Re: Translation discussion
Well, we're obviously at a key disagreement in the philosophy of dynamic equivalent translation. For those that are having a hard time following, let me try to summarize. Remember, Dynamic Equivalence is the theory of translation used by such works as the NIV, the CEV, GNB, NLT, etc.Aaron - Dynamic Equivalence translation actually interprets (both in language and in doctrine) what the Bible says in order to make it more readable for the reader.
Wally - Dynamic Equivalence does not interpret, it translates the original authors' meaning into English.
Wally, definitely let me know if you think I misrepresented your stance on the issue. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth.
First of all, we've made some progress. Originally, it was stated that "There is NO "interpretation" inherent in this process" and now we're agreeing that interpretation is inherent in the process, but debating whether it's "language interpretation" or "doctrinal interpretation." Obviously, if we were talking about translation with the complete removal of interpretation, we would be offering a literal word for word translation instead of a "thought-for-thought" interpretation.
So what's the difference between "language interpretation" and "doctrinal interpretation?" Language interpretation is a judgment that translators make regarding which English words best render the meaning of the words in the original biblical text. For example, is the Hebrew word zera best rendered as "seed" or "offspring"? Were the Israelites led through the "desert" or the "wilderness?"
Let's talk about doctrinal interpretation then. Obviously doctrinal interpretation is a judgment about the theological meaning of a passage. Something I think we should all agree should not be included in a Bible, but should be left for the reader to decide, or for commentaries to expound upon. So do dynamically equivalent translations embed doctrinal interpretation? Let's look.
Romans 1:17 says that in the Gospel "the righteousness of God is revealed" (RSV, NASB, ESV). This literal translation of what the original says does not proceed to interpret whether this righteousness of God is an attribute of God's character or whether it is God's gift of righteousness conferred on those who believe leading to salvation . So how would a dynamic equivalent translate the "thought" of this verse? With any doctrinal interpretation? NIV - "For in the gospel a righteousness FROM God is revealed." NLT - "This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight." GNB - "For the gospel reveals how God puts people right with himself." CEV - "The good news tells how God accepts everyone who has faith." This is far from the literal meaning of the original which said "the righteousness of God is revealed."
Here are some examples from the dynamically equivalent Contemporary English Version:
Rev. 22:21—"The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen." (ESV) becomes "I pray that the Lord Jesus will be kind to all of you" (CEV). (The term "grace" means free unmerited favor and blessing" and it carries a lot of rich theological meaning when it is studied in the various contexts. To change this blessed Bible word to "kindness" is to dilute the Word of God and change its meaning.)
Eph. 2:8—"For by grace you have been saved through faith" (ESV) becomes "You were saved by faith in God's kindness" (CEV). (Again, "grace" is changed to "kindness." The dynamic equivalency translators have also changed almost everything else in this important verse.)
Phil. 1:1—"overseers and deacons" (ESV) becomes "to all of your church officials and officers" (CEV). (The term "deacon" is a technical and important term that is used consistently in Scripture. To water this term down to the vague "church officials and officers" is inexcusable.)
Phil. 1:1—"the saints in Christ" (ESV) becomes "all of God's people who belong to Christ Jesus" (CEV). (The term "saint" means one who is set apart for God, one who is holy; it is from the same Greek words that are translated "holy" and "sanctify." The term has a great depth of meaning when it is studied in the various contexts, but the dynamic equivalency translators typically choose one of the weakest definitions and replace the choice theological word with that definition.)
Rom. 3:10—"none is righteous" (ESV) becomes "none acceptable to God" (CEV). (The term "righteous" means right living, godliness; by changing it to "acceptable," the meaning is diluted and changed. It is true that sinners are not acceptable to God, but that is not what this verse says. The dynamic equivalency translators have interpreted the verse and given the readers their interpretation rather than a precise translation.)
Rom. 3:24—"are justified by his grace" (ESV) becomes "he freely accepts us" (CEV). (The term "justification" means declared righteous.")
1 Cor. 6:11—"But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (ESV) becomes "But now the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the power of God's Spirit have washed you and made you acceptable to God" (CEV). (In this verse, in addition to many other changes, the glorious Bible terms "sanctified" and "justified" have been watered down to "made acceptable to God.")
As Ryken says, "For dynamic equivalent translations, all translation is potentially interpretation - interpretation defined as we define it hermeneutically to mean interpreting the thought of a statement or passage." And further, "For essentially literal translations, translation is translation, and its task is to express what the original says. Only for dynamic equivalent translations is all translation potentially interpretation - something added to the original or changed from the original to produce what the translators think the passage means."
Does a dynamically equivalent translation include doctrinal interpretation? I think the examples above shows it does.
