Hcsb

Smiley-face or not --your statement was false.

I have been a big supporter of a number of versions other than the NIV. You know it. I have had thread after thread in admiration of other versions. I even had one that comparing the ESV with the 84 NIV --in favor of the former.

 

Ok, pardon me for trying to be funny.

 

What pace? You said nothing new, just the same old same old without answering my post, so I did too.

 

The Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation (Part 1)
Notes on Translation Vol. 9 No. 1 (1995):16-36
Ernst R. Wendland

 

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/WendlandLuther.pdf

 

Market-Language Version

He actually has a two part article.

Near the beginning Wendland says:"It will soon become clear that Luther's procedures are much in keeping with the modern principles of meaning-oriented Bible translation,even though they pre-date them by over four hundred years!"

Wendland says that Functional Equivalence means natural or idiomatic.He kept quoting Luther (translated of course) about the sense of the text,according to the sense. Wenland says that Luther's translation (he revised it 5 times in his own lifetime) was sense-oriented.

The author said that Luther wanted to relinquish words and render the sense. Luther:"Words are to serve and follow the meaning,not the meaning the words."

However, "A concern for naturalness must never be allowed to diminish or distort the intended meaning of a given Greek or Hebrew term."

Wenland lists ten propositions that he thinks guided Luther's translation philosophy. The first one is Priority of Meaning. That is,vs. linguistic form.

The second principle Wendland has is Change of Linguistic Form. R.W. says that "you can't except in relatively few fortuitous cases,retain both form and meaning."

 

Before I say anything, a note to the readers other than Rippon. Judging from long experience with Rippon, no matter what I say he will reject it and probably question my bona fides to even comment on the subject, and especially to disagree with a scholar such as Wendland. For me to counter that I would have to spend time giving my resume, which seems silly and self-centered, so I won't do that. I will point out though that once when Rippon questioned that I am even a linguist, my old friend and former BWM director Dr. Fred Moritz got on one of the few times he has ever posted here, and pointed out that I'm the genuine article. At any rate....

I see no purpose in answering Wendland in detail. My beef is simply with Rippon, who I sincerely doubt understands even the basics of translation theory. (He tries though, and he reads a lot, so I give him credit for that.)

Having said that, I would like to point out that Wendland is of the modern crop of SIL linguists and translators who have taken Nida's theories to a new level. For example, please note that Wendland has discourse analysis as one of his ten points (a strong emphasis of the SIL people nowadays; see Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation, Essays on Discourse Analysis, ed. by David Alan Black, for essays by SIL people), but it was certainly not a main point of Nida. (My Nida library is in Japan, so I can't determine exactly how much he did talk about it.) So the point here is that the SIL and UBS are in the Beekman/Callow era and have to a certain degree moved past Nida's DE. So Wendland is not that relevant to me on this issue.

Again, Wendland does not say "reader response," but "Monitoring the reception of the message" which is a different thing entirely. So I stand by my stated position that Luther did not seek for reader response and did not speak of it.

 

Why are you so defensive JoJ? I quoted an authority. His point of view differs from yours. Don't put up a wall. For Pete's sake, I am not questioning your expertise. Why you have to insert that is beyond me.

Why not?

Why the attitude? Your "beef" is with me? Does everyone have to fall in lockstep with what you say? Why can't another point of view be aired without it raising your hackles?

Why can't anyone here ask questions and occasionally have a legitimate objection with what you say?

Thanks for making an attempt.

Don't be so dismissive. His view has a lot to do with your translation philosophy because it is so different.

You are still sticking to that tired old phrase. Wendland called Luther the Father of Functional Equivalence. But wait a minute...that can't be true. JoJ disagrees with that proposition.

Functional Equivalence/Dynamic Equivalence was still be practiced long before Nida arrived on the scene. Of course it didn't go by either name. But just because Luther's method did not line up in all the particulars of Nida's prescriptions doesn't negate the fact that a dynamic equivalence was Luther's guiding principle.

From what I have read, a Bible translation by Leo Judd( primarily) and Zwingle was much more literal in contradistinction to Luther's. Luther's version was not done in the same literalistic style as the KJV. I know the two are often compared favorably,but that was only because as Tyndale's version was instrumental for the development of the English language --so was Luther's translation for the German tongue. But after that similarities end.

 

My daughter is in the 3rd grade and just turned 9 years old. She has her choice of several different translations to read from and she picks up the NKJV almost everytime.

 

Perhaps it's just coincidental,but is the NKJV your favorite?

 

This from the guy who just recently said I was "immature" for not agreeing with him. So I wrote a a pre-emptive post. :smilewinkgrin:

I have good discussions with lots of people on the BB, and some of them have legitimately objected to my posts. Recently glfredrick did just that and today I thanked him for correcting me. But your insults always make it difficult for me to interact with you peacefully.

 

I said you were immature for repeating something that has been your stock-in-trade no matter how many times you have been proven wrong.

You presume too much. I present information that is counter to your point of view and you go bonkers.

It is your prerogative to ignore my posts. But I will still comment on yours.

BTW,you are a specialist of sorts when it comes to dishing out insults. Your constant refrain to those who disagree with you is "baloney." That is among the other barbs in your arsenal. When I quote you I usually delete your offensive remarks and get to the substance of the matter.

 

What a pointless thread.

 

We have departed a lot from the OP. The above was a response to the OP.

I suggest that the mods close the thread down.

 

If you had actually proven me wrong I might agree.

"Baloney" is an opinion on the post, not the perrson. "Immature" is a personal opinion about me, something forbidden by the rules of the BB. Can't you tell the difference?

And yes, someone shut this puppy down!

 

Experts who may know a trifle more than you have said the same as I have said on the BB for years. You have no discernment or are intentionally stating falsehoods regarding the NIV family,especially lumping it in with the TEV,CEV and company.

Baloney.

I agree. The only reason it got derailed was because slanderous things were posted about the 2011 NIV and I responded.