Does Ambiguity challenge Dynamic Equivalencnce?

Rippon, I will express myself using my words and constructions. You play games with words, the NIV tries to present the thought as opposed to the word meaning even if they must restructure the sentence. That is DE.
Why do you constantly find fault where there is no fault, i.e sanding down?

Why not address the actual topic. Is there really a need for ambiguity in translation?

 

A proponent of ambiguity might be a false teacher, because ambiguity provides more "exegetical opportunities" to pour his or her man-made doctrine into the text.

 

Hi Rippon, you simply find non-exsistent fault and then claim you are being helpful.

I completely and profoundly disagree with the need for ambiguity.

Jesus said our yes should be yes and our no mean no.

As I said, if the translation team cannot reach a consensus on the intended meaning of a verse, the alternate rendering can be footnoted. See John 1:9 NET.

 

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation.

A thought for thought translation defines DE translation, hence as I said, the NIV is a self decribed dynamic equivalence translation.

 

Phrase ambiguity describes a phrase that might connect to in more than one place, changing the meaning of the message. John 1:9 provides an example of that difficulty. In these cases, the translators best understanding should go into the text, with the less likely but clearly possible alternate being footnoted.

Pronouns offer another source of ambiguity, but because of inflection (words of the same gender connect) it is possible to minimize this difficulty. One of the rules I use when reading scripture is to study the context and see if I am sure to whom the pronouns refer. If I am still uncertain, I look at commentaries because they sometimes provide the insight needed to make the identification.

 

Ambiguity is reduced when translators translate the same word meaning using the same word or words, such that the TL reader becomes familiar with the author's word usage to the degree possible.

If we look at 1 Corinthians 13:8-11 we can see , in the NASB, done away repeated and repeated. The NET also is consistent using "set aside." Ditto ESV using pass away. Ditto HCSB using "come to an end." But the DE NIV chose to obscure the use of the same word over and over by translating the same Greek word meaning into different English words, such as cease, pass away and then disappear. The NKJV, which many times does strive for concordance, uses fail, vanish away and done away.

This effort to improve the style of the original author by removing his repetitious word usage obscures the very words God used repeatedly to drive home His thoughts. DE does not drive this error, but a lack of the goal of concordance to the degree possible without compromising clarity of thought.

 

A proponent of ambiguity might be a false teacher, because ambiguity provides more "exegetical opportunities" to pour his or her man-made doctrine into the text. But one of the fundamental goals of translation is clarity.

If a Greek word has a wide range of meanings, according to Lexicons, then a biased translator even though following a word meaning for word meaning method might be tempted to select the word meaning that matches His theology rather than the one indicated by contextual analysis. So whittling down the range of meanings intended by the author to the fewest possible helps in another fundamental goal of translation, accuracy.

 

Hi Mexdeaf, you are quite right, but I think minimizing the ambiguity in the translation reduces the confusion in the receptor audience.

 

Question: Is there any need for ambiguity in translation. Receptor understanding: There is a need to translate without ANY ambiguity.

Of course perfect translation might pass on ambiguity in the source material. But do we understand Scripture to be intentionally ambiguous? Nope. Bottom line is that translators should have as a fundamental goal the clarity of the translation. But where the translator is unsure of the meaning of a sentence or thought, they should present their view of the most likely meaning and footnote the alternate.

 

36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let [a]her marry. NASB

In seeking to understand a verse that divides the scholars (the NIV, ESV, HCSB and NKJV present differing translations) and if, like me, a person cannot form an opinion on the underlying text, we must simply evaluate the contending arguments and present what we believe in the most likely message of Paul, but footnote the alternate possibilities.

First, if we look at the passage (7:36-38) we arrive at the idea that the virgin is somehow subject to the man being addressed, i.e. Father, Guardian, or the person engaged to the virgin.

I think Father/Guardian is the idea. Therefore the acting unbecomingly refers to not letting the unmarried and virgin person (i.e deserving of honorable treatment) marry for whatever reason, which would not be in the best interest of the lady since she is past her prime.

So what would be the sin of choosing the lesser of two undesirables, allowing a member of the household to marry someone the Patriarch does not prefer, or letting the subject marry and avoid becoming old and without support. Paul says it is no sin to choose either path.

Therefore I would translate 36 as : If anyone concludes he is acting inappropriately toward his virgin subject, if she is past her prime, and it seems necessary, he should do as he thinks, for he does not sin. Let them marry."

 

Oops, I detected a typo but the opportunity to edit has past.

What I said in post #33: So what would be the sin of choosing the lesser of two undesirables, allowing a member of the household to marry someone the Patriarch does not prefer, or letting the subject marry and avoid becoming old and without support. Paul says it is no sin to choose either path.

What I meant to say: So what would be the sin of choosing the lesser of two undesirables, disallowing a member of the household to marry someone the Patriarch does not prefer, or letting the subject marry and avoid becoming old and without support. Paul says it is no sin to choose either path.

 

Folks, did you notice in post #36, my quote was altered, then posted as if it was what I said. In my "translation" effort I put "subject" in italics, indicating I had added the word to make the meaning more clear, but allowing the reader to ignore that word.

However, Rippon's quote obliterated that distinction and then asserted I had not translated the meaning of the Greek word underlying virgin correctly. Fiddlesticks.

Next Rippon says I am being inconsistent. Yet another attack on me, rather than addressing my position. I am consistent. Both the most probable meaning in the main text would be translated clearly, and the alternate would be translated clearly, while clearly indicating two viable variants of the underlying text exist.

 

Returning to topic. Ambiguity may be introduced into the text by false teachers to allow alternate inferences concerning the meaning of the text. Lets take a word like "deacon" which means servant and does not refer to one in authority. However, many Baptist churches are ruled by a "deacon board" and so the "receptor audience" might think if a woman was a deacon, that meant she held an office of authority over men in the first century church. So by translating the underlying Greek word as deacon, an ambiguity in a significant portion of the receptor audience is introduced. If the translators are aware of this dual meaning of the English word, but the underlying Greek word meaning is servant, then to translate it as deacon is inappropriate.

But the problem of ambiguity gets even worse. What if the body of Christ was split over a doctrinal issue. Lets say allowing women to be Elders and Pastors over men in the church. The dynamic equivalence folks who sit on the "God's word is in scripture" as opposed to "Scripture is God's Word" side of issue would feel they have the license to create the same reception in today's audience as in the 1st century. So because "God's word is in scripture" in the opinion of DE translators, they can change the word meaning used in the 1 century to another word meaning in today's audience so that the reception would be the same. So in the 1 century, males ruled and females were subjects, and therefore the 1 century text "accommodated" the culture of that time, resulting in what today might be considered "sexist" language. But since God's word is in scripture, but not the very words of God, DE translators might alter the text to be politically correct under the guise of creating the same reception in the audience.

But this violates the goal of accuracy of DE. So if we peal the onion back, we find no problem with DE when accuracy is reflected in the thought of the 1 century writer. But if an overly helpful translator alters what was said because some of scripture is merely an accommodation to the culture of that time and does not reflect God's actual instruction, then whether the translator is a word meaning for word meaning translator or a thought for thought translator, then the fox is in the hen-house.

Jesus said our yes should be yes, and thus scripture was intended to be clear. When there is ambiguity in the eye of the translator, he or she should clearly present both alternatives, rather than present an ambiguous translation. And certainly they should not be ambiguous to accommodate political correctness or factions within the body. That would turn translators into ear ticklers.

God Bless