Featured The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence

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.

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

I hadn't thought of it from that perspective.

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.

We've had good interaction.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.