I think you are getting a little heavy here John. This subject of what translations can be considered DE and which ones are not is something that can be reasoned-out.
If most N.T. scholars say one way or the other than it is pretty well settled. This is not like Cal vs. non-Cal.
You have the idea that the HCSB is somehow on the blessed terrain of Optimal Equivalence and that the 2011 NIV rests on the shaky ground of Dynamic Equivalence.
I have always insisted that both translations are in the mediating territory. There is not a whole lot that separates them in reality. They have much more in common than what divides them.
The makers of the HCSB market it with the catch-phrase of Optimal Equivalence. But there is nothing magical about it. The Method of O.P. can also be applied to the ISV,NAB, 2011 NIV and NET to a certain extent.
Hcsb
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Robert Snow, Nov 29, 2011.
Page 6 of 7
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I would think that in the area of translation there would be more of a consensus rather than discord regarding what constitutes a DE translation and what versions do not qualify as DE. All versions use DE to an extent. But as a major method of translating --an overriding principle --the 2011 NIV does not qualify anymore than the HCSB does. -
Not a problem, we love both of you anyway.:smilewinkgrin: -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And the time I clearly defined DE here on the BB, not only did you not object at first, you did not give your own definition. So frankly, since then I've figured that you just don't know what you are talking about, so why bother? -
Here is another very interesting link for those who would like to watch a debate between some of the participants of translation for three versions:
http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2011/10/lu-biblical-studies-symposium-ray.html -
-
The discussion does sort of work contra to some of Rippon's blathering on the subject, however. -
-
Like it or not,dynamic Equivalence is not solely something that has to abide by the rules and principles of Eugene Nida. It was around long before he came on the scene. Jerome, Purvey and Luther used it in their translations.
-
-
Deal specifically with what I have said that you disagree with and why. -
Grudem seems to have calmed down somewhat from his seek and destroy mission years back regarding the TNIV. I noticed he was agreeing with a lot of things Dr.Moo was saying.
Grudem also said (if my memory serves me)that if it was up to him "brothers and sisters" would have been in the text,instead of the footnotes --but he was outvoted. In my count several years back there were 151 times where the footnotes would say "Or,brothers and sisters." -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Even modern DE versions such as NLTse,do not ascribe to all or even most of Nida's dictates. If you are willing to call the NLTse a DE translation then why?
Nida did groundbreaking work,granted,but his general method was employed long before he was born. He simply codified some principles --yet the method was already in operation centuries before without adhering to his particular propositions. -
The point was, the room is big enough for the both of you. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Page 6 of 7