The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence

[kyredneck]

He believed a holy book should sound elevated.

In fact, Uncle Miya liked good old Young's, because it helped him understand the original.

Well, YLT does convey a 'celestial motif' within the dialogue (yea, the entire chapter) between Christ and Nicodemus that the rendering 'born again' (in lieu of born from above) misses:

2 this one came unto him by night, and said to him, `Rabbi, we have known that from God thou hast come -- a teacher, for no one these signs is able to do that thou dost, if God may not be with him.`
3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;`
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.`
21 but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.`
27 John answered and said, `A man is not able to receive anything, if it may not have been given him from the heaven
31 he who from above is coming is above all; he who is from the earth, from the earth he is, and from the earth he speaketh; he who from the heaven is coming is above all. Jn 3 YLT

'Born from above' melds nicely with John's other writings:

who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten. Jn 1:13 YLT
if ye know that he is righteous, know ye that every one doing the righteousness, of him hath been begotten. 1 Jn 2:29 YLT
9 every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten. 1 Jn 3:9 YLT
7 Beloved, may we love one another, because the love is of God, and every one who is loving, of God he hath been begotten, and doth know God 1 Jn 4:7 YLT
1 Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him
4 because every one who is begotten of God doth overcome the world, and this is the victory that did overcome the world -- our faith
18 We have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him 1 Jn 5 YLT

'Born from above':

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. Gal 4 (Psalms 87)

 

[John of Japan]

Well, YLT does convey a 'celestial motif' within the dialogue (yea, the entire chapter) between Christ and Nicodemus that the rendering 'born again' (in lieu of born from above) misses:

2 this one came unto him by night, and said to him, `Rabbi, we have known that from God thou hast come -- a teacher, for no one these signs is able to do that thou dost, if God may not be with him.`
3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;`
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.`
21 but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.`
27 John answered and said, `A man is not able to receive anything, if it may not have been given him from the heaven
31 he who from above is coming is above all; he who is from the earth, from the earth he is, and from the earth he speaketh; he who from the heaven is coming is above all. Jn 3 YLT

'Born from above' melds nicely with John's other writings:

who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten. Jn 1:13 YLT
if ye know that he is righteous, know ye that every one doing the righteousness, of him hath been begotten. 1 Jn 2:29 YLT
9 every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten. 1 Jn 3:9 YLT
7 Beloved, may we love one another, because the love is of God, and every one who is loving, of God he hath been begotten, and doth know God 1 Jn 4:7 YLT
1 Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him
4 because every one who is begotten of God doth overcome the world, and this is the victory that did overcome the world -- our faith
18 We have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him 1 Jn 5 YLT

'Born from above':

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. Gal 4 (Psalms 87)

The Greek adverb anothen (ἄνωθεν) can be translated several ways, and I certainly agree that "from above" is possible here, but in the context (v. 4), Nicodemus understood it as "again," and Jesus did not correct him.

 

[kyredneck]

The Greek adverb anothen (ἄνωθεν) can be translated several ways, and I certainly agree that "from above" is possible here, but in the context (v. 4), Nicodemus understood it as "again," and Jesus did not correct him.

IMO, Nicodemus's non-enlightenment should not affect the correct rendering of Christ's intent with the word 'anothen' here. Anothen ( from above, from a higher place, of things which come from heaven or God, from the first, from the beginning, from the very first, anew, over again) can mean 'anew' or 'over again', but that's not what Christ meant, thus His further explanation in the next verse:

5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. Jn 1 YLT

Christ wasn't speaking of an earthly physical birth which Nicodemus wrongly perceived, He was speaking of a spiritual birth FROM ABOVE.

 

[John of Japan]

One last set of three verses before I head home:

22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went to the province of Judea, where he spent some time with them and baptized.
22 Μετὰ ταῦτα ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν καὶ ἐκεῖ διέτριβεν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβάπτιζεν.
JoJ: The GNB again turns a plural “these things” into a singular “this.” Next, the word “province” is not in the original Greek, though “land” is. This again is where the DE method looks down on the reader, thinking that the reader of the translation (often a third world person) can’t think for himself and would never figure out that Judea is a province. Still this is not an egregious error. (It is perfectly acceptable to include such information in a footnote rather than the actual translation.)

23 John also was baptizing in Aenon, not far from Salim, because there was plenty of water in that place. People were going to him, and he was baptizing them.
23 Ἦν δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων ἐν Αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλείμ, ὅτι ὕδατα πολλὰ ἦν ἐκεῖ, καὶ παρεγίνοντο καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο·
JoJ: The GNB does not translate two conjunctions in this verse, which is a common practice nowadays even in more literal translations. It would take a whole thread to discuss this. Other than that, not bad.

(24 This was before John had been put in prison.)
24 οὔπω γὰρ ἦν βεβλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν ὁ Ἰωάννης.
JoJ: The GNB leaves out the conjunction γὰρ, which I think is important here. It could have been translated “Now” or “You see” or something similar.

 

[John of Japan]

IMO, Nicodemus's non-enlightenment should not affect the correct rendering of Christ's intent with the word 'anothen' here. Anothen ( from above, from a higher place, of things which come from heaven or God, from the first, from the beginning, from the very first, anew, over again) can mean 'anew' or 'over again', but that's not what Christ meant, thus His further explanation in the next verse:

5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. Jn 1 YLT

Christ wasn't speaking of an earthly physical birth which Nicodemus wrongly perceived, He was speaking of a spiritual birth FROM ABOVE.

I don't think translating it as "again" makes it earthly or non-spiritual, since as you point out, Jesus clearly makes it a spiritual birth by "of the Spirit," which is there however you translate anothen.

 

[kyredneck]

Jesus did not correct him.

I think Christ indeed did correct him with His response of vv 5 & 6.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't think translating it as "again" makes it earthly or non-spiritual,

Well, I think 'born again' distracts from recognizing a wonderful 'celestial motif' from within the scriptures beginning at Genesis 3:15 to Psalms 87 to Isaiah 54 to Galatians 4:26-29 to Revelation 12. 'Born from above' leads us to the 'city of God', the mother of us all. We are children of the heavenly Zion.

...and I'm done.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It's been a while since I posted about DE, and my vociferous opponent on that subject is gone from the BB now, so....

I'm no vociferous opponent to those who oppose DE, but, JoJ, consider. While DE might be problematic, pedantic criticism weakens whatever case there is against it, and this is happening here.

Just one general case in point. On the one hand, it is said translation style should be elevated. On the other, that it’s OK to sound grammatically incorrect in the target language in order to represent the author’s style, meaning the original style is not elevated. This is Inconsistent at best. Sounding strange in the target language, though the original is fine would be a major fail. Such is best saved for interlinears.

 

[agedman]

I'm no vociferous opponent to those who oppose DE, but, JoJ, consider. While DE might be problematic, pedantic criticism weakens whatever case there is against it, and this is happening here.

Just one general case in point. On the one hand, it is said translation style should be elevated. On the other, that it’s OK to sound grammatically incorrect in the target language in order to represent the author’s style, meaning the original style is not elevated. This is Inconsistent at best. Sounding strange in the target language, though the original is fine would be a major fail. Such is best saved for interlinears.

I don’t necessarily disagree, yet do not really because of the following thoughts.

Either one takes a narrow approach in which the word definitions are consistently presented (while taking into account and presenting the writer’s own style) from the original into the target language, or the target language is the driving force.

Is it not true that the KJV standardized spelling, grammar and other structures to the English language? Yet, given the less tools, where not the translators faithful in presenting word accuracy from the original? One might even consider the invention of certain words, (though certainly to cover preconceptions such as “baptism”) were done to ultimately bring a product as faithful as possible to present both the style of writing as well as the message consistent to the original.

“Sounding strange in the target language certainly might happen. The “woodenness” of the NASB as an example.

But would it not seem far superior to be a bit strange yet accurate, then schmooze in offering lesser reliable?

This is a poor example, but the English doesn’t fit really accurately the writings of Mark when it comes to the happenings. He used the style of writing in which he places the reader into the action at the time it is happening. Because there is no concept of such verbiage in the English, the translators generally use past tenses. And (imo) the readers miss out because the target language is limited.

So in English passages of Mark read as they already happened, yet Mark writes the events to envelope the reader into the narrative, as if the reader is actually a part of the story - a part of the story. To my very limited understanding, no other writer did this in the Scriptures.

If the target language has such ability, would it be not be the most correct to present Mark’s account in such a manner, without the use of DE which is even lesser?

Well, enough of my silliness, and openly displaying thoughts that run through my misty punching holes that appear but for a glimpse, but never for long.

