Is Dynamic Equivalence a Bad Thing?

nor do i have a major qualm w that. Ezraisms, LXXisms, Paulisms, Jeromisms, Lutherisms, Careyisms, Nidaisms, Himesisms--they're all ok w me. :smilewinkgrin: but i'm glad to see (in the next paragraph) that u do give Nida the credit for systematising/codifying those age-old principles. conversely, nobody shd claim that Nida invented anything--like no one shd say Copernicus invented the heliocentric universe.

speaking of Luther, though, here's a link to Luther's Open Letter on Translating, if anyone's interested: http://www.augustana.edu/religion/lutherproject/On%20Translating/on%20translating.htm

way before Nida, he seems to have a thing abt reader response (fr his German audience), too:

hmm, how wld his reader think, respond, react to a particular construction? wow, doesn't Luther seem kinda ahead of his time, or perhaps that's what all good translators of all times have concerned themselves with?

i'm interested to know why u or OE wld disagree w him on the goal of reader response.

 

We're probably at an impass here. I'd have to know more about Luther's Bible and, alas, I can't read German, though I'd love to.

 

OE was called "complete equivalence" in the translation of the NKJV through an editor's decision, not that of the scholars. See the NKJV preface, or Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation (1987) by James Price--extremely difficult to get ahold of, I'm afraid.

 

I put original meaning ahead of reader response. I believe that it is far more important to know what is in the original text than to know how a Japanese 21st century reader would respond to it. There are layers of meaning and nuance in the original text that the reader cannot respond to without much growth in the faith. There are many things I personally still can't respond to in the Bible other than with confusion. At that point, I want a Bible that, as much as possible (and of course it often is not possible) retains the ambiguity and nuance of the original text. And then maybe in that particular passage the Holy Spirit will illumine the text for me someday.

Having said that, in the matter of Japanese keigo or polite language, reader response becomes important. The Japanese will tell you they have a vertical society as opposed to our horizontal society of equals. They think in a Confucian way: "Is this guy above or below me in station?" So their reaction to a translation with no keigo is confusion and the feeling that something isn't right. "Why aren't those people in other countries polite?" So all Japanese Bible or NT translations without exception include keigo. But when I translate with keigo I make sure it fits the situation. For example, I believe that Pilate would never have shown respect to anyone. In my translation he speaks with an arrogant, down-looking idiom. On the other hand, Peter would never speak that way to Jesus, so we add a little respect language in those conversations.

 

What if I decided to make the rendering even more readable, and paint a more understandable picture for the reader here? What if instead of "person" I said, "servant"? That could be easily pictured--if he didn't send a servant, who did he send? Many DE translators would consider "servant" to be legitimate here.

According to the principles I operate under, "servant" would be an illegitimate paraphrase, since the Greek word apostello doesn't specify what kind of a person is sent, just that the one sent is a person (as opposed to an animal). If I were to supply the word "servant" I would be robbing the reader of his ability to use his imagination here.

Though I can't prove it theologically, from decades of reading the Bible in several different languages I believe that the Lord has built in to the original text layers of meaning, multiple nuances and many ambiguities. Why? To force anyone who reads the Bible to use his or her imagination to picture the events in the mind, to think deeply (meditate) about the text, to appropriate the text into the heart. When we seek to make it too easy for the reader, we may be negating God's plan by putting the bread on too low a shelf. Just remember that Peter himself said that Paul's writings were difficult. This does not mean, of course, that we should purposely make the text difficult. We should translate as clearly and readably as the text allows.

 

if OE/CE has its roots in a KJV revision, i'd question how wide-ranging the theory can be as regards translation. its hands being tied to the wording of an existing translation n tradition, how much freedom does it have in the creation of "complete equivalence"? wldn't it be better classified a revision/edition theory? but i suppose HCSB might be an example of an "OE" version breaking away fr the KJV lineage.

i'm intrigued at what principles n procedures underlie OE/CE--wld adherence to traditional wording be a significant parameter? in some way, isn't this a focus on reader response?

 

Thx for the explanation! i wld have additional doubts regarding:

1. passages often assumed to be ambiguous in the original (e.g. born again/born fr on hi) but may not really be ambiguous to the original audience. wldn't OE/CE's "preservation" of such "ambiguity" be an unwitting introduction of ambiguity where it really doesn't exist?

2. conversely, isn't it also possible that we miss ambiguities, emotions, etc.?

how is it that we the obligation of identifying ambiguities doesn't fall on the translator (in maintaining certain Gk/Heb expressions in the TL n leaving it to the reader to figure them out), but it also does (in deciding that they r indeed ambiguities)?

also, isn't this a major focus on reader response, deliberately putting ambiguities n nuances foreign to the TL in order to elicit reader response among the spiritually mature? (as an aside, i'm not sure if Holy Spirit illumination pertains to figuring out ambiguities/nuances as much as it does to application. i wonder where translation stops n illumination begins ... perhaps some PhD candidate here wld take it up! :smilewinkgrin

so the reader's response is important; we don't wanna elicit a response that's too different fr that intended of the original audience, no? (not trying to be fecitious, but) why can't this be taken care of by the Holy Spirit?

brought to its logical conclusion (which i don't espouse), if the Holy Spirit's role is to translate n ensure appropriate interlingual reader response, why don't we just hand out the Heb n Gk Testaments n pray for the light to come on?

 

a semantic analysis wld reveal if "servanthood" is implied (n maybe it is!). wld it be appropriate for an animal/servant/subordinate to send the master as apostle? perhaps the sent one does not officially have the title of "servant" or "bond slave," but functionally, wld that role of obedience n service not be implied? i haven't done a word study of apostello, so i'm not claiming any certainty here. nor do i know the ins n outs of Japanese, for the term "servant" in the TL cld v well have other implications/collocations that are inappropriate (even to DEs! :thumbs.

like i mentioned above, it depends also on the TL. it might fire n fuel his imagination instead, but is that necessarily a good thing? then there's also the other option of neologism, simply transliterating the Gk word! wasn't it King James (or someone before him) who managed to do it for baptizo?

while i wldn't doubt the presence of many ambiguities n nuances in the Bible (as in any other literature--um, that's interesting to read), i'm also aware that 1. i might be mistaken in my enthusiasm to identify them n 2. putting them into the TL cld unnecessarily weigh the text down (esp when the reader's still struggling w the gist of the message). i'm personally not too concerned abt putting bread on a lower shelf (just not on the floor!), as there's so much to wrestle with just in terms of cultural n historic norms, how to get n apply timeless truths, the problem of personal prejudice n pride n disobedience n rebellion towards a particular scripture, etc. if one can remove the language hurdles n get people to deal w those issues, one has translated.

as regards Peter's comment on Paul, cld there be other possibilities as to where Peter's difficulty in comprehension lies, i wonder. yes, it cld be the Gk nuances n ambiguities that Paul used. but cld it be the freshness of Paul's emphasis on justification by grace alone thru faith alone? or his overall theological framework? or his reference to baptisms for the dead? or Peter's personal struggle w his Jewish upbringing, baggage that trips him up when reading Paul (or carrying on civil conversation at the Jerusalem Council)?

this shd indeed be the goal of all translaters. it's just that DE wld be explicit in discussing the aspect of translating "clearly n readably" to whom, for what.

 

If it were a revision/edition theory, I don't suppose it would be useful to me doing a completely new NT in Japanese, then would it?

Nope.

 

"Born again" and "born from on high" do not represent an ambiguity, but a play on words in the original that is impossible to translate into most languages. So the translator must make an interpretive choice.

I never said a translation could be perfect.

In my experience, the ambiguities are very rarely Greek or Hebrew expressions. They are more likely to be something which the writer could have easily written more plainly if he (God and man) had wanted to.

Nope. The focus is not on reader response but on writer intention. If the writer intends ambiguity then who is the translator to edit out the ambiguity?

To illustrate how incredibly important writer intention is, let me give a famous example. The Japanese did not properly read the writer intention of the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1946. (They stumbled at the term "terms.") Therefore they waited two days to respond, then issued a statement that the declaration was just a rehash of the Cairo Declaration. The rest is history. On August 6 the first atomic bomb was dropped.

I admit though that sometimes reader response outweighs writer intent--in the entertainment industry! If I were translating movie subtitles, the emotional reaction of the reader would certainly take priority!:smilewinkgrin:

This is, of course, facetious. And I don't agree that it is a logical conclusion.

 

So, you've never formally studied NT Greek, right? The verb here, apostello, is learned in the first year, or sometimes even the first semester. It is a very common word for "to send," and does not, repeat NOT, carry the meaning of the object in it. You can send an angel, slave, or apostle with this verb, it doesn't matter. So adding "servant" instead of "person" is giving information that wasn't in the original text, and is an illegitimate paraphrase.

This is an old, tired complaint, accusing the literal translator of simple transliteration. I'm getting bored.

And now you have convinced me that you have never read Paul in the original. Whew!

 

Quiz!

Here's a little fun for you. How should I translate the following:

(1) raw fish
a. sushi
b. sashimi

(2) knight
a. samurai
b. kishi

(3) comic book
a. shosetsu
b. manga

(4) "Hello Kitty"
a. yuck
b. gag

 

yep, given the assumption OE came out of the making of the NKJV, which is an edition/revision of the KJV, its usefulness for fresh translations wld be limited.

yes, ur rolleyes statement wld then be correct.

 

n how, praytell, r they a play on words, if not for polysemy in anwthen?

