1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Dynamic Equivalence--Again!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, Oct 25, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    On a previous thread, a poster attacked me for being in favor of the dynamic equivalence (DE) theory of translation. This was in spite of me not ever saying that, and in fact having written against it here on the BB. So I thought that it must be time for me to rail against it again, so that the johnnie-come-latelies get the message--I strongly oppose it!!! :D

    First of all, consider the terminology. Eugene Nida invented the term, or at least made it public, in his groundbreaking book, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964). He wrote then, “In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented toward dynamic equivalence. In such a translation the focus of attention is directed, not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response” (p. 166).

    Here is how he defined the term and thus the method in his next book: “Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language. This response can never be identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different, but there should be a high degree of equivalence of response, or the translation will have failed to accomplish its purpose" (Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Tabor,The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982, 24).

    What distinguishes DE from other thought-for-thought translation methods is "reader response," as you should be able to see from this quote. To Nida, the modern response of a reader to the translation ought to be the same as the response of the original readers; thus, "reader response." Some scholars have pointed out the impossibility of this hope.

    At any rate, eventually Nida began to think the term DE was misused, so he changed it to "functional equivalence." In his book about Nida's career, his friend Stine wrote, "Nida later felt that the term 'dynamic equivalence' had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term 'dynamic' to refer to translations that had impact and appeal. But since he had in fact defined 'dynamic equivalence in terms of 'functional equivalence,' he began to use this latter term instead. 'Functional equivalence' was introduced in From One Language to Another, co-authored with Jan de Waard" (Philip Stine, Let the Words Be Written. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, 51).
     
    #1 John of Japan, Oct 25, 2022
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2022
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In other words, you are a proponent of functional equivalence, right? :Wink
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Aaaaargh!! :Cry
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Now, some careless or uninformed writers have called Nida's method a thought for thought method, such as this one: thought for thought meaning - Search

    However, that does not do justice to reader response theory. In fact, in secular translation, they don't usually use the term "thought for thought." (I can't find it defined in any of my books on the subject.) Translation is either just translation, or paraphrase to a pro translator. Here is a definition of paraphrase:

    “paraphrase n. v. an expression of the meaning of the word or phrase using other words or phrases, often in an attempt to make the meaning easier to understand. For example, to make someone (or something) appear or feel younger is a paraphrase of the English word rejuvenate. Dictionary definitions often take the form of paraphrases of the word they are trying to define” (Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3rd edition, by Jack Richards, Richard Schmidt, Heidi Platt, Marcus Schmidt, p. 384-385).

    Now, Nida himself would say that his method is not paraphrasing. However, various scholars say that it is.

    “Eugene Nida, drawing on research from the American Bible Society, considers the problem of translating between different realities. He argues that solutions need to be ethnological, based on the translator’s acquisition of sufficient ‘cultural information.’ Since ‘it is inconceivable to a Maya Indian that any place should not have vegetation unless it has been cleared for a maize-field,’ Nida concludes that the Bible translator ‘must translate “desert” as an “abandoned place”’ to establish ‘the cultural equivalent of the desert of Palestine’ (Nida 1945:197). Here translation is paraphrase. It works to reduce linguistic and cultural differences to a shared referent. Yet the referent is clearly a core of meaning constructed by the translator and weighted toward the receiving culture so as to be comprehensible there” (secular scholar Lawrence Venuti in a preface to the 1940’s to 1950’s section in The Translation Studies Reader 2nd ed., which he edited. New York: Routledge, 2004, p. 113).

    “It is quite clear that paraphrase is unavoidable with dynamic equivalence theory. Glassman wrote, ‘It is, in fact, impossible to analyze, transfer and restructure without paraphrasing, at the level of the underlying kernel structures; and that, in turn, shows up at the final level of the surface structure.’ (Quoting Eugene Glassman, The Translation Debate, p.66—JoJ.) This is primarily true because of the subjectivity involved in the transfer step. The failure to employ transfer rules, but rather to depend on the translator’s subjective judgment, makes it almost certain that the information transferred to the receptor language will lack complete equivalence with the information of the source message. Thus the theory fails to accomplish equivalence; it is instead scientific paraphrase” (James Price, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987, p. 17).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. alexander284

    alexander284 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,497
    Likes Received:
    335
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1) KJV

    2) NKJV

    3) NASB

    4) ESV

    5) CSB

    6) NIV

    7) NLT

    Of the seven popular Bible translations listed above, which ones, in your opinion, constitute examples of "functional equivalence," sir?

    (I'm simply curious.) Thank you.
     
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV are all essentially literal. I've not read the NLT, but I understand it's a revision of the LB paraphrase, and the translators sought to make it an actual translation, but that's all I know about it.

    The NIV is somewhat DE/FE. I'll post an examination of a passage from the NIV later. I've read through the HCSB, but not the revision, the CSB. Some call it a somewhat free version, but I found it to be fairly literal with occasional free renderings, but not FE per se. Note that free translation is not a synonym for FE.

    free translation: The rendering of the meaning of a statement, expression, text, etc., in another language, without following the original accurately.”
    Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1954, 77.

