Nida, Existentialism & Bible Translation

[Gold Dragon]

In my recent thread on the meaning of paraphrase I mentioned that Eugene Nida followed the godless philosophy of existentialism in formulating his semantics (the study of meaning).

Existentialism is not necessarily atheistic. The field of Christian existentialism, while a minority view in existential thought, predates atheistic existentialism and includes folks like Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Tillich and Bultmann. While you may consider them to be liberals Christian or even non-Christian because of their theological views, I think it is incorrect to call them godless.

 

[Rippon]

Enlighten me. Who before Nida based their semantics on existentialism?

That wasn't my point.I was saying that Functional-Equivalence was being practiced long before Nida put things into a systematic form.

The man was brilliant in linguistics and translation, I'll grant him that. I've praised him before on the BB for being the first to actually develop a complete theory and methodology of translation. Even though I disagree with his method, I say he got the ball rolling for a serious discussion of these things. Why, the secular field of translation studies didn't even get going until the 1970's or so.

You've spent a bulk of your energy in denigrating him.You'll reply with "I've not denigrated him --just his method." But it amounts to the same thing.

It's the same thing with respect to the NIV.I said you've denigrated the translators and you responded with something to the effect of :"I meant to denigrate the method they used."

You operate on a double-standard.I have said some negative things about word-for-word,literal,formally-equivalent versions."Negative things" -- criticism -- not denigration.But then you come along and say that I have denigrated those translational methods.

There is a distinct difference between offering legitimate criticism and out-out denigration.

Translational methods which are to the right of your "Optimal-Equivalence" philosophy are attacked relentlessly.The translational principles are put in such a light that you would have many to believe that the translators were slipshod and careless.You'd like to plant the idea that they are less than faithful to the Lord in their work than you are.I resent that attitude.

 

[Rippon]

As a Calvinist, surely you disagree with the main theme of existential writers?!?

You need to pay better attention.I specifically isolated something in particular with which I agreed.The heart of the quote:"...it has exposed with heartless cynicism,the idea of the inherent goodness of man by turning the spotlight on man's demonic capacities for evil and self-deception."

I said that as a Calvinist I would readily concur with the above.That wasn't a vote of confidence for the entire system -- just that portion I focused upon.

In a different area -- I am no fan of Karl Barth for instance,but he said things against infant baptism with which I agree.He said it was "a wound in the body of the Church." He said "candidates must come rather than be brought."

Unrelated to the subject of infant baptism --He was the main author of the Barmen Declaration.I think it was a fine Christ-honoring piece -- with very biblical content.And it showed his bravery in the face of the evil of Hitler.

Would I endorse Christians to buy Barth books without appropriate warnings?Of course not.His writings are not sound enough for a Christian to get a good foothold on solid theology.But where he intersects with the truth -- he intersects with the truth.

Many non-Cals are certainly not Roman Catholics,yet they agree with some pronouncements of the Council of Trent.That doesn't make them RC's.

I am not going to go out of my way to pick up the writings of men who are adversaries of many things which I hold dear.But I will agree with some things they say which I consider to be biblical.That doesn't mean I have adopted their teachings wholesale.

 

[John of Japan]

Existentialism is not necessarily atheistic. The field of Christian existentialism, while a minority view in existential thought, predates atheistic existentialism and includes folks like Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Tillich and Bultmann. While you may consider them to be liberals Christian or even non-Christian because of their theological views, I think it is incorrect to call them godless.

Hi, Gold Dragon. Thanks for dropping in. I hope you're doing well.

I'm perfectly willing to admit the existence of a Christian existentialism. (See post #13 by me.) However, the narrow focus of this thread is the influence of existentialism on the dynamic equivalence method of Nida, who specifically admits to being influenced by Wittgenstein. Now unfortunately Wittgenstein is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article you linked to. And there seems to be quite a debate in various essays as to whether or not he was a Christian. Here is one such essay: http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/manner.html

 

[John of Japan]

You've spent a bulk of your energy in denigrating him.You'll reply with "I've not denigrated him --just his method." But it amounts to the same thing.

