Reader Response vs. Authorial Intent

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Reformed]

John, Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek was one of my first Greek textbooks. As a teacher, Mounce is excellent. As a theologian? He is better off sticking with Greek.

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.

This quote by Nida is DE gobbledygook. Regardless of reason, playing fast and loose in translation work invariably leads to subjective reasoning. Motivation is not a defense for poor theology and poor scholarship.

 

[John of Japan]

John, Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek was one of my first Greek textbooks. As a teacher, Mounce is excellent. As a theologian? He is better off sticking with Greek.

This quote by Nida is DE gobbledygook. Regardless of reason, playing fast and loose in translation work invariably leads to subjective reasoning. Motivation is not a defense for poor theology and poor scholarship.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

John, Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek was one of my first Greek textbooks. As a teacher, Mounce is excellent. As a theologian? He is better off sticking with Greek.


This quote by Nida is DE gobbledygook. Regardless of reason, playing fast and loose in translation work invariably leads to subjective reasoning. Motivation is not a defense for poor theology and poor scholarship.

Apostle Paul got down to a single word, as in seed not seeds of Abraham, so why would it not be word by word inspired?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

What would be thought by thought in the original languages though? Is not each thought literally made up by individual words?

 

[John of Japan]

Apostle Paul got down to a single word, as in seed not seeds of Abraham, so why would it not be word by word inspired?

Agreed.

 

[John of Japan]

What would be thought by thought in the original languages though? Is not each thought literally made up by individual words?

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.

 

[McCree79]

What would be thought by thought in the original languages though? Is not each thought literally made up by individual words?

Yes, but one can share the same thought a variety of ways using a variety of words. The arguement is that God inerrantly inspired the thought and the vocabulary/words were provided by the human vessel.

Usually linked to conceptual theory. The message is inerrant, but we have the "voice of God" not the actual "words of God".

I thought it was Rob Plummber who discussed this in detail, but I cannot find my notes on it .

*I am not, nor was Plummer endorsing this view. I was just trying to convey what those advocates believe


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

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).

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but one can share the same thought a variety of ways using a variety of words. The arguement is that God inerrantly inspired the thought and the vocabulary/words were provided by the human vessel.

Usually linked to conceptual theory. The message is inerrant, but we have the "voice of God" not the actual "words of God".

I thought it was Rob Plummber who discussed this in detail, but I cannot find my notes on it .

*I am not, nor was Plummer endorsing this view. I was just trying to convey what those advocates believe


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

So the general doctrine God gives, and then the writer expresses in in his way? can he make mistakes though in some details?

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

That way to understand scriptures sounds a lot like the Bible becomes inspired and real when the Holy Spirit makes it so to you, but not before!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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? ...

And just what should we think of a man who would take the word of a stranger over his own mother’s? Really, JoJ, you do disappoint at times. Maybe it wasn’t about drugs when he wrote it, but it is now.

 

[Jerome]

the flip side:

 

[John of Japan]

John, Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek was one of my first Greek textbooks. As a teacher, Mounce is excellent. As a theologian? He is better off sticking with Greek.

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.

This quote by Nida is DE gobbledygook. Regardless of reason, playing fast and loose in translation work invariably leads to subjective reasoning. Motivation is not a defense for poor theology and poor scholarship.

I completely agree.

 

[John of Japan]

And just what should we think of a man who would take the word of a stranger over his own mother’s? Really, JoJ, you do disappoint at times. Maybe it wasn’t about drugs when he wrote it, but it is now.

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."

 

[John of Japan]

So the general doctrine God gives, and then the writer expresses in in his way? can he make mistakes though in some details?

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

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

the flip side: ...

LOL. I never knew, never imagined. Lawrence Welk, “And there you heard a modern spiritual by Gail and Dale.” That's just too much.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

Oops. He ends up taking it too far by going beyond authorial intent and into original responses. It depends on what you mean by original audience. Christians and unbelievers both managed to misunderstand the word spoken or written to them—some things were hard to understand. And then there were things even angels longed to look into.

And he would probably do better to skip the 'sex, drugs, and rock & roll' examples and use something more certain. But at least it wasn't "Toke, the Magic Dragon."

 

[McCree79]

So the general doctrine God gives, and then the writer expresses in in his way? can he make mistakes though in some details?

No, the Holy Spirit keeps writer from error.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk