Dynamic Equivalence--Again!

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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?

Serve it up and perhaps we will be able to decipher it a bit. But what we really need is a video of those other profs excoriating you (for learning purposes, of course).

 

[John of Japan]

Serve it up and perhaps we will be able to decipher it a bit. But what we really need is a video of those other profs excoriating you (for learning purposes, of course).

Well, there may have been videos and I may have destroyed them.... Or not, you'll never know.

Anyway, here is the essay.

 

[John of Japan]

Been pretty busy lately, but here's something about the linguistics behind Nida's theory.

He based it partly on what is called the code theory of communication. Nida wrote, "Fundamentally, a code consists of symbols organized into a system Language, which is precisely such a code, consists of words (or other units) which are organized, according 'to the rules of grammar' into particular types of combinations." Toward a Science of Translating, p. 30.

Unfortunately for Nida's theory, code theory is passe, not generally accepted nowadays. I have a recent book on communication theory which doesn't mention it at all: Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed., by Stephen W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2011.

Among Bible translators, the theory that has replaced code theory is called relevance theory. The primary resource on this is Ernst-August Gutt, Relevance Theory. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992. Gutt wrote, “There are many aspects of human communication for which the code model simply cannot account" (p. 11).

Even some secular scholars have noted that relevance theory replaces code theory. Anthony Pym wrote quoting Gutt and referring to Nida, "In insisting that interpretation be in terms of the source context, Gutt effectively discounts much of the 'dynamic equivalence' that Nida wanted to use to make biblical texts relevant to new audiences. Gutt insists not only that the original context is the one that counts, but also that this makes 'the explication of implicatures both unnecessary and undesirable' (1991:166). In the end, 'it is the audience’s responsibility to make up for such differences' (ibid). Make the receiver work!"
Exploring Translation Theories, by Anthony Pym. Florence, KY: Routledge, 2009, p. 37.

 

[Revmitchell]

I want to note clearly here that Nida was an existentialist, which shaped his theology into Neo-orthodoxy. For this thread, the main thing to know is that this heresy teaches that the Bible is not ergo the Word of God, but it can (not does) becomes the Word of God as you read it. So you have an existentialist moment and then the Bible means something to you.

A noted Baptist theologian wrote, "In the neo-orthodox view, since there are no revealed truths, only truths of revelation, how one person interprets an encounter with God may be different from another person's understanding. Indeed, even the interpretations given to events by the authors of Scripture were not divinely inspired. What they wrote was merely their own attempt to give some accounting of what they had experienced." Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013, 222.

I could give a ton of quotes proving Nida was neo-orthodox, but here are just a couple:

"Neo-orthodox theology has given a new perspective to the doctrine of divine inspiration. For the most part, it conceives of inspiration primarily in terms of the response of the receptor, and places less emphasis on what happened to the source at the time of writing."
Nida, Eugene. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964, 27.

"Nida had read Barth’s work as well as the writings of other prominent theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich, though he never referred to them in his writings. As a member of one of the commissions of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, Nida once met with Richard Niebuhr of Yale, an important American neo-orthodox theologian, to discuss developments in theology as they related to effective communication of the Christian message."
Stine, Philip C. Let the Words Be Written. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, 144.

Next time, I'm going to address what Nida called good translation of Rom. 16:16, "Greet one another with a holy kiss." Nida liked Phillips, "hearty handshake" instead of "holy kiss." Any thoughts?

I have been railing against the DE for years on this board. Some here take it personally when I do. This example you give here is a good one. There is no legitimate reason to translate it any other way than Holy Kiss. Did they actually literally kiss each other? Then that is the only way it should be translated. How we would emulate that today is discovered in application not translation. The DE translators are trying to remove the literal by commingling the translation and the application. Its not necessary. It doesn't assist in understanding and its ungodly.Never should we remove what literally happened in scripture to accommodate cultural norms of our day.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I have been railing against the DE for years on this board. This example you give here is a good one. There is no legitimate reason to translate it any other way than Holy Kiss.

Well you are wrong again RM. Even the KJV didn't follow your strictures. It has "kiss of charity.'

Most English translations have "kiss of love" Even the ones you would consider to be dynamic such as : CSB, CEB, EHV, NCB, NCV, NET, NIrV, NIV, NLT and NRSV,

 

[RipponRedeaux]

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

What do you do with Selah in the Psalms?

