Why Would the More Literal translations NOT be best ones?

Okay, so have you read either of Dr. James Price's books on OE? If not, where does your understanding come from. Me alone? :smilewinkgrin: I'm honored!

But it is truly impossible to effectively explain in a forum like this a translation method to a non-translator who knows no foreign languages. To be effective, I'd have to sit down with you, show you passages, explain what I'm doing word by word and grammatical form by grammatical form. I had to do this over months with OE even with my translation partner Uncle Miya, who was already a linguist in English and a translator.

And I mean no disrespect by saying this. I do respect the fact that you've done a lot of reading about translation.

 

I have learned from you John,but you have not been my sole source.

Since the optimal-equivalence nomenclature is being pressed by the HCSB folks --the resulting English renderings can be evaluated. I have found that the latter is very much like the 2011 NIV. It's just another way of saying that it is a mediating translation.No big deal.

 

The closer a translation comes to presenting what was actually being said, rather than the translators interpretion of the meaning of what is being said, the better.

A lot of excuses for missing the mark have been put forward, but not much in the way of evidence.

In the absense on any example demonstrating a problem, using the same English word for the same Greek word meaning in every usage in the text seems like a sound general rule. Now in some cases where the Greek word meaning appears in a phrase or grammaticaly construction requiring an alternate to present the meaning of the phrase, that would be an exception.

 

I disagree strongly with Nida's "reader response" principle, and I object to much of his methodology. I've critiqued DE here on the BB various times, and here: http://20.sharperiron.org/printthread.php?t=8781

 

Thank you. I have to say that one thing he accomplished and deserves kudos for is that he started the dialogue on Bible translation (and had a big influence in the field of secular translation studies in the process).

 

And I have stated my strong disagreement with your concluding thoughts there.

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

As I said (back in 2/10/10) in reference to your false statements:"Do you deny that you ever said that dynamic-equivalent versions should be rejected because the translators of such do not have a presupposition of verbal-plenary inspiration?
And I will repeat, do you still lump the NIV and TNIV in with the TNIV? If so,you don't know what you are talking about regardless of your credentials."

It is positively silly to liken the NIV/TNIV with versions such as the TEV. Only someone with an agenda,or totally unthinking would say such a thing. While you're at it --to be consistent -- you'd also have to lump the ISV,NET Bible and HCSB into the very same category.

But beyond all that --for you to indicate that translations (specifically translators of) the NIV weaken or deny verbal-plenary inspiration is sinful on your part. It just isn't true. And you know it.

 

We disagree. 'Nuff said. And I never accused the translators of not believing in verbal inspiration. No need to say I'm sinning just because we disagree.

I mean, come on, you're trying to debate what I said on another forum, years ago!!

 

This thread is interesting. What do we mean by a literal translation? Is it one that simply gives a gloss meaning for each and every word in the original (even when that makes no sense in the translation), i.e. a wooden translation? Is it a word to word equivalent assuming that grammar is similar and thus the translation should match perfectly (what a misnomer)? Or should it be an accurate representation of the MEANING of the original language which the translation will convey in many words of functional equivalency? I would argue that the best translation is one that best conveys the meaning of the original language, not just conveys the original wording of the original language.

My biggest problem w/ the concept of a formal equivalence w/ the GNT is that they never communicate everything that is implied in the verb (especially the non-indicative verbs). They simply give a simple gloss assuming that such a translation is adequate enough to give the exact meaning of the original language. This is one of the things I appreciate the most about the ISV (a functional equivalent translation). They communicate the verbal aspect in its translation, even in the indicative mood where there is good arguments that indicative forms are more about the kind of time vs. the point of time (i.e. present and future tense are inaccurate terms).

 

I see at least three levels of literal translation: (1) the interlinear, which preserves perfectly the sentence order of the original while using glosses for the lexical units; (2) the strictly literal which tries to preserve perfectly the grammatical forms of the original and uses glosses, maybe even translating by concordance on all words (Young's); (3) the "essentially literal" (ESV) or "optimal equivalence" (HCSB, NKJV) translation which translates word for word and tries to preserve the grammatical forms of the original in the target language while aiming for a literary and understandable style.

This is simplyfying, of course.

