Is the NKJV a good version of the bible?

[Faith alone]

I must admit that when I first got involved in this thread it was merely to say that, yes, I like the NKJV. Then someone reacted to something I had posted saying that the NKJV does indeed follow the TR alone. I decided to go back and look up what happened when and who was saying what because TCassidy claimed that he never objected to this particular claim, while I was sure that he had.

Well, as I went back over it I found that I was guilty of "transference." It was someone else who disagreed with my comment, and when TCassidy got involved I misunderstood what he was saying and responded to him when I should have responded to that person (Askjo). Ironically, I find that TCassidy was actually defending my position. His use of humor went right over my head. :sleeping_2:

So I must start this post by apologizing to TCassidy. As I understand it, here's the posts in order. I actually first respond to a post by Ed Edwards in which he implied that the NKJV did not follow the TR at all times, as does the KJV. (Actually, the KJV does in a few instances appear to not follow the TR as well, FWIW. The KJV committee was actually more of a revision committee which considered the original source of the NT - Tyndale's work, as well as the existing Bibles in the public domain at the time, as well as the original languages when they felt it was appropriate, so who knows for sure what influenced them in certain cases... we would only be giving our best guess.)...

But the NKJV always follows the textus receptus, though it notes what the Alexandrian text (the NU as it puts it) says and also what the Byzantine text (MT - majority text as it puts it) says.

I disagree with your quotation (see the bold and undeline). The Greek text on Matthew 15:5 said:

υμεις δε λεγετε ος αν ειπη τω πατρι η τη μητρι δωρον ο εαν εξ εμου ωφεληθης και ου μη τιμηση τον πατερα αυτου η την μητερα αυτου

Please show me a word, "God" on this Greek TR. Where?

I did not see "God" there, but the NKJV added "God" without the Greek TR. This contradicts with your quotation above.

Then TCassidy responded to Askjo with...

What Askjo failed to say is that the NKJV places "to God" in italics to indicate it was a word added by the translators for the sake of clarity. If putting such italicized words in for clarity renders a version "corrupt" then they KJV is "corrupt" in the 384 places the KJV New Testament adds italicized words. I wonder why Askjo keeps attacking the KJV like that? Does he hate the KJV?

Like I said, I was unclear in what he was saying, when actually he was defending the use by the NKJV of italics and disagreeing with Askjo. Now since TCassidy himself is a staunch KJVO adherrant, I appreciate that he would not just support anything that someone else has said who holds to the primacy of the KJV in English, as he does. He appears to be striving to be fair here... though perhaps I am again missing something that TCassidy was attempting to convey.

So this is why I must apologize for my recent reaction to some of his posts. I always appreciate when someone tries to have integrity in how he posts. Thx TCassidy.

Well anyway, then I mentioned the translation of μὴ γένοιτο (MH GENOITO) by the KJV for comparison to the translation of Matthew 15:5 which Askjo had initiated. In that post I did not criticize the way the KJV translated it ("God forbid"), but tried to make the point that translators do such things in attempting to communicate meaning and impact in a similar manner as they believe the original languages did to the original readers.

Then TCassidy responded to my post to say that he did not consider them to be parallel issues. He was quite respectful in how he expressed it, as you can see below:

I'm susprised no one has mentioned the many places where the KJV "added" God in the form of "God forbid." THEOS is not there in the Greek.

I am not certain the issues are the same. "God forbid" is an example of dynamic equivalence in the KJV that uses a well known cultural colloquialism to translate a Hebraic (translated into Greek) cultural colloquialism.

In the case noted above there is no colloquialism involved, just words added to insure the reader knows that the gift in question was a gift given to God and not to somebody else.

Now I do not agree with this, though they are not precisely parallel issues to be sure. They both involve colloquialism and a recognition of the culture's handling of the expression then and now.

Since then things have gotten much too intense, which shouldn't happen with people who are striving to share things that will build up and honor the Lord.

Anyway I reponded to his taking this out of context, and TCassidy responded that he saw a difference between a colloquialism and words added for clarity. I responded to his post to say that I had said nothing about words added for clarity, etc..

