The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence

[agedman]

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.

Just wondering about your thinking that Nicodemus was in some non-enlightened state.

Would you agree that in John 3 it seems the Holy Spirit has been impressing upon him the need to get answers he sought? Why would he seek out the Master unless the Holy Spirit were impressing upon him he need?

Later, was he not one who cared for the body, perhaps providing his own unused burial chamber (thou there is no documentation).

Wouldn’t it be remarkable for Nicodemus to know he would one day lay on the very spot from which the King arose?

Perhaps I am mistaken, but is not Nicodemus responding to the light he is given, and therefore actually enlightened?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Care to elaborate? How have I been pedantic or inconsistent?
Not sure what you mean by a rehash. But of course as you say, "no one is perfectly consistent."

JoJ, did you just ask me to rehash all of this while saying you don't know what I mean by rehash? Clever.

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.

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.

Honestly, I think the disconnect here lies in focusing on the translator rather than on those needing translation. Mine has been the latter.

 

[agedman]

Honestly, I think the disconnect here lies in focusing on the translator rather than on those needing translation. Mine has been the latter.

Now this is interesting.

Perhaps I missed a page on reading the thread.

But more to the point of both you and @John of Japan, when would you both hold the line that a DE must not cross to remain a rendering holding the highest veracity?

Could you suggest a translation that did cross such a line?

What a really neat thread! A first rate presentation!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

AM, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with yours either. As I said elsewhere, something will be lost and/or added in translation, and then there is the distance in time, culture, etc. Translation alone can only do so much. Footnotes/commentary can help. Only someone that has deep familiarity with the cultures and languages involved will be able to deeply appreciate any nuance. For much of it, to get the full impact, you would have had to be there. But the few who possess deep familiarity can convey much, just not merely through translation. Isn't the great commission to disciple?

 

[kyredneck]

Would you agree that in John 3 it seems the Holy Spirit has been impressing upon him the need to get answers he sought?

...not a doubt in my mind that Nicodemus was a child of the heavenly Zion, drawn like a moth to the light. John 3:21

 

[Reformed1689]

To me it depends on the DE translation. I would NEVER use a DE as my primary translation but I wouldn't throw them out or oppose them either.

However, I do have a problem that there is not transparency with these translations that they are not a true translation of the text and do have many commentary/paraphrase like tendencies. That can fool the lay person.

I do have problems with gender neutral language though in most cases.

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ, did you just ask me to rehash all of this while saying you don't know what I mean by rehash? Clever.

I'm simply asking you to help me out by being specific as to where you think I was pedantic or inconsistent. Otherwise your (possibly helpful) criticism has no weight.

Honestly, I think the disconnect here lies in focusing on the translator rather than on those needing translation. Mine has been the latter.

It is true that recent modern secular theories focus more on the translator: skopos theory, polysystem theory, etc. But the traditional, "essentially literal" Bible translation method is to focus on the source text first and target text second.

On the other hand, DE does focus on the target audience rather than authorial intent--thus "reader response" in DE, based on existentialism. I asked you plainly if you are comfortable with a translation theory based on existentialism/neoorthodoxy, ,but you ignored that. Care to answer?

One place I agree with skopos theory is that the duty of the translator is not toward his or her target readers, but to the person who hired him or her (in a secular effort). Therefore, my focus as a translator is not on the reader of the translation but on the divine authorial intent. It's God's Word, and Bible translation should be done always dependent on the Lord, the meaning of His Word in the original languages, and the meaning He is conveying through His human servants.

Just curious: where are you coming from? Are you a translator of some kind? Do you know any foreign languages?

 

[John of Japan]

More comments for you:

28 You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.’
28 αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς μοι μαρτυρεῖτε ὅτι εἶπον [ὅτι] οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ χριστός, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου.
JoJ: Here the GNB changes the original “Christ’ (χριστός) to “Messiah.” I am not willing to say that this is wrong, since the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words are the same, “anointed one.” However, I think it may confuse the reader, as in, “Wait, wasn’t His name ‘Christ’? So what’s this ‘messiah’ name?” I would add a footnote, instead. The rest of the verse is good.

