How Do You Know It's Dynamic Equivalence 2

TCGreek · Feb 13, 2009

John of Japan said:

Dynamic Equivalence in Matthew 8 of the TNIV
By John R. Himes

The chapter I chose at random in the TNIV is Matthew 8. I didn’t remember the content when I chose it, though I have translated it into Japanese and am well familiar with the Greek. Note that I have not dealt with every place I would translate differently, but only those places that I believe are clearly DE renderings.

First of all, all through this chapter (in every verse but vv. 12, 13, 17, 22, 23; arguably in 16,) the translation does not translate conjunctions at the beginning of sentences such askai(“and, also”) andde(and, but). There is a theory that in Greek these are often just sentence markers, telling where a new sentence starts, and therefore don’t always need to be translated. Even if that is true, there are still places where these words are meaningful at the beginning of the sentence and should be translated. To almost never translate them means the translators were thinking that the impression received by the modern reader is more important than the peculiar syntax of the original. This concept is called “reader response” or “receptor response” in DE. It is an extremely important DE principle. The recent UBS journal The Bible Translator had an article on “P46 as a Paradigm for Reader-Response Criticism,” which is an ugly stepchild of form criticism.

At the beginning of verse 2 kai idou was not translated at all. This would be translated literally, “And behold,” or “And look.” A sense-for-sense rendering might be “So look now” (a little less literal). But most folk don’t talk like this nowadays, and the translators probably left it out so that their translation would be a “closest natural equivalent” of the original. This is a DE principle.

In a literal translation, verse 6 would continue the sentence starting in verse 5, since what the TNIV has as “he said” is a participle. This is a case where the translator did not feel that the form of the original was important enough to preserve in the translation. That is a DE principle. However, a literal translator would believe there was an important nuance in the grammatical form of the original.

In v. 11 the TNIV has “take their places at the feast.” The Greek for “take their places at the feast” is anakliqhson, which is sometimes problematic for the translator. It generally means to sit or in many cases to recline at the table as was the custom in the first century. I think “recline” or “sit” are both good literal equivalents, though “recline” may need a footnote to explain the first century meal-time custom. However, there is no “at the feast” in the word. Sometimes when it is used there is no feast (Matt. 14:19, Luke 2:7, etc.). So “take their places at the feast” is a DE rendering, an unnecessary paraphrase adding an extra word designed to produce a “natural equivalent” and a “clear meaning” which probably didn’t exist in the minds of the Divine and human authors.

Verse 12 has the interesting rendering, “the subjects of the kingdom.” The Greek here is uioi thV basileiaV which would be translated “sons of the kingdom” by a literal translator. This gets into the criticism of the TNIV that it is gender neutral, but I’m not interested in arguing that right now. My focus is how the DE translation method allows this rendering while a literal method does not. Literal methods will translate an idiom as is, if it makes sense in the target language, and this one does. So-called “meaning-based translation” (as if all translation was not meaning-based) methods such as DE often will not literally translate idioms, even if the idiom makes sense in the target language. DE translators look for that “closest natural equivalent,” meaning they believe it should never sound like a translation. But as one of my fellow translators once said, “But it is a translation!”

A literal translation of the words of Jesus in v. 13 would be “Go and…” but the TNIV leaves out the “and” (kai) and makes it two sentences, thus losing a nuance” “Go! Let it be done….” The DE method looks to simplify difficulties in favor of understanding, and is often not interested in preserving the nuances and ambiguities of the original, especially if the translated document is then hard to understand. Thus Nida invented the term “formal equivalence” to use instead of “literal” or “word-for-word.” He meant that a “formal” translation tries to preserve the “form” of the original.

The TNIV has in v. 16 “he drove out the spirits” (exebalen ta pneumata). The Greek word here is usually translated cast out, throw out, etc. It is translated “cast out” in various translations but can be translated “drive out” as in Gen. 3:24 in the Septuagint. No doubt the translators were striving for the best natural equivalent here, thinking “cast out” to be archaic, but think about it. The English “drive” is normally a process, as in “He drove his wife nuts” or “The boy drove the sheep to market.” However, Christ’s act was instantaneous.

In verse 20 the TNIV has “Jesus replied,” but the original is “He said” (legei ). I have no problem with using “Jesus” instead of “He” and thus replacing a pronoun with a proper name. We do this often in Japanese for clarity, since Japanese syntax handles pronouns very poorly. However, I see a nuance in “said” that is lost in the TNIV rendering of “replied.” The translator was no doubt trying to make more sense in English, but in my view if Jesus “replied” then He was merely responding to the man, whereas if He “said,” then He was initiating something that the would-be disciple needed to know. This may seem picky, but once again this rendering depends on your translation method.

In verse 21 we have, “Another disciple,” but the original is eteroV de twn maqhtwn [autou], or “another of [his] disciples” (the brackets show a textual problem with the word “his”; no big deal in our analysis). Why would the TNIV make the plural into a singular? This was probably for clarity. The DE method strives for clarity in the translation over keeping to the exact form of the original. But to a literal translator “authorial intent” (what the divine Author wanted to communicate) would come first, so he would keep it plural, believing there is meaning in the plural form that needs to be preserved in the translation.

Verse 24 has “furious storm” in the TNIV for the GreekseismoV megaV. But this is literally, “great storm” or “large storm.” This is another example of the reader response principle of DE.

Verse 25 has “We’re going to drown” in the TNIV for the Greek apollumeqa. However, the Greek root word means “die” or “destroy.” This is obviously done for “reader response” as per DE theory.

Verse 26 has “It was completely calm,” (egeneto galhnh megalh) which would be literally “There was a great calm.” So “completely” is substituted for “great,” another case of the DE goal of clarity at the expense of the form of the original.

In v. 29 it says, “before the appointed time.” However, in the original (pro kairou), there is no “appointed.” The translator no doubt added the word so as to get the right reader response as per DE theory. But the problem with this to a literal translator is that the translator is then thinking and interpreting for the reader. Translating literally, “before the time,” forces the readers to think it through themselves—“What time? Did someone set a time here? Who set it and why?”

Verse 30 has "If you drive us out” (ei ekballeiV hmaV). See the note on v. 16.
Click to expand...

John, a great effort at proving the TNIV employs the DE method.

What you failed to mention is that every translation that seeks to be readable, including the revered KJV, employs the DE, at varying degrees.

When you charge the TNIV with "an unnecessary paraphrase adding an extra word designed to produce a “natural equivalent” and a “clear meaning” which probably didn’t exist in the minds of the Divine and human authors," you are even turning on the KJV and every translation that claims to be word-for-word.

By the way, when did God say that word-for-word is his divinely ordained way of translating the text of Scripture.

John, you're involved in translation and you know that word-for-word is virtually impossible to make sense.

There is no true word-for-word translation that makes sense.

The word-for-word concept is misleading at best.

TCGreek · Feb 13, 2009

4His_glory said:

Very good stuff John. Thank you for the informative work. Personally I just can´t understand why anyone would prefer a DE translation. Even one that supposedly takes a "mediating position" like the TNIV.

My understanding of greek is rather limited (only studied it for two years) but to me it makes sense to be as formally equivalent as possible in order to avoid the translators bias .
Click to expand...

If you know anything about translation, every translation involves some level of interpretation, translators' biases.

TCGreek · Feb 13, 2009

John of Japan said:

My conclusion is that yes, the TNIV was done with the DE method, since virtually every verse has evidence of that in the dropping of the initial conjunction, and every time the translators had a translation problem it was solved with DE principles. Make of that if you will. If you disagree with me, though, you need to provide your own criteria for determining whether or not a version is DE.
Click to expand...

John, tell me which version of the Bible that was not done with some DE method.

Your sampling of Matthew 8 in the TNIV with the DE method in mind doesn't prove that the TNIV is a DE translation.

It only proves that the TNIV, like every other version, including the KJV, has employed the DE method.

DE is unavoidable in moving from one language to another.

John of Japan · Feb 13, 2009

4His_glory said:

Very good stuff John. Thank you for the informative work. Personally I just can´t understand why anyone would prefer a DE translation. Even one that supposedly takes a "mediating position" like the TNIV.

My understanding of greek is rather limited (only studied it for two years) but to me it makes sense to be as formally equivalent as possible in order to avoid the translators bias .
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that.

John of Japan · Feb 13, 2009

MNJacob said:

JOJ, nicely done.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

John of Japan · Feb 13, 2009

TCGreek said:

John, a great effort at proving the TNIV employs the DE method.

What you failed to mention is that every translation that seeks to be readable, including the revered KJV, employs the DE, at varying degrees.

When you charge the TNIV with "an unnecessary paraphrase adding an extra word designed to produce a “natural equivalent” and a “clear meaning” which probably didn’t exist in the minds of the Divine and human authors," you are even turning on the KJV and every translation that claims to be word-for-word.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to educate people as to what DE actually is. Be honest: had you heard of the terms "natural equivalent" or "reader response"?

And if you are comfortable with "take their places" instead of just "sit," that's no skin off my nose. You need to be clear in your own mind. All I'm trying to do is educate people. You did not define DE for me or give criteria for determining whether a version is DE or not. I hope you understand at least some now.

By the way, when did God say that word-for-word is his divinely ordained way of translating the text of Scripture.
Click to expand...

My method was partly developed by studying how the NT translates the OT and how the NT translates phrases and words within itself: "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani," etc.

My method is also strongly influenced by verbal plenary inspiration. If every word is inspired, why not be careful with every single word of the translation? By this statement I am not accusing you or anyone else who prefers DE of not believing in verbal plenary inspiration. I've never said that and have never believed it or even thought it, [snipped]

John, you're involved in translation and you know that word-for-word is virtually impossible to make sense.

There is no true word-for-word translation that makes sense.

The word-for-word concept is misleading at best.
Click to expand...

I'll reserve judgement on these statements until you define "word-for-word" for me. The term has been used for many different ideas ever since the ancient Greeks invented it and Jerome discussed it centuries later. So, what do you mean by word-for-word translation?

John of Japan · Feb 13, 2009

TCGreek said:

John, tell me which version of the Bible that was not done with some DE method.

Your sampling of Matthew 8 in the TNIV with the DE method in mind doesn't prove that the TNIV is a DE translation.

It only proves that the TNIV, like every other version, including the KJV, has employed the DE method.

DE is unavoidable in moving from one language to another.
Click to expand...

[snipped] Have you read any books on translation theory? Have you read a single book by Nida?

Give me your definition of DE if mine is wrong. Then, if my criterion is wrong, give me your criteria for telling if a translation is DE or not. Work with me here. [snipped]I know you have an M. Div.

John of Japan · Feb 13, 2009

There are two points in my analysis that can be extended to the whole TNIV. I mentioned the near complete refusal to translate the conjunctions at the beginning of each Greek sentence. A spot check of various passages shows that this omission is very common throughout the NT. Therefore this DE rendering (or lack of it) is a characteristic of the TNIV NT.

The second point is the famous TNIV tendency towards gender-equal phraseology. This is certainly a DE tendency based on the reader response principle. That is, the translator wishes the reader to comprehend the document just as the original readers did. In this case, I believe the DE translator would think a 21st century reader would be sidetracked by the “gender discrimination” in the Bible, and so would tone down perceived male dominance in order to better communicate.

My point here is this. Literal translation methods do their best to present the document in the target language with the original forms, including such perceived “gender discrimination.” Gender neutral language therefore, when not warranted by the text (as in the case of Matt. 8:12 in the TNIV), is dynamic equivalence. The logical conclusion is that TNIV advocates must admit for the sake of honesty that gender neutral language is not in the original, but is supplied by the translators.

If TNIV advocates are comfortable with dynamic equivalence, so be it. But they should at least admit they are DE advocates in this case, that of gender neutral language. They should stand in front of a mirror, look at themselves and say, “I am in favor of DE.” Either way, it is no skin off my nose. I’m simply pointing out the obvious. I don’t plan to argue the point on this thread. It’s been argued too many other places, and I don’t want the headache.

Today Uncle Miya and I were correcting my base translation of 1 Tim. 2 & 3. Uncle Miya kept saying things like, “American women wouldn’t like that,” and “Japanese women would reject the Bible if they saw this!” You see, what the “Biblical feminists” perceive as gender discrimination in the Bible can’t be excised so easily. But the truth of the matter is, American feminist women just don’t get it. The Gospel and the Bible liberate women to be their best. This has been proven time after time on the mission field when men find Christ: in Muslim countries where women are beaten down, in Japan where women were kept ignorant and oppressed, in 19th century China where “foot-binding” kept women weak, etc. And gender neutral language didn’t do that, truth did!

TCGreek · Feb 13, 2009

John of Japan said:

My method was partly developed by studying how the NT translates the OT and how the NT translates phrases and words within itself: "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani," etc.
Click to expand...

And how do you account for those times of obvious departures and quotes from the LXX?

My method is also strongly influenced by verbal plenary inspiration. If every word is inspired, why not be careful with every single word of the translation?
Click to expand...

Does the TNIV go against this? Does any translation adhere perfectly to your standard?

I'll reserve judgement on these statements until you define "word-for-word" for me. The term has been used for many different ideas ever since the ancient Greeks invented it and Jerome discussed it centuries later. So, what do you mean by word-for-word translation?
Click to expand...

