Just Released: The Complete Guide to Bible Translations

Surely Rippon won't mind if I answer this since it has been since Saturday. :smilewinkgrin:

The term "complete equivalence" comes from Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation, a book by Hebrew scholar James Price, the executive editor of OT of the NKJV. This book describes the translation method of the NKJV, contrasting it with other methods. It is an excellent description for the layman of a good literal method of translation, though somewhat technical in places. Since the NKJV and Dr. Price's book came out, the Holman Christian Standard Bible has also been translated with this method. Dr. Price was also one of the translators and editors of that version.

According to Dr. Price, his term for the method was originally optimal equivalence, but an editor at Thomas Nelson, the publisher, didn't like that term and changed it to complete equivalence. In Dr. Price's latest book he returns to his original term: A Theory For Biblical Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model. This book is not for the layman, but at $119.95 it is a technical treatise for scholars. In particular, it gives copious examples of translating from the Hebrew with emphasis on transformations (as in a linguistic theory called transformational grammar). Dr. Price believes that dynamic equivalence fails because the method of transformations it uses is subjective.

You can read a PDF file of Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation and other articles at Dr. Price's website: http://www.jamesdprice.com/home.html.

 

Thanks! May I ask your opinion on the NKJV?

 

Why not go with absolute equivalence? It's silly. The NKV simply uses a literal, or formal approach. To make the claim that a mere translation is completely or entirely equivalent goes way too far. The NKJV is an approximation of the originals (and the TR upon which it is based is not noted for its quality of scholarship).

Dr. Price is entitled to be wrong.

Subjectivity is subject to a subjective mindset. All translations use subjectivity to one degree or another.

Didn't you once acknowledge that the dynamic approach is governed by stricter rules than other Bible translation methods?

 

If you don't mind, I'll PM you about this. Being a missionary with many varied supporters I try not to get publicly involved in version issues. :type:

 

This is precisely the reason why Dr. Price did not like the term "complete equivalence," forced on him by a Thomas Nelson editor. "Optimal equivalence" is a much better term, since it implicitly acknowledges the difficulty of finding a precice or "direct" equivalent in languages which are widely disparate in their syntax and semantics.

Please, by all means share what you know about transformational grammar and why Dr. Price is wrong. For example, how is it not subjective for a DE translator to decide to do an active transformation from a Greek present passive indicative?

No, never. You're confusing me with someone who agrees with DE. :tongue3:

 

The difference between the way the HCSB was translated and that done by the TNIV translators is practically the same.

From How Did you select The Bible You Use?

"De is not a vague idea, it is a specific method that produces specific results that can be determined." JoJ

 

Hmm. Let me check your statement again. You said, "Didn't you once acknowledge that the dynamic approach is governed by stricter rules than other Bible translation methods?"

Okay, "stricter rules" versus "specific results." Nope, not the same thing at all. Even anarchy can be identified from specific results.

 

Such candor is much appreciated.

I once got cheesed off by a translation claiming closest natural equivalence--right out of Nida's mouth!--and daring to position itself between DE and FE!

What I like about the terms DE and FE more than the rest is that they're more descriptive and objective than self-exalting and market-oriented.

 

Translation is much more complex than most people realize. Even among translators claiming a certain method, two translators will sometimes render the original very differently. So to claim "closest natural equivalence" seems to me to be by definition a criticism of translators who disagree with them. Ditto for the claim of others to be doing only "meaning based" translation--as if translators who disagree with their method did not translate meaning!

I'm coming more and more to appreciate skopos theory and polysystem theory (without agreeing completely), both of which study the translator and his methods (descriptive) rather than laying down rules the translator must follow (prescriptive).

 

It's interesting that on Price's website there is a review of his book by Dr. Glenn J. Kerr. In it Kerr says that Price's glossary entry for optimal equivalence "could easily be applied to dynamic equivalence, functional equivalence, or meaning-based theory."

I really see a distinct translational difference between the NKJV and the HCSB. I do not see how they could have been governed by the same translational method. The HCSB is much closer to the way the NIV/TNIV was done. The NKJ was done in a manner closer to the style of the NASB.