 

[church mouse guy]

Sir, what is the proper classification for the translation of the KJV; I've heard it called a DE, perhaps in error. Thank you.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, I think 'born again' distracts from recognizing a wonderful 'celestial motif' from within the scriptures beginning at Genesis 3:15 to Psalms 87 to Isaiah 54 to Galatians 4:26-29 to Revelation 12. 'Born from above' leads us to the 'city of God', the mother of us all. We are children of the heavenly Zion.

...and I'm done.

You made a good argument.

 

[John of Japan]

Sir, what is the proper classification for the translation of the KJV; I've heard it called a DE, perhaps in error. Thank you.

My position is that any translation prior to 1964, when Eugene Nida first floated his DE theory in Toward a Science of Translating, no translation can be called DE. His theory was a new thing, and launched a whole scholarly discipline called translation studies. It is only in the Christian world that the KJV can be called DE. I've read many books and articles by secular authors who speak of Nida and know his theories, but it is only Christians who will call a pre-1964 translation DE.

In translating into Japanese, I have compared the entire KJV or NKJV NT with the Greek, and consider it to be a literal version with occasional free renderings. "Free translation" used to be compared to "literal translation," and no one before Nida taught reader response.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm no vociferous opponent to those who oppose DE, but, JoJ, consider. While DE might be problematic, pedantic criticism weakens whatever case there is against it, and this is happening here.

Please explain.

Just one general case in point. On the one hand, it is said translation style should be elevated. On the other, that it’s OK to sound grammatically incorrect in the target language in order to represent the author’s style, meaning the original style is not elevated. This is Inconsistent at best. Sounding strange in the target language, though the original is fine would be a major fail. Such is best saved for interlinears.

Well, first of all, I never advocate being or sounding grammatically incorrect in the target language in order to represent the style. Don't know where you got that. ("Answered and said" is grammatically okay in English.) And it is wrong to say that if the target rendering sounds strange, ergo the original was strange. That misunderstands the difference between languages.

In this area I follow the theories of secular translation scholar Lawrence Venuti, who followed Kierkegaard and divided translations into foreignizing and domesticizing. So I refer you to him, because the arguments in this area get pretty technical, no doubt beyond the expertise of most on the BB.

 

[John of Japan]

I think Christ indeed did correct him with His response of vv 5 & 6.

Fair enough.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Please explain.

Well, first of all, I never advocate being or sounding grammatically incorrect in the target language in order to represent the style. Don't know where you got that. ("Answered and said" is grammatically okay in English.) And it is wrong to say that if the target rendering sounds strange, ergo the original was strange. That misunderstands the difference between languages.

In this area I follow the theories of secular translation scholar Lawrence Venuti, who followed Kierkegaard and divided translations into foreignizing and domesticizing. So I refer you to him, because the arguments in this area get pretty technical, no doubt beyond the expertise of most on the BB.

Forest and trees. That’s arguing semantics, applying euphemism to bolster a preference or opinion. The point is that one’s own pedantic prejudice does not demonstrate flaw in the other guy’s translation. When it comes down to mere preference or opinion, criticism should be limited to just that—clearly expressed as mere personal opinion or preference.

The truth is that, for any translation of significant size, something will be lost and/or added. It just cannot be helped. Distance in geography, culture, technology, and time worsens the problem. Sacrifices will have to be made, and no translation, no matter how good, should ever be the final word in deciding the meaning of a passage.

But to imagine the reader should understand that a strangely sounding translation is not intended to imply the author originally sounded that way, is fantastic, especially when the goal of the translator was to preserve the author’s style.

 

[John of Japan]

Forest and trees. That’s arguing semantics, applying euphemism to bolster a preference or opinion. The point is that one’s own pedantic prejudice does not demonstrate flaw in the other guy’s translation. When it comes down to mere preference or opinion, criticism should be limited to just that—clearly expressed as mere personal opinion or preference.

My goal on this thread is to demonstrate how DE works by discussing the GNB, the first Bible to be actually translated with this method. I think I am successfully doing so.

So, along that line, are you then comfortable with a translation method such as DE that is based on existentialism/neoorthodoxy? (I haven't even mentioned Nida's flawed usages of linguistics in the form of code theory and transformational grammar.)

The truth is that, for any translation of significant size, something will be lost and/or added. It just cannot be helped. Distance in geography, culture, technology, and time worsens the problem. Sacrifices will have to be made, and no translation, no matter how good, should ever be the final word in deciding the meaning of a passage.

And I agree, of course. However, to be perfectly honest, I'm beginning to think you don't know much about translation objectively, since you thought "answered and said" was a grammar problem. (Then you called it "arguing semantics," which is again wrong.)