Here's a borrowed definition: "According to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into the receptor language and seeks to preserve the original word order and sentence structure as much as possible."

The NAS is a good attempt at the "word-for-word" approach. I hope that satisfies your inquiry.

TCGreek · Feb 13, 2009

John of Japan said:

And this proves to me that you still do not understand DE. You didn't understand it before because you couldn't define it for me. You don't understand it now in light of these statements. Have you read any books on translation theory? Have you read a single book by Nida?
Click to expand...

John, I chose not to offer a definition, unless I was convinced that people were seeking truth on the matter.

Why offer a definition when certain conclusions were already agreed upon by some who were commenting here?

PeterM was made to retract his original position on the TNIV (a reminder).

Give me your definition of DE if mine is wrong. Then, if my criterion is wrong, give me your criteria for telling if a translation is DE or not.
Click to expand...

Here's a borrowed definition: "The goal of this theory is to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by te original-language text--both in meaning and in style.... It can also be called a thought-for-thought."

I hope this helps your inquiry.

The TNIV is not a DE translation, though it employed the method.

Jerome · Feb 13, 2009

From the TNIV website:

"I will use the TNIV in my teaching and writing because it more accurately reflects the original texts in dynamic equivalence." ---Alice Mathews, Ph.D., Lois W. Bennet Distinguished Associate Professor of Educational Ministries and Women's Ministries, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton

Rippon · Feb 13, 2009

Jerome said:

From the TNIV website:

"I will use the TNIV in my teaching and writing because it more accurately reflects the original texts in dynamic equivalence." ---Alice Mathews, Ph.D., Lois W. Bennet Distinguished Associate Professor of Educational Ministries and Women's Ministries, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton
Click to expand...

As I have said before,even some fans of the TNIV call it a dynamic translation.The expertise of Mathews does not lie within the field of biblical translation.

Rodney Decker however is a bit more accomplished.In his paper on "Inspiration And Translation" he speaks of the NIV,NET Bible and HCSB as being balanced translations.He goes on to say that "certainly none of them deserve to be 'tarred' as functional equivalence or classified with legitimate examples of such (e.g.GNB,CEV,Phillips).

Rippon · Feb 13, 2009

John of Japan said:

My method is also strongly influenced by verbal plenary inspiration. If every word is inspired, why not be careful with every single word of the translation? By this statement I am not accusing you or anyone else who prefers DE of not believing in verbal plenary inspiration. I've never said that and have never believed it or even thought it, [snipped]
Click to expand...

[snipped]

"Fundamentalists have had a presupposition of verbal-plenary inspiration.This should carry over into our choice of Bible translations,leading us to reject versions translated with the dynamic equivalence method such as TEV (Good News Bible),NIV,TNIV,etc."

[snipped]

[snipped]

[snipped] by Leland Ryken.Quoting from his "The Word Of God In English"(pages 134,135)

"It is my belief that an essentially literal translation is congruent with the doctrine of verbal or plenary inspiration. Contrawise,the preoccupation with dynamic equivalent Bibles is with the thoughts of Scripture,with no priority assigned to the words.I come to the unwelcome conclusion that many evangelicals who theoretically espouse the doctrine of verbal or plenary inspiration who reject the position of theological liberalism that the Bible primarily contains the words of God -- are betrayed by their very choice of a dynamic equivalent translation into the position they reject...I can imagine dynamic equivalent translators saying that they accept the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration.In that case,my reply is that my understanding of verbal inspiration is different from theirs,that I believe their translation practice to be incongruent with their view of inspiration,and that I do not see a twentieth century liberal and neoorthodox position that gave rise to a renewed evangelical emphasis on plenary inspiration."

[snipped]

Rippon · Feb 13, 2009

Rippon said:

I just don't see the point about being so picayunish about some of the items.I also don't think it's fair to judge how dynamic a particular version is based on tiny fragments of one chapter of the Bible.There are 22 other verses in Matthew 8 alone .And there are 1,1188 other chapters in the Bible altogether.To give a better assessment your sample size needs to be much,much greater. As it is,no one can make any final determination based on 12 lonely items. Some on the list can probably be judged as non-factors in deciding how dynamic a version is.
Click to expand...

[personal comment snipped]

Rippon · Feb 13, 2009

Rippon said:

I will give some renderings from the NASU altered.I will put snips of the verses with the marginal readings in the text.I will bracket the special wordings.

Verse 1 : When [He] came down from the mountain,[many] crowds followed him.

Verse 4 : present the [gift]...
( The TNIV has it.)

Verse 5 : And when [He] entered Capernaum...

Verse 6 : Lord,my [boy] is [thrown down] at home and fearfully tormented.

Verse 8 : [say with a word] and my [boy] will be healed.

Verse 13 : And the [boy] was healed at that [hour]
( The TNIV has "hour")

Verse 24 : And behold,there arose [a shaking]

Verse 26 : [a great calm occurred]

Verse 29 : [What is to us and to you?]

So there are some literalisms here which differ from yours.Who's right?
Click to expand...

[personal comment snipped]

Rippon · Feb 14, 2009

I have been looking at the NET Bible with its notes on Matthew 8.Eleven times it states that their translation did not translate particular Greek words because they were redundant in contemporary English.How often do professed 'literal' or 'formal' translations do this?

What follows are are some notes from NET Notes on this chapter.In JoJ's preferred way of translating this chapter in a non-dynamic way he failed to mention some of these things.That's why I am under the impression that what is considered formal to one person -- even one skilled in the original languages, may be different from another of the same background.Just how literal does a translator need to be?

V. 8 : Greek : But answering the centurian replied

V. 9 : Greek : having soldiers under me
[TNIV : with soldiers under me.]

V. 10 Grk : Truly,I say to you
[TNIV :truly I tell you]

V. 11 Grk : and Isaac and Jacob

V. 14 Grk : And

V. 14 Grk : having been thrown down

V. 17 Grk : was fulfilled,saying

V. 20 Grk : the birds of the sky [or] the birds of the heaven

V. 26 Grk : and

V. 27 Grk : the men were amazed saying

V. 29 Grk : and behold,they cried out,saying

V. 29 Grk : What to us and to you?

V. 32 : Grk : And he said to them

Again,how literal does a translator have to be when translating non-dynamically?

John of Japan · Feb 14, 2009

[deleted personal comment snipped]

[personal comment snipped]

Mexdeaf · Feb 14, 2009

Man, C4K's scissors have been busy this morning!:laugh:

I should be :sleep: but I had to get up at 3 a.m. to open the gym for some folks that are cooking for a fundraiser this morning.

Deacon · Feb 14, 2009

Yeah, but people are supposed to get hot at a gym ...and heavy after cookin'.

I'm enjoying the interaction

Perhaps the role of dynamic equivalence in the TNIV version of Matthew 8 can be illustrated by comparing it to the New Living Translation, which undeniably embraces the translational technique.
I've added the NASB95 characteristicly more word-for-word, formal equivalence.

Verse 5
NLT “a Roman officer came and pleaded with him,”
TNIV “a centurion came to him, asking for help.”
NASB95 "a centurion came to Him, imploring Him,"

Verse 6
NLT “Lord, my young servant lies in bed, paralyzed”
TNIV “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed,
NASB95 Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home,

Verse 8
NLT But the officer said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come into my home.
TNIV The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof.
NASB95 But the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof,

Verse 11
NLT “And I tell you this, that many Gentiles will come from all over the world—from east and west—…”
TNIV “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west,…”
NASB95 “I say to you that many will come from east and west,

Verse 15
NLT Peter’s mother-in-law was sick in bed with a high fever.
TNIV Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.
NASB95 He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever.
(also compare)
AV 1873 he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.

NLT Then she got up and prepared a meal for him.
TNIV and she got up and began to wait on him.
NASB95 and she got up and waited on Him.

Rob

4His_glory · Feb 14, 2009

TCGreek said:

If you know anything about translation, every translation involves some level of interpretation, translators' biases.
Click to expand...

I well aware of that. And that is one reason I feel that a translation should only resort to DE when necessary, but otherwise lean to the side of formal equivalency. I do not see this with the NIV and TNIV. The translators appear to favor DE more than translators of other versions.

This is my personal preference. If you wish to use the TNIV have at it, but as for we I would rather have a translation that uses less DE.

That said, I think that just about any translation is going to have some use of DE. My point of contention is that it should be used very little.

How Do You Know It's Dynamic Equivalence 2

TCGreek New Member

TCGreek New Member

TCGreek New Member

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

TCGreek New Member

TCGreek New Member

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Mexdeaf New Member

Deacon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

4His_glory New Member

Useful Searches

How Do You Know It's Dynamic Equivalence 2

TCGreek New Member

TCGreek New Member

TCGreek New Member

John of Japan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

TCGreek New Member

TCGreek New Member

Jerome Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Mexdeaf New Member

Deacon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

4His_glory New Member

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John of Japan Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Deacon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter