Featured Reader Response vs. Authorial Intent

Here is an excellent video from "Wretched Radio and TV" showing what is wrong with "reader response" (a basic principle of Eugene Nida's dynamic equivalence theory of translation, when applied to Bible study. In contrast, he touts "authorial intent," and gives video examples of both:

Here is Eugene Nida's principle, based on neo-orthodoxy (existential theology):

“quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the RESPONSE of the RECEPTOR is essentially like that of the original receptors.” [1]
[1] Eugene Nida and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation, 200.

Nida clearly stated that his view was not based on verbal inspiration, but neo-orthodox teaching, wherein the Bible is not the Word of God until it is read, when it can "become the Word of God."

"Those who espouse the traditional, orthodox view of inspiration quite naturally focus attention on the presumed readings of the 'autographs.' The result is that, directly or indirectly, they often tend to favor quite close, literal renderings as the best way of preserving the inspiration of the writer by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, those who hold the neo-orthodox view, or who have been influenced by it, tend to be freer in their translating; as they see it, since the original document inspired its readers because it spoke meaningfully to them, only an equally meaningful translation can have this same power to inspire present-day receptors. It would be quite wrong, however, to assume that all those who emphasize fully meaningful translations necessarily hold to a neo-orthodox view of inspiration; for those who have combined orthodox theology with deep evangelistic or missionary convictions have been equally concerned with the need for making translations entirely meaningful. If the problem of describing the area covered by a particular linguistic symbol is difficult, the assigning of boundaries is even more so. The basic reason is that no word ever has precisely the same meaning twice, for each speech event is in a sense unique, involving participants who are constantly changing and referents which are never fixed."[1]
[1] Eugene Nida,Toward a Science of Translating, 47-48.

I do not believe that all DE Bible translators or readers are neo-orthodox. But I do think it is very clear that DE is based on neo-orthodoxy. Therefore I reject it on doctrinal grounds.

 

One example of a DE advocate who is conservative, not neo-orthodox, is famous Greek scholar Bill Mounce. However, in a recent article in Themelios by Dane Ortlund, the author points out that though Mounce is an inerrantist, he believes in a form of "thought inspiration" rather than verbal inspiration ("On Words, Meaning, Inspiration, and Translation: A Brief Response to Bill Mounce"). Obviously, this allows Mounce to accept DE with no theological slippage.

 

I think the video by Wretched points this out well. I forgot to give the link when I posted the above--I've inserted it now. It's only 6 min. long, and he makes some excellent points from music history about authorial intent.

 

Agreed.

 

Not sure if this is what you mean, but I believe that the Lord completely prepared each author of holy Scripture, so that the words of Scripture are 100% those of God, and 100% those of the human author, with God superintending so that the resulting documents were inerrant.

 

By the way, the "Wretched" broadcaster is Todd Friel. In this video he makes points about the authorial intent of two songs, and how the author has the right to say what his or her song means. So, one song he talked about was "Puff, the Magic Dragon," with lyrics by Lenny Lipton and music by Peter Yarrow, done by Peter, Paul & Mary. I remember a conversation with my mother in which she claimed the song was about drugs, and that view is still out there. However, Lipton has said over and over that it was not about drugs. Who will you believe, my mother and others who think it is, or the actual author, who had no reason to lie? \

Here he is: The Man Who Wrote "Puff, the Magic Dragon" Swears It's Not About Drugs - LA Weekly

Another song referenced was Paul MacCartney's "I Get By with a Little Help from my Friends," who some say was about drugs but MacCartney says it wasn't. Todd says it therefore was not, but the song does mention "getting high." So it does talk about drugs but P.M. says it's not, and you can kind of see that.

At any rate, Scripture translation absolutely must be about the authorial intent. The first Bible study on the video is clearly more of an existential one, even a post-modern one. What matters to the leader and the group is not what Rom. 8:28 actually means according to the divine Author, but what they each get out of it. If I am translating Scripture (which I do every morning in my devotions), then my goal should not be, "What can the reader get out of it?" but "What does it mean?" "Sanctify them through Your truth. Your Word is Truth" (John 17:17, JoJ). And, "Man will not live by bread only, but by every word of God" (Luke 4:4, JoJ).

 

I taught one year from Mounce, and it's a good textbook, but I've taught since then from David Alan Black's text, which I feel is easier to teach from.

I completely agree.

 

Ouch. Well, Mom went to Heaven some years ago, and I'm now ashamed of myself. But the author of the lyrics is still alive; maybe he and Mom can talk it over "in the sweet by and by."

 

Nope. If he can, then Scripture is not θεόπνευστος.