Translation Theories: Lecture 13E

1
Translation TheoriesLecture 13E

• I. Formal Equivalence
• II. Dynamic or Idiomatic Equivalence
• III Optimal or literal-idiomatic Equivalence
• IV. A Closer Look into Translation
• V. Use of Theological Vocabulary in Translation

2
TRANSLATION THEORIES

• I. Consider the following three main approaches
• A. Formal Equivalence (word-for-word)
• B. Dynamic-Functional or Idiomatic Equivalence
  (thought-for-thought, literary translation)
• C. Optimal Approach (combines literal-idiomatic
  aspects together) tends towards idiomatic
  approach.

3
TRANSLATION THEORIES

• I. Consider the following information provided by
  ISV Foundation
• All major translations of the Bible fall
  somewhere on a scale between complete formal
  equivalence and complete functional equivalence.
  Translations that are quite literal include
• A. The King James Version KJV,
• B. The New King James Version NKJV,
• C. The American Standard Version of 1901 ASV,
• D. The New American Standard Bible NASB,
• E. The Revised Standard Version RSV,
• F. The New Revised Standard Version NRSV.

4
TRANSLATION THEORIES

• Translations lean toward the idiomatic end of the
  spectrum include
• A. The New International Version NIV
• B. The New English Bible NEB
• C. The Revised English Bible REB
• D. The Good News Bible GNB
• E. The New Living Translation NLT
• F. The Contemporary English Version CEV .
• International standard version New Testament
  Version 1.1. 2000 (Print on Demand ed.). The
  Learning Foundation Yorba Linda, CA

5
Formal Equivalence

• WHAT IS THE FORMAL EQUIVALENCE APPROACH?
• Part I.
• ESV, NASB, NKJV.

6
Formal Equivalence Approach

• Often called word-for-word translation, this
  approach seeks to be as literal as possible.
• This view seeks to preserve the structure,
  meaning, idioms of the original language
• Etymologically historical (sensitive to the
  intrinsic development of and normative
  meaning/nuances of words).
• Grammatically transparent (singular, plural,
  feminine, masculine, tense, mood, figures of
  speech, etc).
• Syntactically transparent (The arrangement of the
  words in a given sentence).

7
Formal Equivalence Approach

• Consider the following statements from the
  English Standard Version Committee
• The ESV is an essentially literal translation
  that seeks as far as possible to capture the
  precise wording of the original text and the
  personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its
  emphasis is on word-for-word correspondence, at
  the same time taking into account differences of
  grammar, syntax, and idiom between current
  literary English and the original languages. Thus
  it seeks to be transparent to the original text,
  letting the reader see as directly as possible
  the structure and meaning of the original.
• The Holy Bible English standard version. 2001
  (electronic ed.). Good News Publishers Wheaton

8
Formal Equivalence Approach

• ESV Translation Philosophy Committee continues
• In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions
  have followed a thought-for-thought rather than
  word-for-word translation philosophy,
  emphasizing dynamic equivalence rather than the
  essentially literal meaning of the original. A
  thought-for-thought translation is of necessity
  more inclined to reflect the interpretive
  opinions of the translator and the influences of
  contemporary culture.
• The Holy Bible English standard version. 2001
  (electronic ed.). Good News Publishers Wheaton

9
Formal Equivalence Approach

• Consider the NASB Translation Committee
• The attempt has been made to render the grammar
  and terminology in contemporary English. When it
  was felt that the word-for-word literalness was
  unacceptable to the modern reader, a change was
  made in the direction of a more current English
  idiom. In the instances where this has been done,
  the more literal rendering has been indicated in
  the notes. There are a few exceptions to this
  procedure.
• New American Standard Bible 1995 update. 1995.
  The Lockman Foundation LaHabra, CA

10
Formal Equivalence Approach

• Consider the NASB Translation Committee
• In addition to the more literal renderings,
  notations have been made to include alternate
  translations, reading of variant manuscripts, and
  explanatory equivalents of the text. These
  notations have been used specifically to assist
  the reader in comprehending the terms used by the
  original author.
• New American Standard Bible 1995 update. 1995.
  The Lockman Foundation LaHabra, CA

11
Formal Equivalence Approach

• ESV Committee
• Every translation is at many points a trade-off
  between literal precision and readability,
  between formal equivalence in expression and
  functional equivalence in communication, and
  the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we
  have sought to be as literal as possible while
  maintaining clarity of expression and literary
  excellence. Therefore, to the extent that plain
  English permits and the meaning in each case
  allows, we have sought to use the same English
  word for important recurring words in the
  original and, as far as grammar and syntax
  allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages
  cited in the New in ways that show their
  correspondence.

12
Formal Equivalence Approach

• Thus in each of these areas, as well as
  throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought
  to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning
  that are so abundantly present in the original
  texts.
• In each case the objective has been
  transparency to the original text, allowing the
  reader to understand the original on its own
  terms rather than on the terms of our present-day
  culture.
• The Holy Bible English standard version. 2001
  (electronic ed.). Good News Publishers Wheaton

13
Formal Equivalence Approach

• Positive Benefits
• Presupposes Verbal, plenary inspiration.
• Places importance upon knowing the Scripture as
  it was originally stated.
• Promotes access to the structure meaning of the
  Scripture in the original languages.
• Provides opportunity for in-depth inductive Bible
  study.

14
Formal Equivalence Approach

• Positive Benefits
• Promotes word-for-word correspondence to the
  extent that the English has an exact equivalent
  for each word that the grammatical-linguistic
  structure can be reproduced in understandable
  English.
• Proclaims sensus singular (single intended
  meaning) more objective.
• Provides boundaries for interpreting validating
  the Scripture within the framework of the
  author/Authors intended meaning

15
Formal Equivalence Approach

• Criticisms
• An exact equivalent for each every word cannot
  actually be reproduced.
• Objection teach what the original word means
  Christians should be teachable. This is a minor
  issue.
• The pattern/structure of the original language in
  every respect cannot be reproduced in an
  understandable language.
• Objection Again, teach the Word as it is this
  is a minor issue.
• It could result in awkward statements and thus
  lead to potential misunderstandings of the
  author/Authors intended meaning.
• Objection clarify in footnotes as some
  translations do (e.g., NET).

16
II. DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE

• WHAT IS THE DYNAMIC OR FUNCTIONAL APPROACH?
• Part II.

17
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• Often called thought-for-thought translation as
  opposed to a word-for-word translation.
• Distinguishes the meaning of a text from its form
  and then translates the meaning so that it makes
  the same impact on modern readers that the
  ancient texts made on its original readers.

18
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• Positive Benefits by its Proponents
• High degree of clarity and readability.
• Appeals to a wider range of audience.
• Focuses on the meaning-statement-thought.

19
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• Criticisms
• Not transparently dependent on original language
  (word for word).
• Tendency to promote multiple meanings (sensus
  plenior).
• Less objectivity, more interpretative license
  regarding original language.
• Difficult to verify accuracy usefulness for
  in-depth Bible study.

20
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• New Living Translation Committee comments
• The goal of this translation theory is to
  produce in the receptor language the closest
  natural equivalent of the message expressed by
  the original-language textboth in meaning and in
  style. Such a translation attempts to have the
  same impact on modern readers as the original had
  on its own audience.
• Holy Bible New Living Translation. 1997.
  Tyndale House Wheaton, Ill.

21
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• The ISV Foundation that produced the NIV Bible
  describes dynamic equivalence as follows
• The other method is termed idiomatic? or
  functional equivalent.? The goal of an
  idiomatic translation is to achieve the closest
  natural equivalent in modern language to match
  the ideas of the original text. Idiomatic
  translations have little or no concern for
  maintaining the grammatical forms, sentence
  structure, and consistency of word usage of the
  source languages.
• International standard version New Testament
  Version 1.1. 2000 (Print on Demand ed.). The
  Learning Foundation Yorba Linda, CA

22
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• New Living Translation Committee comments
• A dynamic-equivalence translation can also be
  called a thought-for-thought translation, as
  contrasted with a formal-equivalence or
  word-for-word translation. Of course, to
  translate the thought of the original language
  requires that the text be interpreted accurately
  and then be rendered in understandable idiom. So
  the goal of any thought-for-thought translation
  is to be both reliable and eminently readable.
  Thus, as a thought-for-thought translation, the
  New Living Translation seeks to be both
  exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.
  
• Holy Bible New Living Translation. 1997.
  Tyndale House Wheaton, Ill.

23
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• New Living Translation Committee states
• In making a thought-for-thought translation, the
  translators must do their best to enter into the
  thought patterns of the ancient authors and to
  present the same ideas, connotations, and effects
  in the receptor language. In order to guard
  against personal biases and to ensure the
  accuracy of the message, a thought-for-thought
  translation should be created by a group of
  scholars who employ the best exegetical tools and
  who also understand the receptor language very
  well.
• Holy Bible New Living Translation. 1997.
  Tyndale House Wheaton, Ill.

24
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• On the issue of clarity readability, the New
  Living Translation Bible Committee states
• The translators have made a conscious effort to
  provide a text that can be easily understood by
  the average reader of modern English. To this
  end, we have used the vocabulary and language
  structures commonly used by the average person.
  The result is a translation of the Scriptures
  written generally at the reading level of a
  junior high school student. We have avoided using
  language that is likely to become quickly dated
  or that reflects a narrow subdialect of English,
  with the goal of making the New Living
  Translation as broadly useful as possible. Holy
  Bible New Living Translation. 1997. Tyndale
  House Wheaton, Ill.
• Holy Bible New Living Translation. 1997.
  Tyndale House Wheaton, Ill.

25
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• They continue to state
• But our concern for readability goes beyond the
  concerns of vocabulary and sentence structure. We
  are also concerned about historical and cultural
  barriers to understanding the Bible, and we have
  sought to translate terms shrouded in history or
  culture in ways that can be immediately
  understood by the contemporary reader.
• Holy Bible New Living Translation. 1997.
  Tyndale House Wheaton, Ill.

26
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• The New Living Translation Committee Approach
• 1. They assigned each book of the Bible to 3
  different scholars.
• 2. Each scholar made a thorough review of the
  assigned book submitted suggested revisions to
  the appropriate general reviewer.
• 3. The general reviewer reviewed summarized
  these suggestions then proposed a first-draft
  revision of the text.
• 4. This draft served as the basis for several
  additional phases of exegetical stylistic
  committee review.
• 5. Then the Bible Translation Committee jointly
  reviewed approved every verse in the final
  translation.
• Holy Bible New Living Translation. 1997.
  Tyndale House Wheaton, Ill.

27
II. Dynamic or Functional Approach

• Comments regarding Dynamic Equivalence
• The New King James Committee states
• Dynamic equivalence, a recent procedure in
  Bible translation, commonly results in
  paraphrasing where a more literal rendering is
  needed to reflect a specific and vital sense.
• The New King James Version. 1996, c1982. Thomas
  Nelson Nashville
• \

28
III. Optimal Approach

• WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL OR LITERAL-IDIOMATIC
  APPROACH?
• Part III.
• HCSB NIV

29
III. Optimal Approach

• Optimal Approach as used by HCSB uses the
  following
• Starts with an exhaustive analysis of the text at
  every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence,
  discourse) in the original language to determine
  its original meaning and intention (or purpose).
• Then relying on the latest and best language
  tools and experts, the nearest corresponding
  semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to
  convey as much of the information and intention
  of the original text with as much clarity and
  readability as possible.

30
III. Optimal Approach

• Optimal Approach as used by HCSB uses the
  following
• This process is used to assure the maximum
  transfer both word and thoughts contained in the
  original.
• When a literal translation meets this criteria,
  it is used.
• When a clarity and readability demand an
  idiomatic translation, the reader can still
  access the form of the original text by means of
  a footnote with the abbreviation Lit.

31
III. Optimal Approach

• Criticism of Formal Approach
• In practice, translations are seldom if every
  purely formal or dynamic but favor one theory of
  Bible translation or the other to varying
  degrees.
• Optimal equivalence as a translation philosophy
  recognizes that form cannot be neatly separated
  from meaning and should not be changed (for
  example, nouns to verbs or third person they to
  second person you) unless comprehension demands
  it. The primary goal of translation is to convey
  the sense of the original with as much clarity as
  the original text and the translation language
  permit. Optimal equivalence appreciates the
  goals of formal equivalence but also recognizes
  its limitations. HSCB, xi.