Anyway, if TCassidy will accept my apology for not following this thread carefully enough, I would appreciate it. I would like to address a recent response to my claim that these two instances are comparable, but I should do that in a separate post, and only after my apology for how I interacted is clear and hopefully received in the manner intended.

Sorry TCassidy. My fault.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

I disagree with myself! :tongue3:

After I wrote this I went down to spend some quality time with my wife watching a DVD. And I said to myself, "Duh! Of course a single word can be an idiom!" And I thought of several in Japanese, one of which is a similar idiom in Chinese.

Having said that, dwron is not an idiom. It means literally, "gift," and that is the usage in this passage, though it is a somewhat special usage. :type:

:thumbs:
I was going to respond to say just that. A single word can often be used idiomatically, such as "bad" in English. Now regarding DWRON, sure it means "gift" in a gloss, but the concept of "giving a gift" which was originally supposed to be used to support one's parents is most definitely an idiom. OK, sure, "gift" is not idiomatic without considering the context. But as TCassidy has described it, what we see here is the cultural idiomatic idea of giving a gift.

But that really doesn't matter. The point is that often in translating from one language to another, when considering cultural, historical or other contexts, the intended meaning and impact cannot be communicated clearly with the same impact without more free translation being employed. And I agree with what I underlined above - this was a somewhat special usage of DWRON. I believe what those who oppose DE translation philosophy are concerned about are those cases in which it is viewed that being DE is not necessary IOT communicate accurately and clearly.

In the case of the KJV's handling of μὴ γένοιτο (MH GENOITO and translating it as "God forbid" what we have is an idiom in the Greek of the 1st century. If we translate this simply as it literally means, "may it not be (happen)," then we lose the intensity and impact intended. So the KJV translators were right to seek for something with more impact, though that meant that they must be less "literal."

I am not criticizing them for doing so. But if you compare this with what all other translators have done you will see that no one has done anything quite like it. It is my opinion that they could have been more literal and still retained the impact. Perhaps just "Certainly not!" or something today such as "No way!" would have worked. But they chose to go with something that translated the impact more effectively - got no problem with that. You will not find me among those saying that they mistranslated here.

But let's compare this with what the NKJV did in Matthew 15:5 - adding "to God" in italics. Just as with the KJV, God was not involved in the Greek wording, so it is true here. The KJV added it to make the impact clear. However, God was certainly involved in the meaning of Matthew 15:5 while that is not true of μὴ γένοιτο. Here the NKJV did it to make the intended meaning (and impact) clear as well. The NKJV has a policy of italicizing anything added which was not strictly speaking present in the original languages. In some cases they follow the same translation as the KJV, yet where the KJV did not italicize the NKJV did. Here the italics tells the reader that "no," the words "to God" are not present in the original language, but we added them to make the meaning clear.

Now these may not be strictly speaking precisely parallel cases. But in both instances the translators did what they did, adding "God" where it is not present in the source language, to improve the accuracy of the read text. You see, accuracy is not simply a matter of how well does something comunicate the original meaning. It also involves how well the average reader today will understand what was intended. That is my point. And Askjo's claim that the NKJV as not following the TR in this verse is ridiculous. No Greek text has those words there. They were not translating some obscure Greek MS somewhere. And adding the words "to God" in italics does clarify the received understanding. Personally I just do not see how someone can see the "translation" of μὴ γένοιτο as "God forbid" is as significant as adding, in italics, "to God." Why not just allow both translation committees some freedom here?

And I agree with what John says below:

I don't believe that the NKJV was being dynamically equivalent here. Adding words for clarity has also been done since Cicero. Nida did not invent it. The stated methodology of the NKJV was "Complete Equivalence," not DE. See the book by Dr. James Price to learn the difference: Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation.

IMO more words would have to be added to this to make it a DE rendering. For example, Williams has: "Everything I have that might be used for helping you, is devoted to God." Beck has: "I'm giving God anything by which I might help you."

Though I do not have any issue with "dynamic equivalence" or "meaning based" or "functional equivalence." (Just different ways to essentially refer to the same thing.) And I do like the RSV's description: "As literal as possible; as free as necessary." That is essentially "complete equivalence," or as the HCSB refers to it, "optimal equivalency." I like how the HCSB referenced it better, for we can often not be"complete" in tranlating meaning, impact, etc..

But by saying "complete equivalence" Art Farstad and his gang were saying that they were attempting to communicate perceived meaning, impact and cultural colloquialism clearly to today's readers.

So it appears that none of us has a big issue with what the NKJV did here, except Askjo. And this thread is about the NKJV, not the KJV, so perhaps we should just let things lie. If someone does want to discuss the KJV and the idea of inspiration and preservation or perhaps view specific areas in which the KJV did not translate the TR accurately, that should probably be in a new thread so as not to draw the discussion away from the NKJV.

I spoke with Art Farstad a couple of times, and once asked him why he did not use the work that he and Zane Hodges had done in developing The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. (Yes, I have it in my library, and I love it.) They followed the TR, though Hodges and he had spent much time trying to determine their version of the original majority text. Why not use it?

His response was that people would not have accepted the NKJV as a revision of the KJV if they had done so. He desired to use the MT instead of the TR in their revision of the KJV, but was voted down. He immediately started work on what was once called Logos21 - a new translation of the Bible using the MT as a source for the NT. The rough draft of this is what was used by the SBC, Farstad at the helm, in developing the HCSB in response to the NIVI controversy. The work started in 98 with his rough draft, which was complete but very rough. Unfortunately Farstad passed away in that year, and the work was subsequently changed to follow the Alexandrian text instead. (I believe you can still read the Logos21 online for the gospel of John. At any rate, I still have a few copies of what he called "Living Waters." Very good work.)

Too bad. The world could be greatly benefited by a modern translation of the NT based on the MT. Most of the places they made changes in converting it to a CT work IMO I wish they had left it as it was. The HCSB is a good translation regardless IMO. But that's another story. But I shared the above story merely to show why I am so confident that the NKJV did follow the TR. If it had not, then we surely would not have seen the 1 John 5:7, 8 text in it, as I don't think that any of the translators believed it to be original.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

<Sigh> I never claimed the NKJV doesn't follow the TR. I said that the addition of "to God" in italics in the NKJV is a different thing altogether than the idiomatic translation "God forbid" in the KJV.

Yes, I see that now. Sorry. And I agree that they are different things, somewhat. But the point remains that they both "added" words in English not in the Greek for impact and meaning clarity. I do not fault them for this.

But my original point was merely that the NKJV did follow the TR. (actually Beza's copy of Erasmus' 3rd edition of his TR.)

Thx,

FA

 

[TCassidy]

Now since TCassidy himself is a staunch KJVO adherrant, I appreciate that he would not just support anything that someone else has said who holds to the primacy of the KJV in English, as he does.

I am beginning to think I have been kidnapped and taken to Bizarro world (where everything is backward). First, I am not a "staunch KJVO adherrant." In fact I am no kind of KJVO at all. I abhor KJVOism and am well know by those who read my posts as a willing an able debater against the multiplied errors of KJVOism. Second I do not "hold to the primacy of the KJV English." I hold to the primacy of the Hebrew and Greek texts. I also have great respect for many of the modern English versions, including the NKJV which I recommend to new and young converts.

 

[Faith alone]

I am beginning to think I have been kidnapped and taken to Bizarro world (where everything is backward). First, I am not a "staunch KJVO adherrant." In fact I am no kind of KJVO at all. I abhor KJVOism and am well know by those who read my posts as a willing an able debater against the multiplied errors of KJVOism. Second I do not "hold to the primacy of the KJV English." I hold to the primacy of the Hebrew and Greek texts. I also have great respect for many of the modern English versions, including the NKJV which I recommend to new and young converts.

TCassidy,

Sorry for the confusion. But let me just say that I had no clue from some of your posts. I like the NKJV as well, though it is not my preference anymore. You seemed to be attacking everything I said regarding the NKJV. If you were supporting what I had to say regarding the NJV and Matthew 15:5, you could have fooled me, and did. It's good to hear differently. I see no problem with what the NKJJV did in Matthew 15:5.

It is amazing how it seems that just about any thread on translations can end up in a KJVO debate.

FA

 

[John of Japan]

:thumbs:
I was going to respond to say just that. A single word can often be used idiomatically, such as "bad" in English. Now regarding DWRON, sure it means "gift" in a gloss, but the concept of "giving a gift" which was originally supposed to be used to support one's parents is most definitely an idiom. OK, sure, "gift" is not idiomatic without considering the context. But as TCassidy has described it, what we see here is the cultural idiomatic idea of giving a gift.

Well, personally, I'll never see how "gift" = "gift" can be an idiom or even an "idiomatic idea!" :smilewinkgrin:

But that really doesn't matter. The point is that often in translating from one language to another, when considering cultural, historical or other contexts, the intended meaning and impact cannot be communicated clearly with the same impact without more free translation being employed. And I agree with what I underlined above - this was a somewhat special usage of DWRON. I believe what those who oppose DE translation philosophy are concerned about are those cases in which it is viewed that being DE is not necessary IOT communicate accurately and clearly.

Yes, it is a moot point. Even if I were to recognize dwron as an idiom, the NKJV rendering is not an idiom! Thus, as TCassidy wrote, in the translation of me genoito and dwron there are two different translation issues.

My own opposition to the DE translation method is not concerning when I believe DE is "not necessary IOT to communicate accurately and clearly." It is at a more fundamental level: I oppose the DE principle of translating with "reader response" as the primary goal.

In the case of the KJV's handling of μὴ γένοιτο (MH GENOITO and translating it as "God forbid" what we have is an idiom in the Greek of the 1st century. If we translate this simply as it literally means, "may it not be (happen)," then we lose the intensity and impact intended. So the KJV translators were right to seek for something with more impact, though that meant that they must be less "literal."

I am not criticizing them for doing so. But if you compare this with what all other translators have done you will see that no one has done anything quite like it. It is my opinion that they could have been more literal and still retained the impact. Perhaps just "Certainly not!" or something today such as "No way!" would have worked. But they chose to go with something that translated the impact more effectively - got no problem with that. You will not find me among those saying that they mistranslated here.

Agreement all around. :thumbs:

Though I do not have any issue with "dynamic equivalence" or "meaning based" or "functional equivalence." (Just different ways to essentially refer to the same thing.) And I do like the RSV's description: "As literal as possible; as free as necessary." That is essentially "complete equivalence," or as the HCSB refers to it, "optimal equivalency." I like how the HCSB referenced it better, for we can often not be"complete" in tranlating meaning, impact, etc..

Actually, the HCSB term is "essentially literal." The term "optimal equivalency" is what the translators of the NKJV wanted to use originally, but a Nelson editor chose "complete equivalence" instead.

But by saying "complete equivalence" Art Farstad and his gang were saying that they were attempting to communicate perceived meaning, impact and cultural colloquialism clearly to today's readers.

And this is exactly where complete/optimal equivalence differs from DE, in that what is considered to be primary is not reader response but what I call writer intent.

I spoke with Art Farstad a couple of times, and once asked him why he did not use the work that he and Zane Hodges had done in developing The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. (Yes, I have it in my library, and I love it.) They followed the TR, though Hodges and he had spent much time trying to determine their version of the original majority text. Why not use it?
....Too bad. The world could be greatly benefited by a modern translation of the NT based on the MT. Most of the places they made changes in converting it to a CT work IMO I wish they had left it as it was. The HCSB is a good translation regardless IMO.

But that's another story. But I shared the above story merely to show why I am so confident that the NKJV did follow the TR. If it had not, then we surely would not have seen the 1 John 5:7, 8 text in it, as I don't think that any of the translators believed it to be original.

FA

It would be nice to see a translation based on the Hodges/Farstad text, if it is done right.

I agree that the NKJV is based solely on the TR. And I love the translation. It's a great translation! IMO it preserves the beauty of the KJV while updating the language and correcting the occasional odd unclear rendering.:thumbs:

 

[TCassidy]

It would be nice to see a translation based on the Hodges/Farstad text, if it is done right.

English Majority Text Version. http://www.emtvonline.com/

 

[John of Japan]

English Majority Text Version. [URL="http://www.emtvonline.com/"]http://www.emtvonline.com/[/URL]

Thanks! I'll check it out. :wavey:

 

[Rippon]

JoJ , I think the NKJ is an improvement over the King James Version . But I really differ with you that the KJV has an "occasional odd unclear rendering ." The instances of this are far more prevalent . The NKJ , while better , has a more than occasional odd and unclear rendering . It is to be preferred to the KJV but is still in need of an updating of language and lots of corrections .

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ , I think the NKJ is an improvement over the King James Version . But I really differ with you that the KJV has an "occasional odd unclear rendering ." The instances of this are far more prevalent . The NKJ , while better , has a more than occasional odd and unclear rendering . It is to be preferred to the KJV but is still in need of an updating of language and lots of corrections .

Each to his own.

 

[El_Guero]

Prices for the paper copy is not bad either.

English Majority Text Version. http://www.emtvonline.com/

 

[John of Japan]

The World English Bible, being from the Byzantine, would be quite close to this, I suppose. I've never personally compared the Byzantine and the Majority. Anyone?

http://www.ebible.org/bible/web/

 

[John of Japan]

Well, personally, I'll never see how "gift" = "gift" can be an idiom or even an "idiomatic idea!" :smilewinkgrin:


Actually, the HCSB term is "essentially literal." The term "optimal equivalency" is what the translators of the NKJV wanted to use originally, but a Nelson editor chose "complete equivalence" instead.

Aaaaannnnnd, once again I have to disagree with myself. :tongue3:

Faith Alone, you are right that the HCSB method is called "optimal equivalence." The ESV term is "essentiaylly literal." However, what I said about the NKJV and "optimal equivalence" is true.

 

[Faith alone]

Aaaaannnnnd, once again I have to disagree with myself. :tongue3:

Faith Alone, you are right that the HCSB method is called "optimal equivalence." The ESV term is "essentiaylly literal." However, what I said about the NKJV and "optimal equivalence" is true.

Thx John,

You are your own best critic. I've had to eat crow a few times myself recently on this thread for much more serious blunders. :tongue3: I must be making a nice first impression.

"Essentially literal" sounds like a good name to describe the RSV/ESV process. IMO the NKJV philosophy of "complete equivalency" is probably essentially the same thing. When I first heard the title for the HCSB process I said to myself that it was really pretty close to the ole RSV "essentially literal" philosophy. Though the HCSB seems to be saying not that they strove for the more literal/FE translation whenever possible, but chose whichever was better. I'll have to read up on the NKJV description of the process. And of course it all comes down to what kind of choices they actually make in practice.

FA

 

[John of Japan]

Thx John,

You are your own best critic. I've had to eat crow a few times myself recently on this thread for much more serious blunders. :tongue3: I must be making a nice first impression.

"Essentially literal" sounds like a good name to describe the RSV/ESV process. IMO the NKJV philosophy of "complete equivalency" is probably essentially the same thing. When I first heard the title for the HCSB process I said to myself that it was really pretty close to the ole RSV "essentially literal" philosophy. Though the HCSB seems to be saying not that they strove for the more literal/FE translation whenever possible, but chose whichever was better. I'll have to read up on the NKJV description of the process. And of course it all comes down to what kind of choices they actually make in practice.

