How Do You Know It's Dynamic Equivalence 2

Okay, let's try again. Here is my criterion given on the other thread for determining whether or not a Bible translation is done by the dynamic equivalence (DE) method (also called functional equivalence):

If the translators consistently use DE principles and methods when solving translation problems, then the Bible version in question is a DE translation.

I chose a random chapter in the TNIV NT and compared it to the Greek using this criterion to see if the TNIV is a DE translation. Now I'm going to post the results. Some may not believe me, but I have tried to be objective. Please also note that I am not attacking the translators' theology or character, and I am not attacking the TNIV. I'm simply trying to determine whether or not it can be called a DE Bible translation.

 

Dynamic Equivalence in Matthew 8 of the TNIV
By John R. Himes​

The chapter I chose at random in the TNIV is Matthew 8. I didn’t remember the content when I chose it, though I have translated it into Japanese and am well familiar with the Greek. Note that I have not dealt with every place I would translate differently, but only those places that I believe are clearly DE renderings.

First of all, all through this chapter (in every verse but vv. 12, 13, 17, 22, 23; arguably in 16,) the translation does not translate conjunctions at the beginning of sentences such askai(“and, also”) andde(and, but). There is a theory that in Greek these are often just sentence markers, telling where a new sentence starts, and therefore don’t always need to be translated. Even if that is true, there are still places where these words are meaningful at the beginning of the sentence and should be translated. To almost never translate them means the translators were thinking that the impression received by the modern reader is more important than the peculiar syntax of the original. This concept is called “reader response” or “receptor response” in DE. It is an extremely important DE principle. The recent UBS journal The Bible Translator had an article on “P46 as a Paradigm for Reader-Response Criticism,” which is an ugly stepchild of form criticism.

At the beginning of verse 2 kai idou was not translated at all. This would be translated literally, “And behold,” or “And look.” A sense-for-sense rendering might be “So look now” (a little less literal). But most folk don’t talk like this nowadays, and the translators probably left it out so that their translation would be a “closest natural equivalent” of the original. This is a DE principle.

In a literal translation, verse 6 would continue the sentence starting in verse 5, since what the TNIV has as “he said” is a participle. This is a case where the translator did not feel that the form of the original was important enough to preserve in the translation. That is a DE principle. However, a literal translator would believe there was an important nuance in the grammatical form of the original.

In v. 11 the TNIV has “take their places at the feast.” The Greek for “take their places at the feast” is anakliqhson, which is sometimes problematic for the translator. It generally means to sit or in many cases to recline at the table as was the custom in the first century. I think “recline” or “sit” are both good literal equivalents, though “recline” may need a footnote to explain the first century meal-time custom. However, there is no “at the feast” in the word. Sometimes when it is used there is no feast (Matt. 14:19, Luke 2:7, etc.). So “take their places at the feast” is a DE rendering, an unnecessary paraphrase adding an extra word designed to produce a “natural equivalent” and a “clear meaning” which probably didn’t exist in the minds of the Divine and human authors.

Verse 12 has the interesting rendering, “the subjects of the kingdom.” The Greek here is uioi thV basileiaV which would be translated “sons of the kingdom” by a literal translator. This gets into the criticism of the TNIV that it is gender neutral, but I’m not interested in arguing that right now. My focus is how the DE translation method allows this rendering while a literal method does not. Literal methods will translate an idiom as is, if it makes sense in the target language, and this one does. So-called “meaning-based translation” (as if all translation was not meaning-based) methods such as DE often will not literally translate idioms, even if the idiom makes sense in the target language. DE translators look for that “closest natural equivalent,” meaning they believe it should never sound like a translation. But as one of my fellow translators once said, “But it is a translation!”

A literal translation of the words of Jesus in v. 13 would be “Go and…” but the TNIV leaves out the “and” (kai) and makes it two sentences, thus losing a nuance” “Go! Let it be done….” The DE method looks to simplify difficulties in favor of understanding, and is often not interested in preserving the nuances and ambiguities of the original, especially if the translated document is then hard to understand. Thus Nida invented the term “formal equivalence” to use instead of “literal” or “word-for-word.” He meant that a “formal” translation tries to preserve the “form” of the original.

The TNIV has in v. 16 “he drove out the spirits” (exebalen ta pneumata). The Greek word here is usually translated cast out, throw out, etc. It is translated “cast out” in various translations but can be translated “drive out” as in Gen. 3:24 in the Septuagint. No doubt the translators were striving for the best natural equivalent here, thinking “cast out” to be archaic, but think about it. The English “drive” is normally a process, as in “He drove his wife nuts” or “The boy drove the sheep to market.” However, Christ’s act was instantaneous.

In verse 20 the TNIV has “Jesus replied,” but the original is “He said” (legei ). I have no problem with using “Jesus” instead of “He” and thus replacing a pronoun with a proper name. We do this often in Japanese for clarity, since Japanese syntax handles pronouns very poorly. However, I see a nuance in “said” that is lost in the TNIV rendering of “replied.” The translator was no doubt trying to make more sense in English, but in my view if Jesus “replied” then He was merely responding to the man, whereas if He “said,” then He was initiating something that the would-be disciple needed to know. This may seem picky, but once again this rendering depends on your translation method.

In verse 21 we have, “Another disciple,” but the original is eteroV de twn maqhtwn [autou], or “another of [his] disciples” (the brackets show a textual problem with the word “his”; no big deal in our analysis). Why would the TNIV make the plural into a singular? This was probably for clarity. The DE method strives for clarity in the translation over keeping to the exact form of the original. But to a literal translator “authorial intent” (what the divine Author wanted to communicate) would come first, so he would keep it plural, believing there is meaning in the plural form that needs to be preserved in the translation.

Verse 24 has “furious storm” in the TNIV for the GreekseismoV megaV. But this is literally, “great storm” or “large storm.” This is another example of the reader response principle of DE.

Verse 25 has “We’re going to drown” in the TNIV for the Greek apollumeqa. However, the Greek root word means “die” or “destroy.” This is obviously done for “reader response” as per DE theory.

Verse 26 has “It was completely calm,” (egeneto galhnh megalh) which would be literally “There was a great calm.” So “completely” is substituted for “great,” another case of the DE goal of clarity at the expense of the form of the original.

In v. 29 it says, “before the appointed time.” However, in the original (pro kairou), there is no “appointed.” The translator no doubt added the word so as to get the right reader response as per DE theory. But the problem with this to a literal translator is that the translator is then thinking and interpreting for the reader. Translating literally, “before the time,” forces the readers to think it through themselves—“What time? Did someone set a time here? Who set it and why?”

Verse 30 has "If you drive us out” (ei ekballeiV hmaV). See the note on v. 16.

 

My conclusion is that yes, the TNIV was done with the DE method, since virtually every verse has evidence of that in the dropping of the initial conjunction, and every time the translators had a translation problem it was solved with DE principles. Make of that if you will. If you disagree with me, though, you need to provide your own criteria for determining whether or not a version is DE.

 

Oi vey! (I hope that isn't a bad word.:smilewinkgrin: )

 

You're entirely welcome! If I can just help someone think things through I'm happy. No one has to come out where I am. :thumbsup: