What is dynamic equivalence in Bible translation? Dynamic equivalence, also called functional equivalence, is an approach to Bible translation that prioritizes natural readability and understanding in the target language rather than literal accuracy to the original text. It has been summarized as thought-for-thought translation.

Full
Answer

What is dynamic equivalence Bible translation?

Dynamic equivalence, also called functional equivalence, is an approach to Bible translation that prioritizes natural readability and understanding in the target language rather than literal accuracy to the original text. It has been summarized as thought-for-thought translation.

Is there a translation of Bruce Lee’s introduction to dynamic equivalence?

The whole ideology of “dynamic equivalence” is absent here, and perhaps implicitly rejected. One only needs to quote Bruce’s Introduction to remind people that according to his own description it is an interpretive paraphrase, and not what we should call a translation.

What is dynamic equivalence and why is it important?

However, dynamic equivalence allows readers to understand the text in their own language by removing idioms and rearranging words for a more natural flow in the target language.

What is an example of equivalence in the Bible?

Formal equivalence: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Dynamic equivalence: “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”

What is dynamic equivalence in Bible translation?

According to Eugene Nida, dynamic equivalence, the term as he originally coined, is the “quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors.” The desire is that the …

What Bible versions are formal equivalence?

The NASB is one of the most literal (formal equivalent) translations available. It was produced between 1959 and 1971 by 58 evangelical scholars from a variety of Bible denominations. It is based on the American Standard Version (1 901 ). The NIV is the most popular evangelical translation.

What is dynamic equivalence give an example of it?

Example from the Bible: Nida cites his examples from Bible translation, where the phrase ‘Lamb of God’ would be rendered into ‘Seal of God’ for the Eskimos because the lamb doesn’t symbolize innocence in their culture(1964: 166).

What is a dynamic translation?

(architecture) A virtual machine implementation approach, used to speed up execution of byte-code programs. To execute a program unit such as a method or a function, the virtual machine compiles its bytecodes into (hardware) machine code.

Which translation of the Bible is closest to the original text?

The New American Standard Bible is a literal translation from the original texts, well suited to study because of its accurate rendering of the source texts. It follows the style of the King James Version but uses modern English for words that have fallen out of use or changed their meanings.

Is the ESV Bible a literal translation?

It describes the ESV as a translation that “emphasizes ‘word-for-word’ accuracy, literary excellence, and depth of meaning.” It also describes the ESV as a translation that adheres to an “essentially literal” translation philosophy, taking into account “differences in grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary …

What is the purpose of dynamic equivalence translation?

Dynamic equivalence allows the translator to make edits as needed so the translated text is comprehensible. Oftentimes, the target audience is not familiar with the source language or culture and needs idioms and references explained or localized to make sense.

What best describes the meaning of the term dynamic equivalence?

Usually described as “meaning for meaning” translation, dynamic equivalence is concerned with faithfully expressing the message of the original language in the words and structure of the target language.

What are the two types of equivalence in translation?

There are two main types of equivalence; qualitative and quantitative.

What equivalence means?

Definition of equivalence 1a : the state or property of being equivalent. b : the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction. 2 : a presentation of terms as equivalent.

What is formal equivalence in translation?

What is Formal Equivalence? Formal equivalence is a literal, word-for-word translation. The goal is to stay as close to the original text as possible. The translation will preserve the lexical details, grammatical structure, vocabulary, and syntax of the source text.

What is the difference between formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence in biblical translation?

As previously discussed, dynamic equivalence seeks to mirror the response and impact of the original as closely as possible, whereas formal correspondence prioritizes the consistent matching of linguistic units between the source text and the receptor language on one or more levels.

Is NIV a literal translation?

The NIV is a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought or literal and phrase-by-phrase translations.

What are the 3 types of Bible translations?

Dynamic or formal translation policy Dynamic equivalence translation. Formal equivalence translation (similar to literal translation)

What is dynamic equivalence?

Dynamic equivalence, also called functional equivalence, is an approach to Bible translation that prioritizes natural readability and understanding in the target language rather than literal accuracy to the original text. It has been summarized as thought-for-thought translation.

What does “formal equivalence” mean?

Formal equivalence gives preference to the speaker’s phraseology and dynamic equivalence gives preference to the hearer’s vocabulary.

Why do languages have no equivalents?

Because languages contain concepts and words for which there exist no direct equivalents in other languages, even formal equivalence must use a dynamic approach in such cases. The English word love is a good example. In Hebrew there are two different words for “love” and in Greek there are four. Those six words have different nuance …

Is the King James Version of the Bible a formal translation?

In Bible translation there is a range of how much dynamic as compared to formal equivalence translators use to render different translations. In English, the King James Version (KJV) and the American Standard Version (ASV) are considered formal equivalence translations and the New Living Translation (NLT) and the New International Readers Version …

What is dynamic equivalence?

Dynamic equivalence in translation comes about when translators seek to communicate the Bible into another language on a thought for thought (or sense for sense) basis. Dynamic equivalence translations thus prove a bit freer in how they render individual words in an attempt to make the primary meaning of the text clearer for the English reader.

What is the most popular Bible?

The most popular Bible in modern English is a dynamic equivalence translation: the New International Version (NIV), completed in 1978 and revised in 1984 and 2011. An “easy to read” version written at a third grade level, the New International Reader’s Version (NIrV), was published in 1996; another revision, Today’s New International Version (TNIV) was published in 2005.

How long has the Bible been translated into other languages?

People have translated the Bible, in part or in whole, into other languages for over 2,000 years; throughout most of that time, “formal equivalence” has been the primary philosophy of Bible translation. Formal equivalence in translation comes about when a translator seeks to communicate the Bible into another language on a word for word basis. All of the earliest translations of the Bible into English followed formal equivalence standards; 19th and 20th century revisions to the King James Version maintained formal equivalence in translation.

What is dynamic equivalence?

According to Eugene Nida, dynamic equivalence, the term as he originally coined, is the “quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors.”.

Who coined the term “dynamic equivalence”?

The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, coined by Eugene Nida, are associated with two dissimilar translation approaches that are employed to achieve different levels of literalness between the source text and the target text, as evidenced in biblical translation.

Why is functional equivalence important?

Because functional equivalence approach eschews strict adherence to the grammatical structure of the original text in favor of a more natural rendering in the target language, it is sometimes used when the readability of the translation is more important than the preservation of the original grammatical structure.

What is the difference between formal and dynamic equivalence?

Formal equivalence approach tends to emphasize fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the original language, whereas dynamic equivalence tends to employ a more natural rendering but with less literal accuracy.

Why is formal equivalence more goal than reality?

Formal equivalence is often more goal than reality, if only because one language may contain a word for a concept which has no direct equivalent in another language. In such cases, a more dynamic translation may be used or a neologism may be created in the target language to represent the concept (sometimes by borrowing a word from the source language).

What is the problem with the overlooked semantic differences between alleged equivalents in the source and target languages?

According to Ghil’ad Zuckermann, a major problem lies in the fact that there are completely overlooked semantic differences between a lexical item in the source language and its alleged equivalent in the target language.

What does the eleventh context mean?

In the eleventh context, the expression is used to talk about the devil in Islam. As a result, it can be concluded that no conclusive linguistic evidence has been found in the corpus to support the idea that native Hebrew speakers believe that some malakhím are higher in status than other malakhím.

Who used dynamic equivalence?

Dynamic equivalence, as a respectable principle of translation, has been around a long time. The work of J.B. Phillips and James Moffatt for example were in use a long time before the many later translations were produced. (Both these translators, incidentally, are contented with “the first day of the week” for our example phrase). Phillips especially used dynamic equivalence extensively.

What language was the Old Testament written in?

The scriptures were written mainly in two languages. The Old Testament’s language was Hebrew. The New Testament’s language was the common Greek spoken in the time of Christ and his apostles. Today the scriptures are translated from those languages into hundreds of other tongues.

Why is translation dubious?

Many regard that type of “translation” as dubious dynamic equivalence because it reflects the translator’s own interpretation. If the translator has made a mistake, and got the meaning wrong, then many who read that translation are led to make the same mistake.

Can a translator write an equivalent Greek word?

The translator would not simply write an equivalent English word in place of each Greek word as is done below (Figure 3). A word-for-word replacement is often of little use, because it is only a form of words equivalent, and may not convey the force of meaning (the dynamic equivalence).

Do translators produce in the hearts and minds of their readers an effect quite different to that which the author of scripture produced?

We do need to be aware however, that some translators may produce in the hearts and minds of their readers an effect quite different to that which the author of scripture produced on his original readers. That is certainly not dynamic equivalence, and that is what we ought to be “against”.

Who used the term “dynamic equivalence”?

In this article I will explain the meaning of the term “Dynamic Equivalence,” as it is used in the writings of Eugene A. Nida. I will also draw attention to statements in which Nida acknowledges limitations of the “dynamic equivalence” method.

What is dynamic equivalence translation?

A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message.

What is conformance in translation?

The conformance of a translation to the receptor language and culture as a whole is an essential ingredient in any stylistically acceptable rendering. Actually this quality of linguistic appropriateness is usually noticeable only when it is absent.

What is the closest natural equivalent to the source language?

One way of defining a D-E translation is to describe it as “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message.” This type of definition contains three essential terms: (1) equivalent, which points toward the source-language message, (2) natural, which points toward the receptor language, and (3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation.

What are the two areas of natural translation?

A natural translation involves two principal areas of adaption, namely, grammar and lexicon. In general the grammatical modifications can be made the more readily, since many grammatical changes are dictated by the obligatory structures of the receptor language.

What is formal equivalence?

Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content.

When was the term “dynamic equivalence” introduced?

Nida first introduced the term “dynamic equivalence” in the eighth chapter of his book Toward a Science of Translating(1964), in a section with the heading “Two Basic Orientations in Translating.” Below I reproduce the entire section.

Who coined the phrase “dynamic equivalence”?

This is the basic presupposition of the method of translation called “dynamic equivalence.”. The name of Eugene Nida , an American linguist, is usually mentioned in connection with this method of translation, because it was he who coined the phrase “dynamic equivalence.”.

What is form criticism in the Bible?

Among Bible scholars there is a school which is always inquiring into the genresor rhetorical forms of speech represented in any given passage of the Bible, and also the social settings which are supposed to be connected with these forms. This approach is called form criticism, and it was developed largely by German scholars in the early twentieth century. Among these scholars, whether they be German or English-speaking, one constantly hears German phrases. The social setting is called the Sitz im Leben. The “oracle of salvation” introduced by “Fear not” is the Heilszusage, and so on. When I was in the seminary learning about all this, I at first wondered why it should be necessary to use these German words; but then I learned that the German words are used because they are recognized as technical terms, and the English equivalents are not. Students were expected to learn the terminology of the field, just as in any other field of study.

How many syllables are in the word “elementary”?

The words “electricity,” “unsympathetic,” “congratulations,” and “elementary” are nothard to understand, though each of them has five syllables. There is no necessary connection between the number of syllables in a word and the ability of people to understand it.

Where in the Bible does it say that the words of Christ were not understood?

In several places the Gospel writers mention that the words of Christ were not understood by his own disciples (Mark 6:52; 7:18; 9:32; Matt. 15:16; 16:11; Luke 9:45; 18:34; John 12:16; 16:18), or by his own family (Luke 2:50). Some things in the Bible require much patient reflection to be understood.

Did the Puritans translate the Bible?

So said the makers of the Geneva Bible in their preface. It is very interesting that the Puritans who gave us this version would find in Scripture itself their guidance for a method of translation. The Apostles themselves were translators, after all. They did not give us a complete translation of the Old Testament, choosing rather to use the familiar Septuagintin their ministry to the Greek-speaking nations; but in a number of places where they quote from the Old Testament they do not use the Septuagint, and give us their own rendering. From these examples we can see readily enough that the inspired authors of the New Testament favored literal translation, with Hebrew idiomsand all carried straight over into Greek. 1And why? Undoubtedly they believed that there was something significant in every word of the Scripture, as do some of us today. In any case, the Bible was certainly not written in idiomatic and colloquial Greek, as some defenders of dynamic equivalence have claimed. A truer estimate is made by E.C. Hoskyns:

Who is the influence of this rather questionable missiology on translation theory?

The influence of this rather questionable missiology on translation theory is noticed by D.A. Carson, who also suggests that an institutional bias is at work:

Is it possible to combine a low formal communication load with a relatively high semantic load?

It is possible, of course, to combine a low formal communication load with a relatively high semantic load (especially by the inclusion of allusions) and to produce thus a very acceptable piece of literature or translation.

What is dynamic equivalence?

Just as formal equivalence sacrifices clarity to retain authorial intent, dynamic equivalence sacrifices remaining true to the original text in order to be eminently readable. Dynamic equivalence is not without controversy. At its most liberal, dynamic equivalence can feel more like a paraphrasing than a translation.

Who coined the term “dynamic equivalence”?

Eugene Nida, who coined the term “dynamic equivalence,” inspired the translation known as the Good News Bible, which has been popular with children, English learners, and Protestant denominations that value the accessibility of Scripture. The most popular translation employing dynamic equivalence is the New International Version, or NIV, which has been a bestselling edition since its release in 1978 and is overwhelmingly popular among evangelical Christians.

What is formal equivalence in translation?