Actually, the very term "formal equivalance" indicates that they try to preserve the form of the original in the translation. It is functional equivalence that often ignores the grammatical form of the original. I'd give you some quotes from Eugene Nida on this but my Nida library is all in Japan.

The reason the ISV is good in this area is that Dr. Black did the base translation, and he's a real stickler about trying to preserve the verb structures of the original in the target language, though of course he would say he is not doing formal equivalence. I actually was privileged to here him expound some on this when my son took us out to eat with him not too long ago.

I agree with him completely on this. However, as you know, sometimes it's just not possible to get the nuances of the perfect tense, for example, into an Asian language such as Chinese or Japanese, or into English perfectly for that matter.

 

The ESV and NKJV are in the same category --but not the HCSB. The latter does not translate word-for-word. And though the ESV is more form-oriented --it too does not translate word-for-word.

I think I would like Dr.Black face-to-face. But I am very perplexed. He seems an honorable man. He was in charge of the New Testament translation team for the ISV. You have to ask him why the ISV uses God's Word translation for much of their work. It seems like the latter was the base translation --nothing much original in the ISV at least as far as the N.T. goes. This is not coincidental --not with long word strings that are not found identical in any other version. Time after time the ISV seemingly plagiarizes GW.

 

You were saying that as a Fundamentalist who believes in verbal-plenary inspiration that you would advise folks to steer clear of dynamic equivalence translations. That means you doubt that the translators of such versions deny or dilute the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration. Then, on top of that travesty, you lump the NIV/TNIV in with the TEV as dynamic-equivalent versions! That is just plain sloppy on your part. You have to know better.

You just gave a link to your discussion on December 5 --a few days ago. Do you wish to retract your remarks since it was so long ago --as if it is just so much water off the bridge?

 

Granted that a literal/formal translation is only trying to present the wording of the text, this is partly why I am not a huge advocate for literal translations. They have their place, no doubt, but they even leave nuances and meaning out b/c they are more focused on re-presenting the original text in a new language rather than focus on re-presenting the meaning of the original text in a new language. Verbal aspect is a good example which is greatly lacking in most translations (formal equivalence included). Thus my preference is a translation that seeks to communicate the full meaning of the verb and not just its tense and meaning. This also goes along w/ the tense debate. If present and future tense really do not refer to points in time but kinds of time, then we are definitely missing the point in translation when we abuse the tenses.

BTW... did Dr. B talk about possible additions or updates to his grammar w/ you or your son? I was going to make a few suggestions, but I haven't read through his grammar completely w/ a fine tooth comb so I didn't want to insert my foot in my mouth. The suggestions he is considering seem to be very good. My favorite is the one on verbal aspect and the deponent issue.

 

I disagree. I've read through the ESV and am currently reading the HCSB, and they are both word for word translations.

Yes he is an honorable and honest man. And I have no intention of asking him anything about your opinion on the ISV and GW. I have too much respect for him to do that. There are various possibilities, including that some translators were the same, that simple coincidence occurred, etc. I would be very careful with that plagerism word if I were you.

 

The tense debate is far from over. Frankly my son, who is widely read in the subject (and I also, as much as I know the debate, which isn't much), thinks that Stanley Porter is mistaken.

As far as translating the meaning goes, I think the functional equivalence mantra of translating meaning and not form is somewhat insulting to the literal methods. It's as if they think that only they translate meaning. Actually, any translation translates meaning. The question is, is the meaning what the original actually says (literal methods), or what the translator believes the reader should comprehend (the reader response theory of Nida). Frankly, I think FE translations over interpret, often even interpreting ambiguous statements in the translation to force the translators' understanding on the reader. Uncle Miya and I often say, "Let's just let the reader interpret" on difficult passages.

Haven't had a chance to talk to him about that. I enjoy his grammar, have read it through and use it.

 

From the Preface of the ESV:Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literary precision and readability, between "formal equivalence" in expression and "functional equivalence" in communication,and the ESV is no exception.

From the Preface to the HCSB: Optimal equivalence: This approach seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence.

As I said before,there is no simple coincidence. The ISV borrowed,with no acknowledgement huge swaths of God's word translation.

 

From a website called www.evangelicalBible.com

Why The English Standard Version

"The NIV follows neither a word-for-word translation philosophy nor a thought-for-thought philosophy ...the NIV is a solid translation that is more 'word-for-word' than 'thought-for-thought.' "