Bible Translation Studies Definitions

I believe you're right in general about Purvey and Luther. Jerome is debateable.

Jerome defends his regular translation method in his "To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating," in which he specifically says he translated "sense for sense" normally. However, Jerome also says, "For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek (except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word" (W. H. Fremantle's translation, par. 5).

From looking at the Vulgate with my very shaky high school Latin, I think he translated fairly literally, but did not follow the Greek word order. He would probably not be as literal as the NASV, but more so than others. At any rate, the fact that the Vulgate has endured for so long means it was an excellent translation in its time.

 

syntax: that branch of grammar that deals with how a sentence is constructed.

 

Receptor language (a dynamic equivalence term): See “target language.” Nida uses this term instead of the more usual TL because his translation theory makes the response or reception of the reader primary in translation.

 

reader response (a dynamic equivalence term): Nida defined the goal of translation as a rendering which will evoke the same response from the modern reader as it did from the original readers of the New Testament. This is a foundational concept in DE.

 

In Nida's view, if they did not aim at reader response they were not truly dynamic equivalence. He is very definite on this. I'll try to get some quotes on this later.

From what you say, maybe the NLTse translators thought they were doing dynamic equivalence when they were not. :smilewinkgrin: Maybe they should have called it a sense-for-sense translation rather than DE. Or maybe they were just giving the popular definition rather than the technical definition.

 

A Japanese pastor did a paraphrase called the Gendai Yaku ("Modern Translation"). In his book explaining his translation he said that someone told him he was doing DE, but he didn't know what that was! Believe me, this is strictly a paraphrase, not DE. The Japanese Confraternity Version has a lot of the earmarks of DE, but I've never read that they claimed to be doing DE.

This is odd. Though I don't agree with Nida's method, I feel like he should get more credit than he does, and I feel like his methodology should get due credit, which can't happen without folks understanding it. It seems like everyone likes the DE terminology, but not enough people understand the methodology.

Here's what Philip Stine wrote, Nida's co-worker and biographer:

But how can someone claim to be doing Nida's method without following how he laid out to do it? That seems intellectually lazy to me. It's like the pro wrestler doing a "judo chop." There ain't no such thing! Judo doesn't chop anyone!

 

formal equivalence (a dynamic equivalence term): Eugene Nida’s word for literal translation or word-for-word translation, which aims at preserving the form of the original as much as possible in both grammar and vocabulary.

 

Here is the definition of DE by Eugene Nida himself. Note the importance of reader response in his concept, and also note some of his methods based on transformational grammar. In Nida's definition, DE does not occur without allowing for reader response by means of transformations. (Words in all caps are defined elsewhere in his glossary.)

"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.

 

Optimal Equivalence: A method of translation which seeks the optimal expression in the target language; that is, the expression which best reproduces the form and meaning of the original. This was the method used to translate the NKJV and HCSB. This method's main proponent is Dr. James Price, OT editor of the NKJV and a translator on the HCSB.

 

machine translation: an early word for computer translation. Eugene Nida devoted the last chapter of his book delineating his new theory to this subject (Towards a Science of Translating, 1964, Chapter 12).

 

computer translation: using computer software to produce a translation. This method shows promise, but is still in its infancy. Even the best software cannot yet mimic a translator’s knowledge of syntax in the SL and TL, his intuition and his ability to do transformations in the two languages.

 

Of course there were. "Sense for sense."

 

I disagree with Kerr, having read most of Dr. Price's book pre-publication and having interacted with him. DE is first and last about reader response. OE is not. It is as simple as that.

Edited in: By the way, please source this statement by Kerr for me.

 

Kerr also wrote at http://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=7272&pc=9:

“This is a welcome alternative to translation theories that deal almost exclusively with semantics and ignore the structural equivalence issues. Brace yourself for the long haul, but dig in with interest.” – Dr. Glenn J. Kerr, Chief Translation Consultant, Bibles International

This shows he clearly understands the differences and delineates between optimal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

Edited in: I found Dr. Kerr's original review, and the above statement was taken from that. Note that Kerr remarks that OE deals with the structural equivalence issues, which are virtually ignored by DE. This is a very important point in understanding the difference betweent the two theories.

 

While I don't agree with this, it does urge me to go back and rephrase my definition to include the influence of transformational grammar in OE.