Formal equivalence in translation, broadly speaking, seeks to translate the text word-for-word, tacking as close to the original source material as the recipient language allows. In pursuing formal equivalence, translators necessarily sacrifice a degree of clarity for contemporary readers who may struggle with pronouns, conjugations, and sentence structures that don’t read as gracefully as the modern spoken word. At the other end of the continuum, even formal equivalence must bear context in mind and settle for translations of idioms that would be inscrutable to a speaker of anything but the source language.

What is the opposite of formal equivalence?

The counterpart to formal equivalence is dynamic equivalence, or functional equivalence. Here, rather than seeking to translate as close to word for word as possible, dynamic equivalence attempts to translate “thought for thought.” Despite the changes, or dynamics, of the text, the ideas behind the words remain intact, or functionally the same. Just as formal equivalence sacrifices clarity to retain authorial intent, dynamic equivalence sacrifices remaining true to the original text in order to be eminently readable. Dynamic equivalence is not without controversy. At its most liberal, dynamic equivalence can feel more like a paraphrasing than a translation. Let’s take, for example, John 3:16, one of the most famous verses of the Bible, as written in the formally equivalent King James Version:

What is the difference between the ASV and the NASB?

The two versions differ most significantly in their regard for the tetragrammaton, or the formal name of God: the ASV uses “Jehovah” while the NASB uses the more familiar “lord” or “god” in deferenc e to the Jewish tradition of not using the true name of God.

Which Bible is the best known?

The King James Version of the Bible, the first English translation of the Bible to achieve royal authorization and widespread distribution, is not only the best-known edition of the Bible, but also the best example of formal equivalence. A committee of Biblical scholars convened to translate from the original Hebrew and Greek as closely as possible.

What is the lost translation of the Bible?

The phrase “lost in translation” exists for very good reasons. The books that compose the Holy Bible predate Modern English by centuries. The Old Testament, which the Jewish people know as the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, was written in Classical Hebrew, not only a non-Indo-European language unrelated to English, but an archaic version …

What is formal equivalence?

Formal equivalence, or complete equivalence, is also known as literal translation, or a word-for-word translation. The idea behind formal equivalence is to render the text in the same form as the original. This can also mean using the same word order as the original language. With formal equivalence each word of the original language is represented …

What is dynamic translation?

The dynamic translation wants to bring across the meaning of the original.

Why are literal translations so difficult to read?

Translations which stress formal equivalence are usually well-suited for Bible study because of the attempt to literally translate the text. The problem with literal translations is that they are sometimes difficult to read. Readability is often sacrificed for accuracy.

What does the Bible say about girding your mind for action?

For example, in 1977, the New American Standard Bible translated the phrase literally, “gird your minds for action.”. The 1995 update made the text clearer by paraphrasing it, “prepare your minds for action.”. This example points out the impossibility of having a purely literal translation.

Why is it important to study the Bible in a literal translation?

It allows the person to interpret the Scriptures for themselves. Because care is taken to render the text as close as possible to the original, it makes it easier to study the Scripture in a formal translation.

What is formal equivalence in translation?

With formal equivalence each word of the original language is represented by a word in the target or receptor language. Examples of formal equivalence in translations would be the American Standard Version of 1901, the New American Standard Bible, …

What does the New Testament say about sick people?

For example, often when the New Testament speaks of people who were sick, the literal reading of the Greek text is “having it badly.” Therefore, a literal reading of Matthew 4:24 would be, “And they brought to him all the ones having it badly with various diseases and torments.”

What can we learn from these examples of formal and dynamic translations?

I’ve deliberately tried to not input my theological beliefs or opinions in this text (although I discussed them in the video a bit). I believe that the main thing is to be aware of the issues and type of decisions being made.

What is the ESV in the NLT?

The ESV only includes the first preposition, meanwhile the NLT decides to explain what each other the list means. This is perhaps the clearest example of a classic formal to functional debate. 3. Gender pronouns. One of the issues across translations is how to translate various gender pronouns.

Is scripture God breathed?

All scripture is God-breathed. Each is an attempt to reflect the original meaning (which comes from the Greek words for God and breath) and implications based on Genesis. Some of these decisions, however, make it easier to come to certain theological perspectives.

Does the NASB have a preposition?

The NASB follows the original Greek by including a preposition (for) before each of it’s list of purposes. All the other translations take some decisions to make it sounds either more natural to modern ears, or to clarify more complex terms.

Overview

Bible translation

Approaches to translation

Theory and practice

Overlooked semantic differences between alleged equivalents in the source and target languages

See also