So a dynamic equivalent bible would strive to translate meaning rather than words. Here are quotes from the preface of a few dynamically equivalent translations: GNB - "the meaning of the original." NIV - "the thought of the biblical writers." NLT - "a thought-for-thought translation...has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately than a word-for-word translation." Here's the problem. Ideas and thoughts depend on words are are expressed by them. When we change the words, we change the meaning. I'll grab a comparative example from Ryken:
Psalm 1:3 ends with a statement of the complete prosperity of the godly person.
"Whatsoever he doeth shall prosper" (KJV)
"In all that he does, he prospers" (RSV, ESV; NASB similar)
"In all that they do, they prosper" (NRSV; NLT nearly identical)
"Whatever he does prospers" (NIV)
"They succeed in everything they do" (GNB)
Do these translations communicate the same meaning? No. Some translations say the prosperity comes in the future (shall prosper) and some say it's a present state (prospers.) Some translations say the person prospers (he prospers) and some say it's "whatever he does" or "they do that prospers. Some translations say it's a godly person (singular) and some say it's a group of people by saying "they." When the words differ, the meaning differs. We can't translate the ideas instead of the words.
Since Todd and Caleb have both said that readability is not the ultimate goal of a dynamic equivalent, I won't argue that point, but some people do say that readability is the key. I like the way Wally put it "Clearer understanding is the ultimate goal." Excellent. To that I would say, if you want to clearly understand God's Word, then read what the original author's of God's word wrote via a literal translation (or as Caleb says, ultimately by reading the original language in which it was written), and then use the Holy Spirit and external commentaries to better understand it.
It bothers me that the dynamically equivalent translations adapt God's Word because they consider me a "modern reader." I want to know what the author had to say in their original text, not what the modern reader dictates it says. Here are some examples from dynamically equivalent prefaces:
GNB - "...to express that meaning in a manner and form easily understood by the readers."
NLT - "Metaphorical language is often difficult for contemporary readers to understand, so at times we have chosen to translate or illuminate the metaphor."
NIV - "Because for most readers today the phrases 'the Lord of hosts' and 'God of hosts' have little meaning, this version renders them 'the Lord Almighty' and 'God Almighty'"
NCV - "Ancient customers are often unfamiliar to modern readers"
Ok, so the last point got off the original topic of conversation. I think I have shown that the dynamic equivalent translations DO indeed entail interpretation, both of language and of doctrine. The length of my e-mail directly correlates with the length of sleep I get at night, so I'm going to call it a night and hope that my point has been sufficiently argued. If not, I'm happy to go more rounds. I'd much rather be doing this than wasting time watching television or participating in some other eternally meaningless activity. :-) This is great fun, I hope we haven't lost everyone with our novel like e-mail thread, but based on some conversations we've had, I'm guessing we might have. My bad, Wally does a good job of keeping his points succinct, I'm the one that rambles...
In Him,
Aaron
Proverbs 30:5-6 ESV - "Every word of God proves true...Do not add to his words"
On 12/15/05, Todd Wallace
Responses in BOLD:
-----Original Message-----
From: hornit@gmail.com [mailto:hornit@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aaron Horn
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:39 AM
To: Todd Wallace
Cc: Caleb Ehlers; John Scheppler; Larry Novak; Brett; doctormichael@netins.net; Brian Packard; Andrew [EPM/MTN] Paullus; ritchie@chieves.org; scott@randallcorp.com; shenry@iowatelecom.net
Subject: Re: Translation discussion
Now we're on a roll! Again, can't respond due to the fact that it doesn't really assist in getting this website done for BU, but I wanted to address one key point.
Wally - Aaron, I think you should be careful here. Aaron, you are not a proud man. This phrase can be taken to sound like you are though. I don't think that's what you want to communicate. " Specifically for new believers and young people who have a difficult time following the language of a more literal translation."
Aaron - Excellent point. You are correct that my statement could sound arrogant and I certainly didn't mean for it to. I appreciate your statement that I'm not proud, I'm glad we know each other well enough that you know that, and I appreciate the warning that those that don't know me as well might see it that way. I am FAR from really understanding God's Word. Nor can I easily pick up a King James Version Bible and easily grasp the verses without need for discernment. The idea I was trying to express was that new believer in Christ needs to be fed with milk. As they grow in Christ and continue to walk with Him and meditate on His Word, they start to need the meat of God's Word. (Hebrews 5:12-14) In my opinion (and this could be wrong, they are just examples I think of), the milk is learning about the stories of Christ, the way a Christian should act, the characteristics of God, the call of baptism, stories from the Old Testament, etc. The meat gets into doctrine like election, predestination, true meaning of communion, characteristics of elders/deacons, literal/figurative, etc. When we start to talk about doctrine and things that literally shapes your belief system, it is vital that we are getting the true literal translation, and not what the authors of a "dynamic equivalent" thinks it means.
Again, Aaron, you are making a wrong assumption here. A "dynamic equivalent" should not communicate what the "translator" thinks the TEXT means! It should communicate what the "original author" means!