29 The bridegroom is the one to whom the bride belongs; but the bridegroom's friend, who stands by and listens, is glad when he hears the bridegroom's voice. This is how my own happiness is made complete.
29 ὁ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην νυμφίος ἐστίν· ὁ δὲ φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου ὁ ἑστηκὼς καὶ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ χαρᾷ χαίρει διὰ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ νυμφίου. αὕτη οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται.
JoJ: This is pretty good. The only comment I have is that some other versions translate “bridegroom’s friend” as “bridegroom’s best man.” That’s the first century meaning of this idiom.

30 He must become more important while I become less important.”
30 ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν, ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.
JoJ: This is a good example of how DE often eliminates ambiguity. Face it, a person increasing and decreasing is ambiguous: in influence, in followers, in fame? How? If you keep the rendering ambiguous, though, you allow the reader to be the one to do the interpretation. “Essentially literal” methods believe that the ambiguity is there for a reason based on authorial intent, and try to preserve the ambiguity in the target text if possible.

 

[agedman]

...

But the traditional, "essentially literal" Bible translation method is to focus on the source text first and target text second.

...

One place I agree with skopos theory is that the duty of the translator is not toward his or her target readers, but to the person who hired him or her (in a secular effort). Therefore, my focus as a translator is not on the reader of the translation but on the divine authorial intent. It's God's Word, and Bible translation should be done always dependent on the Lord, the meaning of His Word in the original languages, and the meaning He is conveying through His human servants.

...

Couple questions come to mind.

Even in the DE mind, how do they not have to first focus upon the “source text first” to gather credible information to render something equivalent in the target language?

Second, in your presentation of Skopos theory, the translator is presented as a hireling, submissive, in your illustration, to the author of the original text; yet, is not Skopos as presented by Vermeer (who gave the view its title) actually the opposite?

For example, Luther’s as well as Tyndall’s translation work was not patterned for the learned elite, for they could read the original, too. Rather, for the uneducated people. Therefore, as already indicated in the thread (if I recall) the KJV and the Geneva Bibles could both be considered early DE work.

What bothers me (not that it matters other then to me) is that drifting to some lesser presentation of truth when more stringently held work would be far better and actually provide more consistency of principles.

Certainly, the translator of Scripture needs to present accurately, however, for the DE the target user is the actual determiner of the translation. Mis the target and the value is greatly diminished.

I may be wrong but I think it was Jerome who desired two translations. One for the educated, one for the uneducated.

 

[church mouse guy]

Couple questions come to mind.

Even in the DE mind, how do they not have to first focus upon the “source text first” to gather credible information to render something equivalent in the target language?

Second, in your presentation of Skopos theory, the translator is presented as a hireling, submissive, in your illustration, to the author of the original text; yet, is not Skopos as presented by Vermeer (who gave the view its title) actually the opposite?

For example, Luther’s as well as Tyndall’s translation work was not patterned for the learned elite, for they could read the original, too. Rather, for the uneducated people. Therefore, as already indicated in the thread (if I recall) the KJV and the Geneva Bibles could both be considered early DE work.

What bothers me (not that it matters other then to me) is that drifting to some lesser presentation of truth when more stringently held work would be far better and actually provide more consistency of principles.

Certainly, the translator of Scripture needs to present accurately, however, for the DE the target user is the actual determiner of the translation. Mis the target and the value is greatly diminished.

I may be wrong but I think it was Jerome who desired two translations. One for the educated, one for the uneducated.

No, he said that the KJV is not a DE but a literal translation.

 

[agedman]

No, he said that the KJV is not a DE but a literal translation.

I know that is the common view, but the target audience was to all English speaking folks. Because it had a target audience, does not that, at least partially, move it into DE?

If it had no specific audience in which levels of education, cultural nuances (bowels or heart), ... but were, as it were, a class exercise, then it would have no reason to be DE even in part.

As such, certain phrases had to conform to the audience understanding. It is as looking at the picture of Christ with the two walking to Emmaus and the people are displayed in European traveling garments of the day.

Is it not true that all translations must involve some level of DE in order for the translation to not be obscured?

Now these are my opinions and not to be taken as opinionated.

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you for the interaction.

Couple questions come to mind.

Even in the DE mind, how do they not have to first focus upon the “source text first” to gather credible information to render something equivalent in the target language?

Yes, naturally the DE translator has to start with the source text. What their "reader response" theory says is that what is more important than the actual form of the translation is the response of the reader, which must be as close as possible to the response of the original reader of the text (something I consider to be impossible).

Here is a definition in Nida's own words:
"dynamic equivalence: 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. Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principle is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE" (The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, 1982, p. 200).

Second, in your presentation of Skopos theory, the translator is presented as a hireling, submissive, in your illustration, to the author of the original text; yet, is not Skopos as presented by Vermeer (who gave the view its title) actually the opposite?

I've only barely mentioned the theory here. You may read extensively my views on the theory here: A Skopos Version of John 17

For example, Luther’s as well as Tyndall’s translation work was not patterned for the learned elite, for they could read the original, too. Rather, for the uneducated people. Therefore, as already indicated in the thread (if I recall) the KJV and the Geneva Bibles could both be considered early DE work.

I completely disagree with any idea that a Bible version prior to 1964 can be considered a DE version. Here is a complaint by Nida concerning mis-usage of his term:

“Unfortunately, the expression 'dynamic equivalence' has often been misunderstood as referring to anything which might have special impact and appeal for receptors. Some Bible translators have seriously violated the principle of dynamic equivalence as described in Theory and Practice of Translating and Toward a Science of Translating. It is hoped, therefore, that the use of the expression 'functional equivalence' may serve to highlight the communicative functions of translating and to avoid misunderstanding” (Eugene Nida and Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another, pp. vii, viii).

What bothers me (not that it matters other then to me) is that drifting to some lesser presentation of truth when more stringently held work would be far better and actually provide more consistency of principles.

Certainly, the translator of Scripture needs to present accurately, however, for the DE the target user is the actual determiner of the translation. Mis the target and the value is greatly diminished.

Interestingly enough, Nida felt that DE was a more difficult method of translation than literal methods. I'll just say that the task is very difficult no matter your method.

I may be wrong but I think it was Jerome who desired two translations. One for the educated, one for the uneducated.

I'm not familiar with that.

 

[agedman]

Thank you for the interaction.

Yes, naturally the DE translator has to start with the source text. What their "reader response" theory says is that what is more important than the actual form of the translation is the response of the reader, which must be as close as possible to the response of the original reader of the text (something I consider to be impossible).

Here is a definition in Nida's own words:
"dynamic equivalence: 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. Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principle is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE" (The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, 1982, p. 200).
I've only barely mentioned the theory here. You may read extensively my views on the theory here: A Skopos Version of John 17


I completely disagree with any idea that a Bible version prior to 1964 can be considered a DE version. Here is a complaint by Nida concerning mis-usage of his term:

“Unfortunately, the expression 'dynamic equivalence' has often been misunderstood as referring to anything which might have special impact and appeal for receptors. Some Bible translators have seriously violated the principle of dynamic equivalence as described in Theory and Practice of Translating and Toward a Science of Translating. It is hoped, therefore, that the use of the expression 'functional equivalence' may serve to highlight the communicative functions of translating and to avoid misunderstanding” (Eugene Nida and Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another, pp. vii, viii).
Interestingly enough, Nida felt that DE was a more difficult method of translation than literal methods. I'll just say that the task is very difficult no matter your method.
I'm not familiar with that.

Good stuff!

I was wondering how and at what point you drew a time line.

I recall some controversy over the Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, ... but most got no traction until the supposed paraphrased “Good News for Modern Man” was published in the mid sixties.

That was the first time I recall Baptist preachers raising any real issues, and (imo) laid the first KJV only stands.

BJU sold the NKJ in the book store, but professors more often would reject it being quoted in papers. Perhaps it was considered drifting from the true presentation to the original audience.

Again, interesting thread!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I'm simply asking you to help me out by being specific as to where you think I was pedantic or inconsistent. Otherwise your (possibly helpful) criticism has no weight.

JoJ, I apologize for not taking it further, but I think we agree on the important stuff (no perfect translation, translation isn’t enough, etc.), and I sense our impasse at the few points mentioned is due to "limited movement between" very different perspectives. I’m OK with that, and still enjoyed the exchange. I wasn’t trying to “straighten you out,” only to add just a tad more perspective.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

JoJ, since you asked, let me say this as controversially as I can: I hold the Bible to be God-inspired, but necessarily using the author's language to convey revelation, yet not without the Holy Spirit. A translation should provide those who would not understand the original the best opportunity to hear the truth—those of the truth will do so. But the basic NT model is hearing through preaching/teaching by those answering the call to go and disciple. Again, not without the Holy Spirit.