    Free Translation A type of translation in which more attention is pai to producing a naturally reading TT than to preserving the ST wording intact; also known as SENSE-FOR-SENSE TRANSLATION.”

    Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of Translation Studies. New York: Routledge, 1997, 62.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I want to note clearly here that Nida was an existentialist, which shaped his theology into Neo-orthodoxy. For this thread, the main thing to know is that this heresy teaches that the Bible is not ergo the Word of God, but it can (not does) becomes the Word of God as you read it. So you have an existentialist moment and then the Bible means something to you.

    A noted Baptist theologian wrote, "In the neo-orthodox view, since there are no revealed truths, only truths of revelation, how one person interprets an encounter with God may be different from another person's understanding. Indeed, even the interpretations given to events by the authors of Scripture were not divinely inspired. What they wrote was merely their own attempt to give some accounting of what they had experienced." Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013, 222.

    I could give a ton of quotes proving Nida was neo-orthodox, but here are just a couple:

    "Neo-orthodox theology has given a new perspective to the doctrine of divine inspiration. For the most part, it conceives of inspiration primarily in terms of the response of the receptor, and places less emphasis on what happened to the source at the time of writing."
    Nida, Eugene. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964, 27.

    "Nida had read Barth’s work as well as the writings of other prominent theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich, though he never referred to them in his writings. As a member of one of the commissions of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, Nida once met with Richard Niebuhr of Yale, an important American neo-orthodox theologian, to discuss developments in theology as they related to effective communication of the Christian message."
    Stine, Philip C. Let the Words Be Written. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, 144.

    Next time, I'm going to address what Nida called good translation of Rom. 16:16, "Greet one another with a holy kiss." Nida liked Phillips, "hearty handshake" instead of "holy kiss." Any thoughts?
     
  8. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It becomes a matter of one's culture. How about a brotherly hug.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Reynolds

    Reynolds Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2014
    Messages:
    13,793
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And all this time I thought you were KJVO.:Cool:Rolleyes
     
  10. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,500
    Likes Received:
    2,880
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dynamite, TNT, Gunpowder, all share some similarities but are not 'equal' by any means. It all depends upon the application...
     
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In Japan you might get socked for that. They just don't hug, unless your sports team wins the big game. :Cool
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's time for the truth to come out! Confused
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Don't blow up the translation problem bigger than necessary, please. :Whistling
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  14. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Maybe some kind of more generic wording. Such as a "holy greeting."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, in secular translation studies, most scholars give a lot of credit to Nida for having gotten the ball rolling in starting a new scholarly discipline. However, the "hearty handshake" rendering bothers the typical secular scholar or translator. Here are a couple of quotes from secular scholars who have objected to it.

    Dynamic equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that between the original receivers and the SL message. As an example of this type of equivalence, he quotes J. B. Phillips rendering of Romans 16:16, where the idea of ‘greeting with a holy kiss’ is translated as ‘give one another a hearty handshake all round.’ With this example of what seems to be a piece of inadequate translation in poor taste, the weakness of Nida’s loosely defined types can clearly be seen.”
    Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies. 4th ed. New York: Routledge, 2014, 36.

    “The rendering ‘a hearty handshake all around’ is completely unacceptable—one may call it an out-of-control transformation—firstly because it alters the principal fact of the kiss and secondly because the original atmosphere of religious simplicity has been replaced with one which rather suggests the busy vote-solicitors in an American election campaign.”
    Jin Di, On Translation, rev. City University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong Press, 211.

    “The ‘hearty handshake all around’ alteration is a failure because it causes an important loss which could easily be prevented” (Jin Di, 215).

    Now, Jin Di is interesting, because he was mentored by Nida. The original book was done by Jin Di with Nida himself, but Di came to disagree with Nida, so they broke fellowship.
     
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree to the extent that "holy" is the key word here. Obviously, a kiss can be unholy. But I'm sure that the ancient Middle East custom of a kiss on both cheeks is the meaning. So IMO it is important to keep the "kiss" rendering because of that custom, otherwise we have taken the translation out of its original milieu, and lost information. The Greek word is φιλήματι, which can only mean "kiss," not "hug" or "handshake."

    Interestingly enough, in churches in the early centuries a problem arose with unholy kisses which had to be resolved. "Quite early we find objections to unrestricted use of the kiss in the cultus, partly by reason of the suspicions of non-Christians and partly by reason of the dangers of erotic perversions." Kittel, TDNT, vol.IX, 143.
     
    #16 John of Japan, Oct 27, 2022
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2022
  17. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What's wrong with "holy kiss" that would require this?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It can be rightly called a greeting. Jesus was betrayed by such a greeting. Luke 22:48, ". . . But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a greeting? . . ."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, but why would "holy greeting" be a better rendering than "holy kiss"?
     
  20. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If the literal translation is not a problem. No.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...