It's the same thing with respect to the NIV.I said you've denigrated the translators and you responded with something to the effect of :"I meant to denigrate the method they used."

You operate on a double-standard.I have said some negative things about word-for-word,literal,formally-equivalent versions."Negative things" -- criticism -- not denigration.But then you come along and say that I have denigrated those translational methods.

There is a distinct difference between offering legitimate criticism and out-out denigration.

Translational methods which are to the right of your "Optimal-Equivalence" philosophy are attacked relentlessly.The translational principles are put in such a light that you would have many to believe that the translators were slipshod and careless.You'd like to plant the idea that they are less than faithful to the Lord in their work than you are.I resent that attitude.

Resent all you want. You've misunderstood me all along, and you do me an injustice by saying I've denigrated Nida or any other translator. I've never done so. And I find it ridiculous that you consider denigrating a method to "amount to the same thing" as denigrating the translator. I dare you, I defy you to find a single place on the BB where I've questioned the character of a Bible translator, or called one by a denigrating name.

I've never made accusations against any Bible translator such as you made against my grandfather: liar, a denyer of Scripture, said he lacked in integrity, said he thought the end justified the means, etc., etc. (And you never took any of it back or apologized, so I must assume you still think so.) So don't get on your high horse and talk to me about denigration. It won't fly.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is the final quote I'm going to post on this issue. As I said in the OP, I'm still working out the implications for myself, so I didn't plan to discuss this a whole lot.

It is from Nida and shows how he directly credits Wittgenstein the existentialist for some of his ideas. Worse yet, he credits the godless anti-Christian Bertrand Russell. Here's the quote:

"As the result of an intense concern for language as a symbolic system, symbolic logicians have also contributed some highly important insights into the problem of meaning, and thus to translation. It is almost inevitable that such men as Bertrand Russell (1940) and L. Wittgenstein (1953), who declared that “Alle Philosophie ist Sprachphilosophie,” all philosophy is the philosophy of language, should have made important contributions to our understanding of symbols and their meanings. By means of certain new concepts in logic, including: (1) the propositional function, (2) the operational definition, (3) predictive evaluation as the criterion of truth, and (4) the theory of types, the traditional logic of Aristotle was almost completely reversed. Instead of assuming that words have certain meanings, and that the task of the logician is merely to describe what is already an inherent property of such a symbol, the symbolic logicians set up entire systems of symbols, assigned meanings to them, and proceeded to manipulate them as means of testing their values and relationships. In a sense, words were dethroned from the exalted status assigned to them in the Platonic system of “ideas,” and made to be tools for the manipulation of concepts. The practical result has been the recognition that words are essentially instruments and tools, and that communication is merely one type of behavioral event. In this area some of the most stimulating observations have come from Ernst Cassirer (1933, 1946, 1953) and Willard V. Quine (1959, 1960a and b)."

Nida, Eugene. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964, p. 7.

 

[gb93433]

In my recent thread on the meaning of paraphrase I mentioned that Eugene Nida followed the godless philosophy of existentialism in formulating his semantics (the study of meaning). I thought I'd at least get the sources out there for this statement so no one thinks I'm just playing the nasty fundamentalist. I'm still thinking through the ramifications, so I may not post or discuss much beyond the quotes. We'll see. At any rate, here is the first quote:

I have read several of Nida's works and do not find them poorly written nor from a man who is misinformed. I do find many others who go the opposite of what your quote suggests that Nida is doing. So many churches preach dispensationalism which very much connects with German rationalism.

 

[John of Japan]

I have read several of Nida's works and do not find them poorly written nor from a man who is misinformed.

Nida's books are written very well! And he is very well informed. It is impossible to be well-informed about Bible translation theory without reading them.

I do find many others who go the opposite of what your quote suggests that Nida is doing.

