Nida, Existentialism & Bible Translation

Existentialism is not necessarily atheistic. The field of Christian existentialism, while a minority view in existential thought, predates atheistic existentialism and includes folks like Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Tillich and Bultmann. While you may consider them to be liberals Christian or even non-Christian because of their theological views, I think it is incorrect to call them godless.

 

That wasn't my point.I was saying that Functional-Equivalence was being practiced long before Nida put things into a systematic form.

You've spent a bulk of your energy in denigrating him.You'll reply with "I've not denigrated him --just his method." But it amounts to the same thing.

It's the same thing with respect to the NIV.I said you've denigrated the translators and you responded with something to the effect of :"I meant to denigrate the method they used."

You operate on a double-standard.I have said some negative things about word-for-word,literal,formally-equivalent versions."Negative things" -- criticism -- not denigration.But then you come along and say that I have denigrated those translational methods.

There is a distinct difference between offering legitimate criticism and out-out denigration.

Translational methods which are to the right of your "Optimal-Equivalence" philosophy are attacked relentlessly.The translational principles are put in such a light that you would have many to believe that the translators were slipshod and careless.You'd like to plant the idea that they are less than faithful to the Lord in their work than you are.I resent that attitude.

 

You need to pay better attention.I specifically isolated something in particular with which I agreed.The heart of the quote:"...it has exposed with heartless cynicism,the idea of the inherent goodness of man by turning the spotlight on man's demonic capacities for evil and self-deception."

I said that as a Calvinist I would readily concur with the above.That wasn't a vote of confidence for the entire system -- just that portion I focused upon.

In a different area -- I am no fan of Karl Barth for instance,but he said things against infant baptism with which I agree.He said it was "a wound in the body of the Church." He said "candidates must come rather than be brought."

Unrelated to the subject of infant baptism --He was the main author of the Barmen Declaration.I think it was a fine Christ-honoring piece -- with very biblical content.And it showed his bravery in the face of the evil of Hitler.

Would I endorse Christians to buy Barth books without appropriate warnings?Of course not.His writings are not sound enough for a Christian to get a good foothold on solid theology.But where he intersects with the truth -- he intersects with the truth.

Many non-Cals are certainly not Roman Catholics,yet they agree with some pronouncements of the Council of Trent.That doesn't make them RC's.

I am not going to go out of my way to pick up the writings of men who are adversaries of many things which I hold dear.But I will agree with some things they say which I consider to be biblical.That doesn't mean I have adopted their teachings wholesale.

 

I have read several of Nida's works and do not find them poorly written nor from a man who is misinformed. I do find many others who go the opposite of what your quote suggests that Nida is doing. So many churches preach dispensationalism which very much connects with German rationalism.

 

I had the impression from your original post that someone you read considered Nida to be off base some or to draw his ideas from existentialism. The fact is that the dispensationalism of the the early part of the last century is filled with German rationalism. Virtually everything we know can be traced back to some parallel in the world even if true. Truth is truth, even if the world were to believe it, and Christians do not. German rationalism creates a new set of problems. Yet many in the Christian church have bought it as truth by another name. Too many Christians today are doing the same thing by developing a creed such as the Chicago statement rather than studying scripture and letting it stand alone. Too many Baptists preach scripture alone yet judge others by a creed.

We must let scripture stand alone and interpret it in light of its historical context. We cannot get twisted and be reactionary to what the world believes (or what other Christians believe) in such a way that we separate ourselves from everything they teach. We must recognize truth for what it is--truth. Truth is not limited to what Christians claim. Over the centuries one can easily see where Christians bought into lies. It was the Christian church that supported Hitler and taught evolution. Keil & Delitzsch had to escape the Christian church in Germany and escape to Finland because they stood against evolution and taught creationism. It is the Christian church that mixed German rationalism and Christianity together to form early dispensationalism and the way it teaches to interpret through its filter. The problem is that I do not find any form or creedalism or systematic theology that is true enough to interpret scripture through its filter. No sytematic theology compares to scripture.

Just because someone sees truth in other places does not mean it is bad. Too many Christians tend to label people and put them in a camp. Isn't that what Paul addressed in 1 Cor.? The way most of us interpret wisdom literature is the same way that the liberals came up with first. We have bought into their ways of interpreting. We must decide if it is right or wrong and if it is true of not. It does not matter who or where it came from, but is it true.

 

I would suppose that everyone is a product of the times they live in even if they do not see it. However I have not sensed something wrong with anything I have read that Nida has written. In fact I find him to be more informed than what I have read written by a number of others.

I would think that a correct interpretation of any document requires a thorough study of the historical and any other context in which the document was written. It requires an excellent knowledge of what surrounded that culture at that time. It seems that so many who try and expound on scripture fall so short of that matter but instead try to explain their interpretation in light of their personal filter clouded by their own understanding and biases. I think that is the reason for so many Christians are divided over issues. I have seldom found that after studying the issue well and taking a look at some historical documents that the issue settlers on one side or the other but so often it is totally different than the opposing sides.

 

I am not a linguist. At one time I had interest in translation. I have read Signs, Sense, and Translation, The Theory and Practice of Translation. Some articles, and some of the translators handbooks.

 

I really would not know other than perhaps existentialism and the way he interprets scripture have some commonality such as being opposed to rationalism. Certainly one cannot impose German rationalism on scripture and come up with the correct interpretation. God's ways are not always rationalistic and defined within the parameters of man in his finite view. Gos is not limited to our explanation or limited view of eternity and infinity. God is... We do not have that perspective.

 

I have not gotten any ideas from Nida's works that he would do anything less than seek to gain a full understanding of the historical context before interpreting and translating the document. In one of the short pamphlets I read he helped me to gain an understanding of the cultural context of words. He pointed out how words have overlap of meaning in a historical setting. If I remember right he used the example of agapao and phileo.

I would think that he would take the position that words have meaning in their given context. Apart from the historical context then one cannot properly interpret the document.