Aren't ALL English versions To a Degree BOTH Formal and Dynamic?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Jul 20, 2011.

  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    NONE are them really FULLY formal, functional, dynamic, as all tend to emphasis one way, but use the others at times!
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Not all "formal equivalency"???

    God forbid!

    :saint:
     
  3. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    It all boils down to the predominant translation philosophy.
     
  4. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    It depends. How are you defining "functional, dynamic"?

    Eugene Nida was distressed at how any free translation was being labeled "dynamic equivalence," which was why he and Jan de Waard tried to rename the method "functional equivalence" in their book From One Language to Another. I think we do Nida a disservice if we label just any free rendering as "dynamic equivalence" or "functional equivalence" simply because it is a free rendering.

    Nida and de Waard wrote, "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" (From One Language to Another, pp. vii, viii).

    When we translate here in Japan, we don't consider reader response as in dynamic equivalence theory. What we do consider is the understanding of the reader--not their response. The response is what the Holy Spirit works out, not the translator. So I really don't think any of our renderings are dynamic equivalence.
     
  5. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    All translations(ok, with exception) use both. with that being said, they will typical side one way or another. You can search for charts. Most put an interlinear on the left (literal) and one like the message on the right (paraphrase). The NIV gets put in the middle with the rest being scattered around. There are times that the dynamic must be used because a literal translation would give the wrong meaning.
     
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Please define what you mean by "dynamic." Paraphrase? Free? Reader response oriented?
     
  7. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Basically a paraphrase in a sense. example: Psalm 23:6 literally reads "length of days" but we translated it as "forever" because that's what the expression means. to me, length of days doesn't equal forever in English. So what I was attempting to say is that all translations will paraphrase a section when needed. "God forbid" in the KJV would be another example. There's nothing wrong with doing this. "God forbid" was what the KJV translators believed to be a good English expression to equal the expression Paul said.
     
  8. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    I see. This is correct in the popular view of dynamic equivalence, but mistaken in the technical sense.

    Eugene Nida, the inventor of DE, shied away from the popular tendency to characterize a paraphrase like the Living Bible as DE, and that's why he changed his technical term to functional equivalence, though the DE term is still used by scholars.

    To be DE in Nida's theory, whether the rendering is literal or free, the goal of the translator must to get the reader to respond in the same way as the original audience did. In the case of the NT this would be Greek readers (DE term "receptors") of the 1st century. This is called reader response theory in the translation business.

    In my view, because reader response is a modern theory, we should say that a non-DE translation has both literal and free renderings, not DE or functional equivalence renderings.
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    "Mistaken in the technical sense." Yes,I think that most English Bible versions which use dynamic or functional equivalence do so with a connotative meaning --not the denotative or technical meaning in mind. IOW,they are not being Nidaian (ha,ha)

    I have the 2007 NLT (called the NLTse) in front of me. This is a snip from the Introduction:"A dynamic-equivalence translation...focuses on translating the message of the original-language text. It ensures that the meaning of the text is readily apparent to the contemporary reader. This allows the message to come through with immediacy,without requiring the reader to struggle with foreign idioms and awkward syntax...[T]he translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand,was misleading,or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context;then they rendered the message into clear,natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful."
     
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    "Nidaian." I like it! :applause:

    I know that translation scholars understand the Nidaian method, but sometimes I wonder if the average Bible scholar does. This blurb from the NLTse doesn't mention reader response per se, sounding more like the popular view of DE than the technical view. Since Nida didn't really like the original LB much (talked to Anderson personally about some renderings), and really didn't like how folks thought it was DE, he might be turning over in his grave with frustration.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    That's the point. Though they are professional translators they employ the phrases dynamic,or functional-equivalence without any allegiance to the technical meaning. It has morphed beyond Nida's particular translational methodology.

    Who is Anderson?

    Reports of Nida's death have been highly exaggerated. He'll be 97 in November,Lord willing.

    The NLTse is a whole different critter than the old living Bible. I don't know what he thinks of the curent NLT,but I doubt it leads him to frustration.
     
  12. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    To my understanding...

    Formal literal would have the attempt to translate into the native language an exact match as possible to what original document was wriiten down with
    taking into account syntex, grammer, word meanings etc to have as close a match word by word from original to new

    functional Dynamic to me is to have the original retranslated in attempt to make that new readers/hearers of it will understand what was written in the contex of how they would say say thing today, intent of original authores reput into their way of saying it

    NASB tries to get "literal' as possible, at times its technically accurate, but hard to read and follow, good greek makes poor English at times!
    NIV tries to express the scriptures in the way modern reader would say the same thing, at times loses the "biblical" message along the way

    Thanks!
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Yes,all of that is important. How about spelling? ;)



    Examples please.
     
  14. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    might be wrong in this, as it has been awhile studying from the NIV, but doesn't it take liberties at times with concepts of "flesh" and "seed?"
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Now I'm speaking of the 2011 NIV. It uses the word "flesh" as opposed to sinful nature.

    It uses the word "seed" (or the plural form) 83 times in the whole Bible.

    So for you to say it "loses the biblical message along the way" is too extreme of an opinion.
     
  16. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0

    Understand, should have said something more akin to in places it seems to insert too much interpreting into the text?
     
  17. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Something troubles me about all these translations. I go back a few years and we had one or two versions of scripture, and yet, we developed a theology that has held for many years. We managed to understand the poor translation of some words and expressions.

    I just don't get all the emphasis on new English translations.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    No interpretation = no translation.
     
  19. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Unless the last few years means back in the 1830's with Webster's new fangled, modest update of the KJV.

    Here are a few that one would have had access to before 1970. (Is 42 years ago back far enough Jim?)

    ASV
    Fenton
    Weymouth
    MNT
    AAT
    Moffat
    RSV
    Phillips
    WET
    Jerusalem
    AMP
    NASB
    MLB

    One or two? No,there were many more than that before 1970. I probably missed quite a few.
     
  20. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, not going back far enough for me. I first went to Bible College in 1945. Our main Bible was the KJV. That version remained so in Canada at both Bible College and Seminary. Most of my theology texts use the KJV throughout..1950's and 60's. There were a number of versions avalable, but I repeat, our main text was the KJV.

    I read various versions, and enjoy them, but I just don't see all the emphasis on them. Is this an American thing?

    Cheers,

    Jim
     

Share This Page

Loading...