I'm really not sure what you are talking about here. Have you read the whole thread? I believe I've proven the influence of existentialism in Nida's translation theories, which was my goal in this thread. I've done that by quotes from Stine, Nida's co-worker, and from Nida himself. Have I misquoted Nida or misrepresented him in any way?

So many churches preach dispensationalism which very much connects with German rationalism.

Sorry, but I have no idea what this has to do with the thread.

 

[gb93433]

Nida's books are written very well! And he is very well informed. It is impossible to be well-informed about Bible translation theory without reading them.

I'm really not sure what you are talking about here. Have you read the whole thread? I believe I've proven the influence of existentialism in Nida's translation theories, which was my goal in this thread. I've done that by quotes from Stine, Nida's co-worker, and from Nida himself. Have I misquoted Nida or misrepresented him in any way?

Sorry, but I have no idea what this has to do with the thread.

I had the impression from your original post that someone you read considered Nida to be off base some or to draw his ideas from existentialism. The fact is that the dispensationalism of the the early part of the last century is filled with German rationalism. Virtually everything we know can be traced back to some parallel in the world even if true. Truth is truth, even if the world were to believe it, and Christians do not. German rationalism creates a new set of problems. Yet many in the Christian church have bought it as truth by another name. Too many Christians today are doing the same thing by developing a creed such as the Chicago statement rather than studying scripture and letting it stand alone. Too many Baptists preach scripture alone yet judge others by a creed.

We must let scripture stand alone and interpret it in light of its historical context. We cannot get twisted and be reactionary to what the world believes (or what other Christians believe) in such a way that we separate ourselves from everything they teach. We must recognize truth for what it is--truth. Truth is not limited to what Christians claim. Over the centuries one can easily see where Christians bought into lies. It was the Christian church that supported Hitler and taught evolution. Keil & Delitzsch had to escape the Christian church in Germany and escape to Finland because they stood against evolution and taught creationism. It is the Christian church that mixed German rationalism and Christianity together to form early dispensationalism and the way it teaches to interpret through its filter. The problem is that I do not find any form or creedalism or systematic theology that is true enough to interpret scripture through its filter. No sytematic theology compares to scripture.

Just because someone sees truth in other places does not mean it is bad. Too many Christians tend to label people and put them in a camp. Isn't that what Paul addressed in 1 Cor.? The way most of us interpret wisdom literature is the same way that the liberals came up with first. We have bought into their ways of interpreting. We must decide if it is right or wrong and if it is true of not. It does not matter who or where it came from, but is it true.

 

[John of Japan]

I had the impression from your original post that someone you read considered Nida to be off base some or to draw his ideas from existentialism.

I've read nobody but Stine from my OP who even mentioned Nida and existentialism. That's one reason for this thread, to inform people, and to try to understand it myself.

Personally, yes I do think Nida was off base to draw his ideas on semantics in Bible translation from existentialism.

The problem is that I do not find any form or creedalism or systematic theology that is true enough to interpret scripture through its filter. No sytematic theology compares to scripture.

I agree with this. That is why I wish Nida had gotten his main presuppositions about Bible translation from Scripture instead of existentialism, linguistics and the like.

 

[gb93433]

I've read nobody but Stine from my OP who even mentioned Nida and existentialism. That's one reason for this thread, to inform people, and to try to understand it myself.

Personally, yes I do think Nida was off base to draw his ideas on semantics in Bible translation from existentialism.

I agree with this. That is why I wish Nida had gotten his main presuppositions about Bible translation from Scripture instead of existentialism, linguistics and the like.

I would suppose that everyone is a product of the times they live in even if they do not see it. However I have not sensed something wrong with anything I have read that Nida has written. In fact I find him to be more informed than what I have read written by a number of others.

I would think that a correct interpretation of any document requires a thorough study of the historical and any other context in which the document was written. It requires an excellent knowledge of what surrounded that culture at that time. It seems that so many who try and expound on scripture fall so short of that matter but instead try to explain their interpretation in light of their personal filter clouded by their own understanding and biases. I think that is the reason for so many Christians are divided over issues. I have seldom found that after studying the issue well and taking a look at some historical documents that the issue settlers on one side or the other but so often it is totally different than the opposing sides.