FA

Crow is edible with soy sauce, but just barely. Kind of stringy and tough.:laugh:

I think you are right about "essentially literal" and "complete equivalency." I recently finished Translating Truth by some of the ESV translators (C. John Collins, Wayne Grudem, Vern Sheridan Poythress, Leland Ryken, Bruce Winter) in which they describe their method. From what they described I would call it a little more literal than the NKJV method, contra what some are saying on the BB. But you are right about it all coming down to the choices made in actual practice. Your translation method should rule your actual translation practices--but of course in the heat of the actual work, I believe the real self of the translator will come out: his preunderstandings, his view of inspiration, his previous training, etc.

This puts the lie to the Nida teaching that there are only two kinds of equivalence: FE and DE. I'm reading a great secular book right now, Translation Studies, which quotes various secular scholars and their views of equivalence--one guy has up to four types of equivalence. I hope to share this on this forum sometime soon. Ever learning....

Concerning the NKJV method, Dr. James Price is the best spokesman, and you can catch some of it in the NKJV intro, if you can't find Dr. Price's book (very hard to come by). Otherwise, Dr. Price has a very scholarly presence on the Internet and in various journal articles, and I always learn from his work.

 

[Bluefalcon]

The NKJV committee, IMO, accomplished its goal by presenting the KJV in a more modern vernacular without changing too much its original wording. The NKJV also includes many more textual notes than any other modern translation, so the reader can see and be aware of and decide for himself when the MSS of the Holy Bible disagree. I think this in itself is one of the best reasons to own the NKJV, even if only for reference purposes. I for myself enjoy reading a more literal translation like the NKJV.

 

[Faith alone]

Well, personally, I'll never see how "gift" = "gift" can be an idiom or even an "idiomatic idea!" :smilewinkgrin:

Well perhaps "idiomatic" is not the best description. But the fact remains that when someone then said that what they were obligated to their parents is "a gift" - all that was needed to say was "a gift" and people understood that they meant "given to God - to the temple service, instead." It was a cultural idiomatic expression. The KJV inserted "otherwise" to try to communicate this, though it is too weak IMO.

Yes, it is a moot point. Even if I were to recognize dwron as an idiom, the NKJV rendering is not an idiom! Thus, as TCassidy wrote, in the translation of me genoito and dwron there are two different translation issues.

My only concern is that we are comparing the KJV expressing MH GENOITO as "God forbid" and saying that this is less significant than the NKJV saying "is given to God" instead of "is given." IMO the KJV took a much more siginficant path. No one else went down that path. In the case of the NKJV, everyone is doing the same thing or something similar.

My own opposition to the DE translation method is not concerning when I believe DE is "not necessary IOT to communicate accurately and clearly." It is at a more fundamental level: I oppose the DE principle of translating with "reader response" as the primary goal.


And this is exactly where complete/optimal equivalence differs from DE, in that what is considered to be primary is not reader response but what I call writer intent.

John,

I like this idea here of focusing more on the wrieter's intent rather than the reader's response, though I don't think we can ignore the latter. We must consider how it will be likely understood. But I like this way of expressing this dynamic of translation - "writer's intent" as a primary goal over "reader's response."

Though I do think that we must consider the audience as well. For example, obviously a Bible intended for children or ESL needs to consider their reader's level. ANd in translation we should always consider first what was intended by the writer, but then we must always consider as well how it will be understood in the target language by the reader. Translation always involves considering both the source and the target audience perception and the source writer's intent.

So to that degree DE translation philosophy is correct. But IMO with a meaning based philosophy often the priority is as you say: reader's understanding first - clarity first - over the writer's intended meaning. Understandability without accuracy is not good translation. Also, IMO the more free we become in translation the greater likelihood that we will lose some accuracy regarding the writer's intent. But translation always involves the reader's perception as well as the writer's intent. (And the source reader's perception as well - which is what was the issue with Matthew 15:5.

I agree that the NKJV is based solely on the TR. And I love the translation. It's a great translation! IMO it preserves the beauty of the KJV while updating the language and correcting the occasional odd unclear rendering.:thumbs:

I like it too. It was my primary translation for about 10 years.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

The NKJV committee, IMO, accomplished its goal by presenting the KJV in a more modern vernacular without changing too much its original wording. The NKJV also includes many more textual notes than any other modern translation, so the reader can see and be aware of and decide for himself when the MSS of the Holy Bible disagree. I think this in itself is one of the best reasons to own the NKJV, even if only for reference purposes. I for myself enjoy reading a more literal translation like the NKJV.

Yes, and the editor of the NKJV was perhaps as aware as anyone regarding differences not only between the CT (Alexandrian text - NU/UBS) and the MT (Byzantine text), but variances within the MT itself and between the TR (textus receptus) and the MT - having co-authored with Hodges one of only two Greek Majority texts compilations of which I am aware.

It's a nice resource. And Farstad-Hodges' Greek text itself has 2 apparatuses whereas others only have one. One compares the CT and the MT, and the others compares variances within the MT family itself.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Crow is edible with soy sauce, but just barely. Kind of stringy and tough.:laugh:

I think you are right about "essentially literal" and "complete equivalency." I recently finished Translating Truth by some of the ESV translators (C. John Collins, Wayne Grudem, Vern Sheridan Poythress, Leland Ryken, Bruce Winter) in which they describe their method. From what they described I would call it a little more literal than the NKJV method, contra what some are saying on the BB. But you are right about it all coming down to the choices made in actual practice. Your translation method should rule your actual translation practices--but of course in the heat of the actual work, I believe the real self of the translator will come out: his preunderstandings, his view of inspiration, his previous training, etc.

This puts the lie to the Nida teaching that there are only two kinds of equivalence: FE and DE. I'm reading a great secular book right now, Translation Studies, which quotes various secular scholars and their views of equivalence--one guy has up to four types of equivalence. I hope to share this on this forum sometime soon. Ever learning....

Concerning the NKJV method, Dr. James Price is the best spokesman, and you can catch some of it in the NKJV intro, if you can't find Dr. Price's book (very hard to come by). Otherwise, Dr. Price has a very scholarly presence on the Internet and in various journal articles, and I always learn from his work.

If you do, you'll have one user here very interested.

It has been my opinion, though most translators say it isn't so, that the more dynamic or free the translation is the more the translator's biases tend to work their way into the translatino process. Kinda hard not to happen IMO. That is one reason to prefer FE translation style, but I do personally enjoy translating texts in a free style intended for children.

FA

 

[John of Japan]

John,

I like this idea here of focusing more on the wrieter's intent rather than the reader's response, though I don't think we can ignore the latter. We must consider how it will be likely understood. But I like this way of expressing this dynamic of translation - "writer's intent" as a primary goal over "reader's response."

Though I do think that we must consider the audience as well. For example, obviously a Bible intended for children or ESL needs to consider their reader's level. ANd in translation we should always consider first what was intended by the writer, but then we must always consider as well how it will be understood in the target language by the reader. Translation always involves considering both the source and the target audience perception and the source writer's intent.

So to that degree DE translation philosophy is correct. But IMO with a meaning based philosophy often the priority is as you say: reader's understanding first - clarity first - over the writer's intended meaning. Understandability without accuracy is not good translation. Also, IMO the more free we become in translation the greater likelihood that we will lose some accuracy regarding the writer's intent. But translation always involves the reader's perception as well as the writer's intent. (And the source reader's perception as well - which is what was the issue with Matthew 15:5.

Other translation philososphies than DE do take the reader's response into consideration. For example, all Japanese versions, whatever their translation method, use keigo ("polite language") to some degree or other, even though the Biblical languages did not have it. This includes the Shinkaiyaku, an NASV-type Bible used by conservatives in Japan.

The difference between DE and the various more literal methods such as optimal equivalence, the essentially literal method of the ESV, and even the method Jerome used in his Vulgate (somewhat "word for word" and somewhat "sense for sense" ala Cicero), all make the writer's intent more important that the reader's response. On the other hand, the DE method makes reader's response primary.

This is how Nida can praise Williams' rendering of "give one another with a hearty handshake all around" instead of "greet one another with a holy kiss."