Here's the first of three presentations I've given this semester on various extra-biblical topics. This one revolves around how we translate texts. Enjoy.
Translation Theories and Methodologies
Key Terms
· Formal-equivalence - Word for word translation. Examples: NASB, KJV, and ESV
· Dynamic-equivalence - Thought for thought translation. “If a free translation evokes the same response from its readers as the original did on the readers when the book was first circulated, it has accomplished its purpose[1]” Examples: NIV, TNIV and NLT
· Paraphrase - Extreme version of the Dynamic-equivalence technique wherein the original text becomes a suggestion rather than a rule. Examples: MES and LB
History
The distinction between literal and equivalent translations goes back to the Greeks and their distinction between metaphrase and paraphrase. Our modern terminology dates back to only the early 1960s and linguist Eugene Nida[2]. Through the majority of translation history, biblical translation has been formal. It wasn’t until the late twentieth century that the majority of the dynamic translations began to appear[3].
Pros and Cons
All translations are a trade off. There is no perfect way to translate from one language to another due to vocabulary and grammatical differences in every language[4]. One must accept either a literal text or a readable text or something in between. Formal-equivalence is the more literal technique, but can lead to awkward renderings of the text[5]. Dynamic-equivalence is the more readable, but lacks the exactness of the original text.
Tests
Two tests can be applied to a translation to determine its readability and accuracy.
Cloze Technique – A test used to determine the readability of a translation. Every third to fifth word is removed and a blank left in its place. Readers must then fill in the missing words. The more words that they fill in, the more readable the translation
o Results often reflect more on the subjects rather than the texts being tested.
Wonderly Test -William Wonderly developed a deviation test to determine how close any translation held to the source documents. Since it incorporated objective rules, the results produce a more consistent verdict than did the Cloze Technique. The test involves four steps:
o Take a set passage of scripture and number each word consecutively.
o Matthew 7:19–21 -1pan 2dendron 3mey 4poioun 5karpon 6kalon 7ekkoptetai 8kai 9eis 10pur 11balletai. 12Ara 13ge 14apo 15twn 16karpon 17auton 18epignosesthe 19autous. 20Ou 21pas 22ho 23legon 24moi 25kurie 26kurie, 27eiseleusetai 28eis 29teyn 30basileian 31ton 32ouranon, 34all’ 34ho 35poion 36to 37theleyma 38tou 39patros 40mou 41tou 42en 43tois 44ouranois.[6]
o Translate word for word into English and keep the numbers.
o 1every 2tree 3not 4making 5fruit 6good 7is-cut-down 8and 9into 10fire 11is-cast. 12So/therefore 13indeed 14from 15the 16fruits 17of-them 18shall-know 19them. 20Not 21every 22the 23one-saying 24to-me 25Lord 26Lord, 27shall-enter 28into 29the 30kingdom 31of-the 32heavens, 33but 34the 35one-doing 36the 37will 38of-the 39Father 40of-me 41the-one 42in 43the 44heavens.
o Adjust words to make them acceptable grammatically. Underline each new word added, *(Asterisk) omitted words and CAPITALIZE each word that has to be adjusted.
o 1Every 2tree that does 3not 4BEAR/BRING FORTH 6good 5fruit 7is-cut-down/is-hewn-down 8and 11is-cast/is-thrown 9into the 10fire. 12So/therefore 13indeed 14BY 17their 15* 16fruits you 18shall-know/shall-recognize 19them. 20Not 21-22-23every-one-who-says 24to-me, 25Lord, 26Lord, 27shall-enter 28into 29the 30kingdom 31–32OF HEAVEN, 33but 34–35the one who does 36the 37will 38OF 40my 39Father 41WHO-IS 42in 43–44HEAVEN.
o Assign values based on the type and significance of the change. One point for order changes, two for lexical, and four for additions.
o The example scores a 48 for the 44 word section
o This equates to 108 per 100 words.
Topics for Discussion
In what situations are dynamic-equivalent translated bibles useful? What about paraphrase?
What can be the danger of dynamic-equivalent translations?
What is the best way to avoid interpreter bias for the average church-goer?
What role should the Holy Spirit play in the interpretation process?
Bibliography
Nida, E.A. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
Waard. J. de and E.A. Nida From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.
Thomas, Robert L. How to Choose a Bible Version: An Introductory Guide to English Translations. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2000.
Ryken, Leland and C. John Collins. The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. Wheaton: Crossway, 2002.
Scott, J. W. “Dynamic Equivalence and Some Theological Problems in the NIV.” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (Fall 1986): 355.
Carson, D.A. “The Limits of Dynamic Equivalence in Bible Translation.” Evangelical Review of Theology 9 (1985): 200-213.
[1] Robert L. Thomas, How to Choose a Bible Version: An Introductory Guide to English Translations (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2000), 90.
[2] http://tinyurl.com/mrhq9 (www.nidainstitute.org bibliographical page on Eugene Nida), accessed June 17, 2011.
[3] Thomas, Bible Version, 90.
[4] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004) 125.
[5] Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 214-15.
[6] Example from Thomas, Bible Version, 91-95.
No comments:
Post a Comment