 

[John of Japan]

Well you are wrong again RM. Even the KJV didn't follow your strictures. It has "kiss of charity.'

Most English translations have "kiss of love" Even the ones you would consider to be dynamic such as : CSB, CEB, EHV, NCB, NCV, NET, NIrV, NIV, NLT and NRSV,

"Charity" meant "love" in 1611.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"Charity" meant "love" in 1611.

Well, duh. But what has that to do with anything? RM was insisting that the only legitimate way of translating that was
Holy Kiss. And that is utter nonsense.

 

[JonC]

I have been railing against the DE for years on this board. Some here take it personally when I do. This example you give here is a good one. There is no legitimate reason to translate it any other way than Holy Kiss. Did they actually literally kiss each other? Then that is the only way it should be translated. How we would emulate that today is discovered in application not translation. The DE translators are trying to remove the literal by commingling the translation and the application. Its not necessary. It doesn't assist in understanding and its ungodly.Never should we remove what literally happened in scripture to accommodate cultural norms of our day.

This is where study comes in (and realizing that we live in different cultures). This necessitates a literal translation.

One example (in theology) is Origen's theory. Most scholars believe he (like many earlier preachers) personified sin and death as "Satan" (without meaning this literally). Fast forward a few centuries and it became people understood God as paying a ransom to Satan (literally).

Translations should be translations, not explanations, of the text.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, duh. But what has that to do with anything? RM was insisting that the only legitimate way of translating that was
Holy Kiss. And that is utter nonsense.

Okay, let me get this straight. Translating ἐν φιλήματι ἁγίῳ (meaning "holy kiss") with only "holy kiss" is nonsense? When that is exactly what it means, and the rendering makes sense to any English speaking person on the planet?

By all means, don't just call it "nonsense." Please tell us WHY you think it is nonsense. What linguistic or translation principle are you referencing here?

And just to be clear, "kiss of charity" only occurs in 1 Peter 5:14, and there the Greek is different, ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης, meaning "kiss of charity/love," just as the KJV has it.

And go back and look. I quoted secular translation studies scholars, far more qualified than you, who disagree with Nida's preferred "hearty handshake."

 

[John of Japan]

What do you do with Selah in the Psalms?

I transliterate, just like most translators do. Any other irrelevant queries?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I transliterate, just like most translators do. Any other irrelevant queries?

Why do you consider it irrelevant? It has no set meaning. It is mere speculation that it means pause and reflect.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Phillips used the phraseology of "a hearty handshake all around." And that singular expression is held up to be the prime example of the weakness of DE translations. Yet no other translation has that wording. It must be concluded that no other translation is DE.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

In Ro. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12 and 1 Thess. 5:26 the Goodspeed translation has sacred kiss. Is that wrong? Sacred is a synonym for holy. But no, that has to be illegitimate because to veer away from the dictums of some there cannot be any other way to translate but holy kiss.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

some scholars, doesn't understand its origin.

Tighten up that English.

 

[Marooncat79]

Here my beef

you have an American Pastor who is monolingual and a KJVO advocate

they understand absolutely nothing at all in translation work whether it’s syntax of whatever, yet bash those who work diligently to try and provide a copy of the WOG to those who have none, or to provide a more vernacular reading for our day.

especially to those who do not have a good Bible Translation in their own language

and to think that there are some who actually believe that you have to learn English, so that you can read a KJV Bible in order to be saved is mind boggling to me. Truly

and they can’t even keep quiet about it 2 seconds to contemplate it

anyone who has truly been involved in any non English country can tell you that the first thing you have to do is dress like the native only to be quickly followed by speaking their language

 

[John of Japan]

In Ro. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12 and 1 Thess. 5:26 the Goodspeed translation has sacred kiss. Is that wrong? Sacred is a synonym for holy. But no, that has to be illegitimate because to veer away from the dictums of some there cannot be any other way to translate but holy kiss.

"Sacred kiss" is a semantic equivalent, and therefore certainly a possibility for the rendering.

 

[John of Japan]

Tighten up that English.

Tighten up your own grammar. The subject of that sentence is "user," not "scholars.

 

[John of Japan]

Why do you consider it irrelevant? It has no set meaning. It is mere speculation that it means pause and reflect.

Tell you what, perhaps it deserves its own thread.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

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

To translate that into proper English :
But typical evangelical users of the term , including some scholars, don't understand its origin.

There, I fixed it for you.