DE wld demand that if the ambiguity were clearly inherent (rather than read into the text), it shd--together w all other semantic components--be carried across to the TL. what forms (vocab, word order, etc.) shd be used (or not) in the TL is a separate process, a process that targets comprehension, or "reader response." having an eye on one end of the overall process doesn't preclude attention to the other end as well.

pardon my ignorance of WWII n Japanese history, but what was the writer intention at Potsdam? was it to confute the Japanese (in terms of reader response)? interesting!

i think u still misunderstand reader response. it covers more than emotional response, but i'll havta let it go for now.

maybe u're right that i haven't studied Gk, but my Gk teacher used to say it's more important to study language than a language. yes, we all learnt the gloss, n one can do a decade of Gk glossing w/out knowing how to translate. in the case of apostellw, perhaps it wld help to consider: what is the power relationship betw the sender n the sent? according to ur argument (based on OE?), if applied consistently n ignoring the meaning of the object, "person" wld also be an illegitimate paraphrase.

sorry, but why the relief ("whew!")?

also, ur statement seems a non sequitor. do u dismiss the other possibilities "as to where Peter's difficulty in comprehension lies, i wonder. yes, it cld be the Gk nuances n ambiguities that Paul used. but cld it be the freshness of Paul's emphasis on justification by grace alone thru faith alone? or his overall theological framework? or his reference to baptisms for the dead? or Peter's personal struggle w his Jewish upbringing, baggage that trips him up when reading Paul (or carrying on civil conversation at the Jerusalem Council)?"

pls explain how u conclude that i've never read Paul in the original.

 

You are really good at assumptions! And my statement was correct.

I'm getting bored with this. In good faith I have given you information about the translation method I use, thinking you were actually interested, but instead your evident intention was to use the information to putdown the method. That's supposed to intellectually stimulate?

I think I'll go do some real work.

 

I figured you hadn't studied Greek because of how you were treating apostello.

The "whew" about Paul's writings was not of relief, but, "Whew, that man wrote hard things to figure out!" I figured you hadn't read Paul in the original because of your wondering about what is hard in Paul. Everything is hard in Paul: the grammar, the syntax, the vocabulary and the meaning!

I'm actually very pleased that you have studied Greek. You seem to be a very talanted linguist, according to Doctor Cassidy, and you have obviously studied DE/FE/MBT extensively. I'm sure you know more than I do about it. There is a huge need around the world for pioneer Bible translators. According to Wycliffe, there are still 4147 languages with no Scriptures whatever. (http://www.wycliffe.org/language/statistics.htm) I am going to pray right now that God will call you to this work if He hasn't already.

 

And how, pray tell, can there be any kind of play on words without polysemy? :smilewinkgrin: Exactly my point! In a play on words, two or more meanings are taken as valid. So IMO there is not ambiguity but multiple understandings.

Well, then, I suppose I really need to get Nida-Taber and learn more.

The Potsdam Declaration was a clear call by the Allied forces for an unconditional surrender by the Japanese military. However, the Japanese knew that the Russians still had not entered the war against them, thought they had time to fiddle with (not knowing about the A-bomb), and badly misjudged the Allied determination.

The Japanese always look for more than we say. We struggle with this tendency of theirs all the time in our ministry. They even have separate words for what you say (tatemae, "putting up a front") and what you mean (honne, "original intention").

It was a throwaway line, not a technical statement. :smilewinkgrin:

 

n with that, u have the last word! :thumbs:

 

I'll just answer my quiz before perhaps abandoning the thread.

(1) Actually, sushi is a rice dish that may or may not have "raw fish." (Love that beaf sushi--really!) The normal word for raw fish with no rice is sashimi. So, it depends on the context.

(2) I'd have to translate "knight" as kishi ("horseback warrior," the usual word for the European knight). The samurai were actually nasty people, who were allowed to kill peasants for the slightest offense, torture their enemies (especially Catholics in the 17th century) and treat women like slaves or dirt. Of course, some of those knights....

Funny story: a friend of mine, a good linguist, was interpreting for an American evangelist. We had just finished a meal and were seated in a conference room around a huge rectangular table when the evangelist said, "We're like round knights at a square table!" Of course this translates very poorly, as any pun does. Bro. R. panicked and said to us other missionaries, "Anyone know the word for 'knight'?" We were all laughing too hard to come up with it, but my son knew the word from his "Gundam" robots!

(3) The word manga has transliterated pretty well into English. In Japanese it means any comic book, for kids, grown-ups or "adults".

(4) "Hello Kitty" can be translated into English with either "yuck" or "gag," or maybe putrid, pathetic.... Have you figured out my semantic analysis? :tongue3:

 

Sooo , getting back to the OP -- No , dynamic equivalence is not a bad thing . It is a necessary thing . If it was good enough for Martin Luther , it's good enough for me . I have heard a number of KJO's say that the KJV is comparable to the Luther translation . But what I have seen ( when Luther is himself translated into English ) he favored that method a great deal ( though not exclusively ) . It was not called dynamic or functional equivalence . But it was a meaning-based system by which he translated the Scriptures . Again , way before Nida ( who I think has been given too much credit here ) . Some are reluctant to admit that dynamic renderings occur in the KJV or NKJ . Nevertheless , de is in most of the English Bibles to varying degrees . And the translators of these versions deserve as much respect as the other ways of translating like OE , EL , and FE . The former are not the only ones with a loyalty to the Word of God and a desire to accurately express the truth to the reader .