principle that Nida (1964:159) sees as the basis of dynamic equivalence in translation. A translation, in other words, should strive to produce the same or similar effect in the TL [target language] readers as that produced by the ST [source text] on the SL readers. The notion of equivalent effect has been criticized on the ground that translation invariably involves a loss of the meanings and context associated with the ST and that response to a text is hardly the same in two different cultures and times.” (Giuseppe Palumbo, Key Terms in Translation Studies. New York: Continuum International Publ. Group, 2009, 44.)

So according to this top secular scholar, Nida's goal is not achievable. If we don't know how the original "receptors" (jew, Roman, Greek) received the Word of God (and we don't, other than through the working of the Holy Spirit in Acts), how can we achieve the same effect? It's an impossible dream.

 

[Yeshua1]

Equivalent effect:
"The term refers to the principle that Nida (1964:159) sees as the basis of dynamic equivalence in translation. A translation, in other words, should strive to produce the same or similar effect in the TL [target language] readers as that produced by the ST [source text] on the SL readers. The notion of equivalent effect has been criticized on the ground that translation invariably involves a loss of the meanings and context associated with the ST and that response to a text is hardly the same in two different cultures and times.” (Giuseppe Palumbo, Key Terms in Translation Studies. New York: Continuum International Publ. Group, 2009, 44.)

So according to this top secular scholar, Nida's goal is not achievable. If we don't know how the original "receptors" (jew, Roman, Greek) received the Word of God (and we do!n't, other than through the working of the Holy Spirit in Acts), how can we achieve the same effect? It's an impossible dream.

That would be when translators at times have gotten "creative", as in trying to read the thoughts of the Apostles, and trying to interpret and comment on what was happening!

 

[John of Japan]

That would be when translators at times have gotten "creative", as in trying to read the thoughts of the Apostles, and trying to interpret and comment on what was happening!

You're thinking of authorial intent, not equivalent effect.

 

[John of Japan]

Authorial intent refers to the discernment of the meaning of the original author of a document. Sometimes this is readily discernable, as when Jesus intends to inform and says, "Truly, truly, I say to you...." Other times it is more difficult to discern, but the literal translator believes that the original syntax and semantics reveals the intent of the author. Translations are either weighted towards authorial intent or reader response. Often the translator cannot translate with both in mind. God's ways are higher than the heavens (Is. 55:9), so sometimes His meaning escapes even the translator.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't think anyone has defined "word for word" yet.
JoJ: Word-for-word: a translation method that seeks to find the closest possible equivalent in the target language for every single word in the original document.

“Word-for-word Translation (or Word-by-word Translation) “A method of translating which entails precise fidelity to the wording of ST [“source text”]. Like its opposite, Sense-for-sense Translation, the term was originally coined in the first century BC by Roman writers Cicero and Horace…. Most writers now consider it an extreme form of literal translation in which a TL [“target language”] word is substituted for each ST word without reference to syntactical factors such as word order” (Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of Translation Studies, 197-198).

 

[John of Japan]

contemporary usage: how a word is used in documents other than the source document during the same time frame as the source document.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think anyone has defined "word for word" yet.
JoJ: Word-for-word: a translation method that seeks to find the closest possible equivalent in the target language for every single word in the original document.

“Word-for-word Translation (or Word-by-word Translation) “A method of translating which entails precise fidelity to the wording of ST [“source text”]. Like its opposite, Sense-for-sense Translation, the term was originally coined in the first century BC by Roman writers Cicero and Horace…. Most writers now consider it an extreme form of literal translation in which a TL [“target language”] word is substituted for each ST word without reference to syntactical factors such as word order” (Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of Translation Studies, 197-198).

was that your method for translation the TR int Japanese then?

 

[John of Japan]

etymology: the study of how the meaning of a word develops and changes over time. See “historical linguistics.”

historical linguistics (also called diachronic linguistics): the study of how language develops and changes over a period of time, in particular the etymology of individual words. This becomes important primarily when a hapax legomenon is present in the source document. (This is a word that occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.)

Note that etymology rarely determines the meaning of a word. This is a change from the linguistic thinking of the old time philologists to modern linguistics.

 

[John of Japan]

was that your method for translation the TR int Japanese then?

Our method was optimal equivalence, which produces more sophisticated versions than simple "word for word" versions like Young's.

 

[Yeshua1]

Our method was optimal equivalence, which produces more sophisticated versions than simple "word for word" versions like Young's.

Same method as was used by the NKJV translators?