Predestination and election is a perfect example. Some people take predestination to mean that we have no control over whether we are saved or not. God has already predestined some people to be saved and others to not be. This belief makes for a drastically different attitude about evangelism and the gospel than the belief that man has free will to choose God and that God's predestination is for believers and based on the fact that He is omniscent and already knows whether you will accept Him. I really don't want to get into the predestination/election debate right now, I just wanted to point out that if someone is interpreting God's Word in their translation, then we are reading it as it's already filtered through their ideas of what predestination means (or rather, whether they should be using the word predestination or if that was really the word/idea the author was conveying.) I'd rather see the raw text and use commentaries and studies to determine what it means for myself.
You are continuing to make the same errors, here Aaron. There is a huge distinction between the PROCESS OF LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION, and the process of DOCTRINAL INTERPRETATION.
The best resource I have found on this whole topic is the book "How to Read the Bible for All it's worth". There is an entire section in this book on translations.
Anyway… I will do some more reading, and get back to you.
Thanks Aaron.
Todd
Caleb posted an excellent comment on my blog in response to one of my posts and said, "I think a secure approach, rather than swearing by one version, would be to use multiple translations when studying a text. That way at least you can see the text in different lights and hopefully come to view the original meaning of the text more clearly."
Absolutely. If nothing else, this study has shown me that we can't just say that one version is the perfect infallible translation of exactly what God's authors wrote, unless we study the original manuscripts. This has, on some level, frustrated me that I don't speek Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. Or that God didn't just have it written in English! :-) Stupid Tower of Babel...
The point I was trying to convey was that most young/new believers aren't going to dive into studying the semantics of 5 different versions of the Bible. They mostly want to learn more about Christ and their relationship with Him and to develop that walk. (Note, I'm saying "they" because I don't consider myself a YOUNG believer at this point as I've been a believer for 17 years and have been exposed to and have been pursuing more knowledge for most of those years. I guess relative to those that have been believers for 40 years, I'm definitely young, but my point is that I am moving from "milk to meat" and that stage happens at different times for different people. Am I a seasoned and experienced teacher of God's Word? NO! But I'm working towards it just like the rest of you!) We should ALWAYS be developing our walk, that's for sure. And I'm not saying that I'm any further in my walk than any of you, far be it from me to convey that.
Ok, this e-mail took way too much time. I'd better stop. I apologize for any arrogance I may have conveyed as that was the last thing I wanted to do. We can discuss more about interpretation and the details of dynamic equivalence a bit later...
In Him,
Aaron
On 12/15/05, Todd Wallace < toddwallace@cornerstone-church.com> wrote:
This is fun! Thanks Aaron for the dialogue.
One quick thought…. I will give more later…
I realized that in my response (and then reading your response) that we are talking about 2 types of interpretation:
1. Language interpretation (what does this Greek word mean in English)
2. Theological interpretation (what does this word or phrase say about God)
Yes, and I agree, all translation is LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION. So I will grant to you, that LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION is happening. What I just learned is that that's not what I am arguing against.
In a good translation, the MEANING of the original text should be clearly translated. I am not quite sure why you think one word is better than a phrase, and I disagree with your statement
"Specifically for new believers and young people who have a difficult time following the language of a more literal translation.".
Aaron, I think you should be careful here. Aaron, you are not a proud man. This phrase can be taken to sound like you are though. I don't think that's what you want to communicate.
The problem with the KJV is that the language is wrong in many places. The words have changed their meaning. Language is an ever changing beast. For example, if something is "the Bomb" in 2005, it's cool. In 1992, that meant it wasn't cool. Same holds true for our language in translations. Here is just a quick example:
The King James Bible Word Book by Ronald Bridges and Luther A. Weigle, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, states the following on the inside jacket:
"Did you know that in the King James Version of the Bible the word 'advertise' means 'tell,' 'allege' means 'prove,' and 'conversation' means 'behavior'? That 'communicate' means 'share,' 'take through' means 'be anxious,' and 'prevent' means 'precede'? That 'meat' is a general term for 'food,' and 'anon' and 'by and by' translate Greek words which mean 'immediately'?
These words -- and many like them -- made perfect sense to readers when the KJV was published in 1611. But today, after nearly four centuries of changes in English, few readers know what such words mean. And most readers miss the riches of the all-time favorite King James Bible" [emphasis ours].
I am ok with a translator interpreting for me the English equivalent to the original Greek text. If done properly, it should have the same MEANING in a literal and dynamic equivalent translation. What I do not want, is Theological Interpretation. That would be the definition of a bad translation.
Anyway, I'm rambling. My point? It is quite possible that a DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT translation better communicates the original MEANING of the GREEK, HEBREW, or ARAMAIC text.
Mr. Horn. Your turn. I've taken too much work time already.
Mr. Ehlers? You out there?
Todd
posted by Aaron @ www.HornIT.net @ 11:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home