I realize the topic of translations methods has been brought up here on other occasions. But I thought I would post the url of a debate on this matter that involves people who are schooled in translation work.
I noticed that nobody is contributing to this thread. However, in the hopes of finding out a little more about this matter, i.e. Dynamic (or Functional) Equivalence vs. Literal Translations, I thought I would bring a little bit of the discussion here. Though I favor literal translations, reading that particular thread made me realize just how little I know on the issues. In the following url, someone give what I concider to be a good reason not to go with a Dynamic Equivalent translation.http://www.fellowship.ca/theology/translations/pitfalls_of_dynamic.htm However Dr. Mark Naylor gives the reason why he favors a Functional Equivalent. “On the superiority of a Functional Equivalence approach to translation: (A response to a friend's objection to my article) In my work in translation the OT into the Sindhi language, I have never come across a word in Sindhi that has exactly the same range of meaning, impact, significance or function as a single word in Hebrew (or English). This is to be expected because words reflect culture and the cultures of the Sindhi language are different from the cultures of other languages (Note, for example, the Hebrew "vaw" which is often translated as "and" but largely left untranslated and many times translated with a myriad of other words). What we must not do is read our cultural understanding of a specific English (or Sindhi) word back into the passage. We must determine the meaning of the passage and then represent that meaning in an equivalent way in English (or Sindhi). For example, in The Message, Peterson used the word “hurt” to translate the Greek “hamartano” in Mt 18:15. Most other translations use the word "sin". The validity of such a translation choice lies in the communication intent of Jesus and its equivalent representation in English. If the Greek word “hamartano” used in the NT includes aspects of broken relationships that are not sin as we use "sin" in English, then his translation choice is validated. And I suspect that Jesus' intention was broader than those deliberate acts of selfishness that we call "sin". Otherwise the thrust of Jesus' saying would be, “If a fellow believer hurts you by sinning against you, then do this. But if the person hurts you in another way, you do not need to do this.” It seems to me that the more inclusive meaning of “hurt” as in Peterson’s translation, which includes "sin", grasps the essence better than by trying to distinguish between “sin” (according to our theological understanding) and “hurt” in this passage. One important lesson from this illustration is that we cannot take a "dictionary" approach to translation. That is, we cannot look at a word in Greek with its dictionary range of meanings and find a suitable English word with a similar dictionary range of meaning and use that same word as a substitute in all places. Language does not function in such a fashion. At the very least a range of English words are required out of which the most suitable is to be used where appropriate in context. But translation is even more complicated than that.” Mark Naylor
When I looked at how the other side responded to this, I noticed they were strangely silent and though every part of me wanted to say something. I came to the realization that my knowledge of the issues is so limited that if I tried to defend Literal Translations, I would probably be eaten alive. That is quite humbling actually.
I feel a little as you do in that most of what was written was over my head. I don't have much to add except to say that Pilgrim had a few comments about translating the Bible into other languages in this thread.
His suggestion was that when there is not a word that fits in the target language that it might be advisable to create a new word instead of trying to force an existing word or group of words to convey the same meaning.
I would say read some of the excellent articles in the Highway Library on Sola Scrptura for a foundation. In addition, here is some assorted information that you can digest to discern how deep this problem really is. Please note this is from various sources (Baptist, Lutheran, et. al.). Some are very prejudiced and others, well they are just that--other <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Leland Ryken has written a rather extensive book on the subject of literal verses dynamic equivalence versions called "God's Word in English." I picked up a copy, but have only glanced through it. From what I have seen, it is well done and well argued in favor of a more literal view of translating. Those I know who have read testify that once you read his argumentation, you will never look at the NIV the same way again.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
His [Pilgrim's] suggestion was that when there is not a word that fits in the target language that it might be advisable to create a new word instead of trying to force an existing word or group of words to convey the same meaning.
John,
I'm glad you posted this reply and specifically that you made mention of what you thought I hold to in regard to Bible translation. The actual post you referenced which I wrote in another thread is found here: My Reply to You.
In that original reply, I made a significant "typo", where I left out the words, "DO NOT" in a sentence. The result was that what I wrote conveyed the exact opposite of which I believe to be true. So, I have gone back and edited that post so that what I really hold to be true is now made clear.
Thank you for making me aware of my blatant error which has allowed me to correct that embarassing mistake.
Ithink Bible translation must be really difficult. I don't know if you're all aware, but the Bible was recently translated into Mongolian, and whereas there wereno known Christians in Outer Mongolia ten years or so ago, there are now about 10,000 <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />. The problem is that the Mongolians are largely Buddhist and there is no name for God in Mongolian. So the translators in desperation used the word for 'Buddha', and now there is a load of Mongolians going around thinking that Jesus is the Son of Buddha! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" /> Praise the Lord, there's a new translation coming out shortly that avoids this problem; how, I don't know.
I believe that a translation should be as literal as possible so as to retain a good, up-to-date literary style. However, consider the following:-
1John 4:7, NKJV: 'Beloved, let us love one another.' 1John 4:7, NIV: 'Dear Friends, let us love one another.'
The easy thing to say is, "Well, nobody calls anybody 'beloved' these days, so 'Dear friends' must be better." But the Greek reads 'Agapetoi, agapomen' which is an alliteration, which 'Beloved, let us love' picks up rather well. Moreover, 'agapetoi' could equally well mean 'beloved of God' as 'beloved of John'. It would be possible to translate the text, 'Let us who are loved (by God) love one another.' I feel that to use the word 'beloved' keeps that ambiguity better than 'dear friends.'
On the other hand, I don't know why the NKJV uses the word, 'behold!' constantly. What's wrong with 'see' or 'look'?
To those who think the NIV is as bad as it gets; 'Turn again, you will see greater abominations than these' (Ezek 8:15). I resigned from the leadership of the church in which I was converted, when my colleagues wanted to put a copy of Luke's Gospel through every door in my village in the CEV translation. I looked through it to see what sort of translation it was and found this:-
Luke 1:50 NKJV: 'And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.' Luke 1:50 CEV: 'He is always kind to everyone who worships Him.' <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" />
[That wasn't my only reason for resigning, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back!]
So let me try to clarify to make sure I am understanding your point. In your example, you used "lamb" and "pig", where pig is the closest equivalent word in the target language. Your suggestion is that when there is no word in the target language, that the original word be left untranslated? Therefore, you would not use "pig" or "a new word", but leave it as "lamb"? Therefore, the reader is required to look up what the word "lamb" means in the orginal language, or at least to be aware that here is a word that he doesn't know the full meaning of.
Thanks for all the links Joe. I especially liked the one on Comparative Study of Bible Translations. It's not exhaustive of course, but it has enough examples and commentary to really give you a idea about some of the different translations. While I'm sure there are sources that do a better job than this one and are more comprehensive, this is the best one I've read so far.
john said: So let me try to clarify to make sure I am understanding your point. In your example, you used "lamb" and "pig", where pig is the closest equivalent word in the target language. Your suggestion is that when there is no word in the target language, that the original word be left untranslated? Therefore, you would not use "pig" or "a new word", but leave it as "lamb"? Therefore, the reader is required to look up what the word "lamb" means in the original language, or at least to be aware that here is a word that he doesn't know the full meaning of.
John
Exactly...... I am an advocate of a "literal" word-for-word translation method as opposed to a "Dynamic Equivalence" method. Lamb should be translated as "lamb", even if there is no word in the target language for a lamb. How one would actually do that is a matter for discussion, e.g., whether one would use an Anglicized word, etc.. . But I am opposed to substituting an inspired word for one which is known to the people of the target language and unrelated to the original, e.g,. substituting "pig" for "lamb" because there is no word for lamb in the target language.
Again, the responsibility of the translator is just that... TRANSLATE, not interpret, define, etc. That responsibility belongs to those who will teach.
In my men's Bible study we have some using the NIV and others like myself using the NASB. While reading Hebrews 10:35 tonight, I wonder if they both essentially say the same, or am I reading too much into it - trying to make a difference.
NIV - So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.
NASB - Therefor, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
For some reason I get the impression that the emphasis in the NIV is on 'your confidence', whereas the NASB is only on 'confidence'.
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ."Colossians 2:7
I don't know if I can see that distinction, but I can see a difference in how the NIV says our confidence WILL be richly rewarded (emphasis on future) while the NASB says it HAS a great reward (emphasis on present).
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
You said: "But I am opposed to substituting an inspired word for one which is known to the people of the target language and unrelated to the original, e.g,. substituting "pig" for "lamb" because there is no word for lamb in the target language."
Can you give an example where a dynamic equivalent like the NIV does that?
Again, the responsibility of the translator is just that... TRANSLATE, not interpret, define, etc. That responsibility belongs to those who will teach.
(Fred) I have heard the lame excuse (it makes me wonder if it is an urban legend) for DE translations with this example of the tribal group not understanding what a lamb is, but in their culture, the pig is equivilant to the Hebrew perspective of a lamb, so the translators go with pig in all of the lamb passages. "Behold, the pig of God that takes away the sins of the world" It just reeks of sacrilege.
Pilgrim is spot on and this has been my sentiment ever since I first heard this story: Why doesn't the pastor teach them what a lamb is? Why alter the truth of the word of God, particularly in an area with significant bearing upon the theology of the atonement? Similarly, I never seen a lamb when I was growing up, and I am from America. The truth be told, my complete knowledge of lambs in general was Sherry Lewis and her Porkchop sock puppet. However, I managed to learn what the Hebrews believed about lambs and their place in the symbolism of the atonement.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
So, I have gone back and edited that post so that what I really hold to be true is now made clear.![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/thanks.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
. But I am opposed to substituting an inspired word for one which is known to the people of the target language and unrelated to the original, e.g,. substituting "pig" for "lamb" because there is no word for lamb in the target language.