But to imagine the reader should understand that a strangely sounding translation is not intended to imply the author originally sounded that way, is fantastic, especially when the goal of the translator was to preserve the author’s style.

Tell that to famous scholar Lawrence Venuti. I'm only a simple Bible translator and prof.

 

[John of Japan]

Here are my comments on some more verses.

25 Some of John's disciples began arguing with a Jew about the matter of ritual washing.
25 Ἐγένετο οὖν ζήτησις ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν Ἰωάννου μετὰ Ἰουδαίου περὶ καθαρισμοῦ.
JoJ: Again, the GNB neglects the first conjunction, which is somewhat stronger than a simple “and” or “but.” Not bad, otherwise, though I would use fewer words. Often the wordy rendering is the cloudier one, if you catch my drift.

26 So they went to John and told him, “Teacher, you remember the man who was with you on the east side of the Jordan, the one you spoke about? Well, he is baptizing now, and everyone is going to him!”
26 καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν.
JoJ: This is a little bit free, but not too bad. They translated “rabbi” as “teacher” instead of the usual practice of transliteration, and “rabbi” is now a loan word in English, widely understood. Also, I think it is a mistake to make ἴδε (behold, look) into “Well,” which has a different meaning than “look.” “Well” simply points out something, but “look” is stronger. Still, not bad.

27 John answered, “No one can have anything unless God gives it.
27 Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰωάννης καὶ εἶπεν· οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν οὐδὲ ἓν ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
JoJ: This is an interesting rendering. First of all, the GNB again leaves out how John had Jesus speaking, “Answered and said….”
Also, this verse has “unless God gives it” for “if it is not given him from Heaven.” That doesn’t just shorten the verse, it changes the meaning. First of all, it changes a passive into an active, something DE translations do often. Now if the target language has no passive voice, that’s necessary. Again, if the target language seldom uses a passive voice so that it would sound strange, this may be helpful. However, in this case I see no need of making the passive into an active. Secondly, it changes “Heaven” to “God.” The Jews sometimes used the word “Heaven” to mean God, as can be done in Chinese (Confucius did so), but why delete the nuance by making things “clear”? This is something DE does quite often, and I believe it is a mistake.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

My goal on this thread is to demonstrate how DE works by discussing the GNB...

Uh-huh, then I guess someone else titled the thread, “The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence.” Again, I don’t defend DE, I just think overly pedantic, inconsistent criticism hurts making the case against it. I don't doubt that you can still have some success.

The rest was essentially a rehash, pointing out where we disagree. Opinions. We all have ‘em, even professional translators. Blind spots. Ditto. Biases. Again, ditto. Thus, no one is perfectly consistent.

I do appreciate translators trying to be as faithful as they can to the original (interlinears can be useful), so hope you keep up the good work. But it would be wrongheaded to expect a translation to do more than it really can. Prayerful Bible study is important.

 

[John of Japan]

Just curious: are you a translator? Do you know the ancient languages?

Uh-huh, then I guess someone else titled the thread, “The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence.”

Yep, that was me. Proud of it too. It got people involved, and that's what a thread title should do. And I believe that by showing GNB mistakes I've shown the harm of DE. That is not to say that I believe any genuine translation of the Bible to be harmful.

Again, I don’t defend DE, I just think overly pedantic, inconsistent criticism hurts making the case against it. I don't doubt that you can still have some success.

Care to elaborate? How have I been pedantic or inconsistent?

The rest was essentially a rehash, pointing out where we disagree. Opinions. We all have ‘em, even professional translators. Blind spots. Ditto. Biases. Again, ditto. Thus, no one is perfectly consistent.

Not sure what you mean by a rehash. But of course as you say, "no one is perfectly consistent."

I do appreciate translators trying to be as faithful as they can to the original (interlinears can be useful), so hope you keep up the good work. But it would be wrongheaded to expect a translation to do more than it really can. Prayerful Bible study is important.

I consider Bible translation to be a very useful form of Bible study. I translate several verses every day into English, and it is a blessing to be able to do so.

 

[John of Japan]

By the way, concerning previous posts about the literary quality of a translation, aiming for a good literary translation is very common in this business/ministry. Even the original NIV (1978) had in its translation goals "that it would be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity and literary quality." (p. vii in my copy). Aiming at literary quality (and therefore not street talk) is a common goal among translators of all stripes.