32
III. Optimal Approach

• The ISV Foundation states
• A good translation will steer a careful course
  between word-for-word translation and
  interpretation under the guise of translating. In
  other words, a good translation will be both
  reliable and readable . The best translation,
  then, is one that is both accurate and idiomatic
  at the same time. It will make every effort to
  reproduce the culture and exact meaning of the
  text without sacrificing readability. The ISV
  Foundation calls this type of translation
  ?literal-idiomatic.?
• International standard version New Testament
  Version 1.1. 2000 (Print on Demand ed.). The
  Learning Foundation Yorba Linda, CA.

33
III. Optimal Approach

• The ISV Foundation goes on to say
• Of these three basic types of translationliteral
  , literal-idiomatic, and idiomaticthe
  translators of the ISV have, without hesitation,
  opted for the second. This is not because it
  happens to be the middle option, simply avoiding
  extremes, but because the literal-idiomatic
  translation is the only choice that avoids the
  dangers of over-literalness and of
  over-interpretation discussed above. Teaching
  biblical truth demands extreme fidelity to the
  original text of Scripture. However, a
  translation of the Bible need not sacrifice
  English clarity in order to maintain a close
  correspondence to the source languages. The goal
  of the ISV, therefore, has been both accuracy and
  excellence in communication.
• International standard version New Testament
  Version 1.1. 2000 (Print on Demand ed.). The
  Learning Foundation Yorba Linda, CA.

34
III. Optimal Approach

• Positive Benefits
• A. One can appreciate the sensitivity of this
  approach in view of their attempt to combine
  both the strengths of formal equivalence and
  dynamic equivalence.
• B. Particularly, when clarity and readability
  demands an idiomatic translation, one can
  appreciate the HCSB committee for giving a
  footnote citing the literal form.

35
III. Optimal Approach

• Criticisms
• A. This approach tends to weigh more towards
  dynamic equivalence than formal equivalence
  balance or symmetry is hard to achieve in
  combining both approaches.
• B. While the optimal approach may allow for a
  deeper in-depth Bible study, a formal approach
  is still favored.
• C. Is this approach promising too much?

36
IV. A Closer Look into Translation

• A CLOSER LOOK INTO TRANSLATION
• PART IV.
• Consider the following

37
IV. A Closer Look into Translation

• 1. Who puts together these translations? Can
  they be trusted?
• 2. What are their backgrounds? What are their
  qualifications?
• 3. What procedures do they follow in order to
  safe guard their translations from personal
  biases, preunderstandings, and inconsistencies?
• 4. Are they committed to a certain translation
  approach?
• 5. Are they committed to a certain systematic
  theology?

38
IV. A Closer Look into Translation

• Consider the Revised Standard Version Committee
• The Revised Standard Version Bible Committee is
  a continuing body, comprising about thirty
  members, both men and women. Ecumenical in
  representation, it includes scholars affiliated
  with various Protestant denominations, as well as
  several Roman Catholic members, an Eastern
  Orthodox member, and a Jewish member who serves
  in the Old Testament section, For a period of
  time the Committee included several members from
  Canada and from England.
• The Holy Bible New Revised Standard Version.
  1996, c1989. Thomas Nelson Nashville.

39
IV. Consider the approach used by the ISV
Foundation.

• The ISV Foundation for the NIV has
  the following procedures for translation what
  do you think of their approach in view of checks
  and balances?
• A Committee on Translation , which is
  overseeing the work of translation from beginning
  to end, including the supervision of all
  consultants. These individuals have been selected
  for their competence in biblical studies and on
  the basis of an inter-denominational
  representation of the worldwide Christian
  community.

40
IV. The NIV approach

• A General Editor , who is responsible for
  organizing and directing the work of the
  Committee on Translation. The General Editor
  continually evaluates the project in terms of the
  quality of the translation and the efficiency
  with which the work is being pursued.
• Associate Editors for the Old and New
  Testaments, who are especially capable in the
  biblical languages and exegesis. Associate
  Editors coordinate all Committee procedures
  related to their areas of expertise.

41
IV. The NIV Approach

• After the Committee on Translation produces
  draft translations of the books of the Bible, a
  select group of Contributing Scholars carefully
  reviews the drafts and offers suggestions for
  their improvement. At the same time, an English
  Review Committee checks the translation for
  adherence to modern literary and communication
  standards and suggests stylistic improvements for
  the consideration of the Committee on
  Translation.
• International standard version New Testament
  Version 1.1. 2000 (Print on Demand ed.). The
  Learning Foundation Yorba Linda, CA

42
IV. Consider the NIV Approach

• When the text can be understood in different
  ways, an attempt is made either to provide a
  rendering in which the same ambiguity appears in
  English, or to decide the more likely sense and
  translate accordingly. In the latter case, a
  footnote indicates the alternative understanding
  of the text. In general, the ISV attempts to
  preserve the relative ambiguity of the text
  rather than to make positive statements that
  depend on the translators? judgment or that
  might reflect theological bias.
• International standard version New Testament
  Version 1.1. 2000 (Print on Demand ed.). The
  Learning Foundation Yorba Linda, CA
• Is their a better approach one can use for
  checks and balances?

43
IV. Consider this statement from the editors of
the New King James Version

• In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it
  was deemed appropriate that all participating
  scholars sign a statement affirming their belief
  in the verbal and plenary inspiration of
  Scripture, and in the inerrancy of the original
  autographs.
• The New King James Version. 1996, c1982. Thomas
  Nelson Nashville.
• Is this needed? Why or why not?

44
V. Use of Theological Vocabulary

• WHAT ROLE SHOULD THEOLOGICAL TERMS HAVE IN
  TRANSLATION THEORY?Part V.
• Should words like regeneration,
  sanctification, redemption, propitiation,
  etc. be used or should they too be translated
  using dynamic equivalence?
• Where does one draw the line between readability
  instruction? Is there even a line to be drawn?
  Are we watering down basic theological terms
  by translating them in contemporary words? Are
  we asking too little of our people to know what
  these terms mean in terms of its classic literal
  translation?

45
V. Compare the following regarding Theological
Vocabulary

• HOLY BIBLE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION COMMITTEE
  STATES
• For theological terms, we have allowed a
  greater semantic range of acceptable English
  words or phrases for a single Hebrew or Greek
  word. We avoided weighty theological terms that
  do not readily communicate to many modern
  readers. For example, we avoided using words such
  as justification, sanctification, and
  regeneration. In place of these words (which
  are carryovers from Latin), we provided
  renderings such as we are made right with God,
  we are made holy, and we are born anew.
• Holy Bible New Living Translation. 1997.
  Tyndale House Wheaton, Ill.

46
V. Compare the following regarding Theological
Vocabulary

• THE ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION COMMITTEE
• The ESV also carries forward classic
  translation principles in its literary style.
  Accordingly it retains theological
  terminologywords such as grace, faith,
  justification, sanctification, redemption,
  regeneration, reconciliation, propitiationbecause
  of their central importance for Christian
  doctrine and also because the underlying Greek
  words were already becoming key words and
  technical terms in New Testament times.
• The Holy Bible English standard version. 2001
  (electronic ed.). Good News Publishers Wheaton

47
V. Compare the following regarding Theological
Vocabulary

• HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE
• Traditional theological vocabulary (such as
  justification, sanctification, redemption, etc)
  has been retained in the HCSB, since such terms
  have no translation equivalent that adequately
  communicates their exact meaning.
• Holman Christian Standard Bible (Nashville,
  Tenn. Holman Bible Publishers, 1999, 2000,
  2002, 2003).

48
V. Compare the following regarding Theological
Vocabulary

• THE ISV FOUNDATION FOR THE NIV TRANSLATION
• The ISV uses literary English, avoiding idioms
  that come and go, and is as traditional as
  necessary. Terms such as justification,?
  ?redemption,? atonement,? and the Johannine
  ?abide in? formulae have been retained. Where
  the Committee on Translation determines that a
  word-for-word translation is unacceptable, a
  change can be made in the direction of a more
  current language idiom. In these instances, the
  more literal rendering is indicated in a
  footnote.
• International standard version New Testament
  Version 1.1. 2000 (Print on Demand ed.). The
  Learning Foundation Yorba Linda, CA

49
V. Compare the following regarding Theological
Vocabulary

• 1. What do you think of this issue?
• 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of
  translating theological vocabulary?
• What are the implications of translating classic
  theological terms like justification into
  phrases like we are made right with God?
• THE END