the horns of ames

Re: Translation discussion

[This interaction happened over e-mail, but I thought I would include it here for the benefit of the followers of this debate via Blog]

First of all, this is great fun. If I didn't have guys challenging me on my statements, I might slip into a lull, but you guys keep me digging and reading, I love it! PS, I'm going to give the same caveat that Caleb gave as we have similar styles. If I come right out and say something contradictory, it's not a personal attack by any means, I just don't like to come up with the fluff to make it sound pretty and unoffensive. That being said, I feel like my debate is with the theories, not with any person in particular...

1. Wally said - I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "dynamic equivalence". If a translation uses this method, the translators are only trying to find words or phrases that " better communicate" the original meaning where no suitable word exists for the current culture. Readability is not the only goal of this process. Clearer understanding is the ultimate goal! There is NO "interpretation" inherent in this process! I think that is the biggest hang up here. Do some use interpretation when translating? Probably. But that's not the fault of the "dynamic equivalence" process. They should not be interpreting the text. It is strictly a language to language conversion.

Aaron replies - Yes, the translators are trying to find words or phrases that "better communicate" what they think the text is trying to communicate. It's not a matter of a word not existing, it's a matter of them feeling the words won't make sense to the readers. You've probably heard dynamic equivalence refered to as "phrase by phrase" as opposed to "word for word" translation. They aren't interpreting each word literally, they are taking the idea and interpreting it.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) article on what dynamic equivalence is: Dynamic equivalence (or functional equivalence) attempts to discern and render the thought of the original.

"to discern and render" = "interpret"

I have to straight up disagree that "there is NO 'interpretation' inherent in this process!" The fact that someone is deciding what the literal words MEAN and are providing me with another way of saying what they think the author MEANS or by giving me another analogy, is the very definition of interpretation. From Webster's Dictionary, here are the definitions of "interpretation":

1 : the act or the result of interpreting
2 : a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style

Definition 2 is right on. They are providing you with a particular version of a work. Their version of what the original author of the Scripture was saying. "It's too hard to understand when read literally, so they are going to give you another version (or interpretation) of it so you'll understand it better."

I found an article called "Dynamic Equivalence: A Method of Translation or a System of Hermeneutics" written by Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary. Due to the word being in the title of the article, I'll provide Webster's definition of hermeneutics: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)
Here's a quote from that article:

"From the perspective of a traditional definition of hermeneutics little doubt can be entertained that D-E [Dynamic Equivalence] is, among other things, a system of hermeneutics [Aaron's note: or interpretation]. Perhaps some will respond, however, that all translations are commentaries and hence incorporate the application of hermeneutical principles in arriving at their renderings. This is absolutely true. A certain degree of interpretation is unavoidable, no matter how hard the translator tries to exclude it. Yet a characteristic of formal equivalence [Aaron's note: or essentially literal translation] is its effort to avoid interpretation as much as possible by transferring directly from the surface structure of the source language to the surface structure of the receptor language. By omitting the step of analysis that is built into the D-E approach, interpretation can be excluded to a much higher degree. Since D-E intentionally incorporates interpretation, it obviously has a significantly higher degree of interpretation than formal equivalence and is in a much stronger sense a system of hermeneutics than is formal equivalence."

So, I disagree with the idea that dynamic equivalence is not interpretation. I can go into this further if I haven't fully supported my position that dynamic equivalence does in fact entail interpretation of the original in order to present an acceptable substitute for the reader.

2. Wally said (In reference to my distrust of Wescott and Hort) - Again, their doctrine and/or history of these men should not be in consideration here. The question is "How well did they translate?" and "Can we verify what they did translate?" I would rather have a Mormon who believes in reincarnation translate the text, if I knew fully well he would us the rules of translation well.

Aaron replies - I think their doctrine has to be considered when you take into consideration the fact that these men were motivated to replace the Received Text and made crucial decisions about which verses to delete or question (48 verses), which verses to remove significant portions of verses (193 verses) and which names and titles of the Lord to delete (221). In each of those cases, Westcott and Hort were more liberal in ommission than later translators. When a man is in charge of translating the word of God, I think it's fair to criticize his doctrine. However, the point is well taken that if it is a true literal, word for word interpretation of the Scripture, this shouldn't weigh heavily on the outcome. If Westcott and Hort wrote a dynamically equivalent Bible, however, I'd have some serious issues with calling it the Word of God.

Are we having fun yet? You betcha! I think I should point out here that I really believe that dynamically equivalent translations can have their place. Specifically for new believers and young people who have a difficult time following the language of a more literal translation. However, when we sit around to discuss the deep doctrines of God's Word like in a Bible Study, or in a teaching setting, I think it's important that we read what the author's wrote, not a paraphrase of what they wrote. It seems like in every other Bible Study we've had lately, symantics regarding the original Greek word has come up. I tend to put more faith in a literal translation at that point than a dynamically equivalent translation where there is a "similar meaning" given instead of the original word translated into English.

You've heard the phrase, "The devil's in the details." Well I believe "The doctrine's in the details."

Larry has challenged me to look at the NASB as arguably one of the most literal translations into English available. I've seen that phrase thrown around a lot, but I'm having trouble getting to the meat and potatoes about why that is an accurate statement. However, I'm very open to being convinced that the NASB is the way to go! :-) By the time this is over, I'm probably going to own 30 different translations and it will take me an hour to read 3 verses. Thank goodness for the Compare feature in e-Sword! :-)

In Him,
Aaron


On 12/14/05, Todd Wallace wrote:
Hey guys… again, great conversation.


Aaron, let me ask a few questions.


1. You said,


" When you start talking about translations that apply dynamic equivalence instead of essentially literal, you're allowing someone to institute their interpretation right into the text of God's Word, which to me isn't worth the "readability" it provides"


I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "dynamic equivalence". If a translation uses this method, the translators are only trying to find words or phrases that " better communicate" the original meaning where no suitable word exists for the current culture. Readability is not the only goal of this process. Clearer understanding is the ultimate goal! There is NO "interpretation" inherent in this process! I think that is the biggest hang up here. Do some use interpretation when translating? Probably. But that's not the fault of the "dynamic equivalence" process. They should not be interpreting the text. It is strictly a language to language conversion.


2. The second comment I have is with this:


The last thing I'd ever do is read a dynamically equivalent translation by Wescott and Hort knowing a little bit more about the history of who these men were and what they believed (their doctrine).


Again, their doctrine and/or history of these men should not be in consideration here. The question is "How well did they translate?" and "Can we verify what they did translate?" I would rather have a Mormon who believes in reincarnation translate the text, if I knew fully well he would us the rules of translation well.


A similar situation is being played out right now in our courts, with all of the new candidates for Supreme Court Justice. The question (in my mind) is not what political view, religion, or personal lifestyle these men or women uphold.. but whether they will fulfill their duty of judging based upon the law.. with a non partisan judgment. I know that's a big statement, and problems arise when there are cases that needed to be interpreted using the law (so I could be in trouble here). I am about putting the right people in the right places… conservatives if possible.. not because they will judge conservatively, but because they more often are convicted to judge by the law, and not their own preferences. I think you understand my point.


Let me know what you think Aaron. Again, conversations like this are so helpful. Keep us the great work!


Todd

posted by Aaron @ www.HornIT.net @ 12:00 AM