 

[John of Japan]

I would suppose that everyone is a product of the times they live in even if they do not see it. However I have not sensed something wrong with anything I have read that Nida has written. In fact I find him to be more informed than what I have read written by a number of others.

Out of curiosity, are you a linguist? Which of Nida's books have you read? He wrote chiefly about linguistics, translation and culture, of course.

 

[gb93433]

Out of curiosity, are you a linguist? Which of Nida's books have you read? He wrote chiefly about linguistics, translation and culture, of course.

I am not a linguist. At one time I had interest in translation. I have read Signs, Sense, and Translation, The Theory and Practice of Translation. Some articles, and some of the translators handbooks.



http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Practi...r_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226265898&sr=8-31

 

[John of Japan]

I am not a linguist. At one time I had interest in translation. I have read Signs, Sense, and Translation, The Theory and Practice of Translation. Some articles, and some of the translators handbooks.

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. So what truth do you think Nida learned from existentialism?

 

[gb93433]

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. So what truth do you think Nida learned from existentialism?

I really would not know other than perhaps existentialism and the way he interprets scripture have some commonality such as being opposed to rationalism. Certainly one cannot impose German rationalism on scripture and come up with the correct interpretation. God's ways are not always rationalistic and defined within the parameters of man in his finite view. Gos is not limited to our explanation or limited view of eternity and infinity. God is... We do not have that perspective.

 

[John of Japan]

I really would not know other than perhaps existentialism and the way he interprets scripture have some commonality such as being opposed to rationalism. Certainly one cannot impose German rationalism on scripture and come up with the correct interpretation. God's ways are not always rationalistic and defined within the parameters of man in his finite view. Gos is not limited to our explanation or limited view of eternity and infinity. God is... We do not have that perspective.

Well, I agree with you as far as this goes. But the influence on Nida's translation theory has to be in the area of semantics rather than hermeneutics.

I've not had time to research any more or think this through much more. But I'm guessing that the primary result of Nida being influenced by existentialism is (as I said earlier in this thread) in the current tendency by some scholars to find meaning solely according to the discourse, eliminating historical linguistics, with some such scholars criticizing BDAG and Kittel's TDNT along these lines. But while I'm a Bible translator and Greek teacher, I'm not a scholar of semantics.

Without having read Wittgenstein, I'd guess that the influence of existentialism in this area would be due to the fact that it emphasizes action over logic. Since existentialism lives in the moment, and in existential theology the Bible becomes the word of God as it speaks to a person, then I'm thinking this is also where Nida gets his emphasis on reader response over authorial intention.

 

[gb93433]

Without having read Wittgenstein, I'd guess that the influence of existentialism in this area would be due to the fact that it emphasizes action over logic. Since existentialism lives in the moment, and in existential theology the Bible becomes the word of God as it speaks to a person, then I'm thinking this is also where Nida gets his emphasis on reader response over authorial intention.

I have not gotten any ideas from Nida's works that he would do anything less than seek to gain a full understanding of the historical context before interpreting and translating the document. In one of the short pamphlets I read he helped me to gain an understanding of the cultural context of words. He pointed out how words have overlap of meaning in a historical setting. If I remember right he used the example of agapao and phileo.

I would think that he would take the position that words have meaning in their given context. Apart from the historical context then one cannot properly interpret the document.

 

[John of Japan]

I have not gotten any ideas from Nida's works that he would do anything less than seek to gain a full understanding of the historical context before interpreting and translating the document. In one of the short pamphlets I read he helped me to gain an understanding of the cultural context of words. He pointed out how words have overlap of meaning in a historical setting. If I remember right he used the example of agapao and phileo.

I would think that he would take the position that words have meaning in their given context. Apart from the historical context then one cannot properly interpret the document.

Do you know what I mean when I say he emphasizes reader response over authorial intention? (This is not to say that he doesn't consider authorial intention.)