 

[John of Japan]

Good stuff!

I was wondering how and at what point you drew a time line.

I recall some controversy over the Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, ... but most got no traction until the supposed paraphrased “Good News for Modern Man” was published in the mid sixties.

The RSV was launched on an unsuspecting public, including John R. Rice who allowed it to be touted in the Sword of the Lord. When fundamentalists learned that it translated the Hebrew alma (virgin) as "young lady" in Is. 7:14, there was a large outcry.

Granted, the outcry was greater against the Good News for Modern Man, which sometimes translated the Greek haima (blood) as "death." (Nowadays the revision is called the GNB. Please see the OP.) Oddly enough, the actual version name was the Today's English Version (TEV), which was different from the above book name.

That was the first time I recall Baptist preachers raising any real issues, and (imo) laid the first KJV only stands.

I hadn't thought of it from that perspective.

BJU sold the NKJ in the book store, but professors more often would reject it being quoted in papers. Perhaps it was considered drifting from the true presentation to the original audience.

I didn't know that! In my day at BJU, they were all about the NASB. I still have the first edition NT I bought in the BJU bookstore.

Again, interesting thread!

We've had good interaction.

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ, since you asked, let me say this as controversially as I can: I hold the Bible to be God-inspired, but necessarily using the author's language to convey revelation, yet not without the Holy Spirit. A translation should provide those who would not understand the original the best opportunity to hear the truth—those of the truth will do so. But the basic NT model is hearing through preaching/teaching by those answering the call to go and disciple. Again, not without the Holy Spirit.

Amen. Absolutely, the power is all from the Holy Spirit.

My position on inspiration is verbal plenary. This theological basis is bypassed by DE, as Eugene Nida himself taught. Perhaps I can give quotes later--I'm writing this quickly while my beloved missions students take a quiz.

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ, I apologize for not taking it further, but I think we agree on the important stuff (no perfect translation, translation isn’t enough, etc.), and I sense our impasse at the few points mentioned is due to "limited movement between" very different perspectives. I’m OK with that, and still enjoyed the exchange. I wasn’t trying to “straighten you out,” only to add just a tad more perspective.

No need to apologize. I've also enjoyed the exchange. Thanks for participating.

 

[John of Japan]

31 He who comes from above is greater than all. He who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly matters, but he who comes from heaven is above all.
31 Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν· ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ. ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος [ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν]·
JoJ: Not bad—“earthly matters” is a bit of a free rendering, but acceptable.

32 He tells what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts his message.
32 ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.
JoJ: The GNB has “tells” instead of “witnesses,” the normal rendering for martureo (μαρτυρεῖ here, 3rd singular present active indicative). I’m not sure why. There is certainly nuance in “witness” that is not there in “tell.” Think about it. A car crash occurs. The police say to you, “Did you witness the event?” And you say, “No, but I can tell you about it.” You won’t go to court, but the actual witness will.

33 But whoever accepts his message confirms by this that God is truthful.
33 ὁ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐσφράγισεν ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής ἐστιν.
JoJ: Again, the GNB has “message” instead of witness. (The word here is the noun cognate.) Why? This rendering makes no sense. Again, the GNB has changed a noun, “truth,” into an adjective, “truthful.” There’s no need for this, which fails in delivering the nuance. But this kind of problem that made Nida classify literal translating as “formal translation,” because literal translators believe that the original form of a word often (not always) has meaning that can be transferred.

 

[John of Japan]

And now, the end of the chapter:

34 The one whom God has sent speaks God's words, because God gives him the fullness of his Spirit.
34 ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦμα.
JoJ: This is a good translation.

35 The Father loves his Son and has put everything in his power.
35 ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.
JoJ: This is not bad, but I see no reason to translate the Greek “in His hands” as “in his power.” The literal English rendering “in His hands” is perfectly understandable as is. The GNB on the other hand (catch that sleight of hand there?), by saying “in his power” misses the anthropomorphism.

36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not have life, but will remain under God's punishment.
36 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.
JoJ: Other than “punishment” for “wrath” (two different meanings), this verse in the GNB does pretty well.