Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 06/01/2005 02:29, Bill Rea wrote:

> Peter wrote:-
>
>  
>
> > ...(You might
> > find some interesting data at
> > http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/studies.htm, although you
> > might not agree with some of the criteria used there.) Or is the
> > difference simply that it was prepared in part as a revision of what you
> > call a paraphrase?
> >    
>
> I read some of the stuff at the about link. My objection that
> somehow they think they are the final authority on what is
> correct and what is wrong. ...

I don't think that is fair to Wayne Leman's attitude. He consistently 
makes it clear that his studies are based on certain assumptions which 
he makes explicit. If you want to discuss this further with him (and 
perhaps me), the best place is probably the b-trans list, see details at 
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/list/. Wayne Leman is the 
main moderator of this list, but is happy to accept reasonable criticism 
of his work.

> ... In all my years of looking at English
> versions I have never (with one exception) been left wondering why the
> translators chose a particular wording. I have only found one place
> where I would categorically declare the version to be ``wrong''.
>
> If you take Amos 4:6 as an example from the above set of studies,
> there is a wide variety of renderings. Leman thinks using
> ``cleanness of teeth'' is wrong. I think that's what you would
> expect to find if you purchased a word-for-word type Bible. You
> buy such versions so you, the reader, have to do the work of figuring
> out what it means. ...

This is a good example. A sophisticated and highly educated reader may 
realise that they need to work on figuring out the meaning in context of 
"cleanness of teeth". An ordinary person reading this, with limited 
understanding of the background, will not realise that there is a 
problem but will understand it according to their own context and 
presuppositions. And, within a western society, their first thought will 
be that God has blessed his people with a new improved variety of 
toothpaste! What to you and me is an obvious anachronism (although 
presumably even then people may have made some effort to keep their 
teeth clean) is in fact how many people would understand that verse.

> ... What about the rest? e.g.
>
> I gave you empty stomachs in every city
> I brought hunger ...
> I was the one who brought famine ...
> I, the LORD, took away the food ...
> I left you with nothing to eat ...
>
> These are all paraphrases to me. ...

No, they are "dynamic equivalence". This kind of change is fundamental 
to the principle of dynamic equivalence. TEV has "famine", in fact both 
"cleanness of teeth" and "lack of bread" are combined into this one 
word, and this is the version you named your prototypical dynamic 
equivalence translation - for good reason, because this was also Nida's 
prototypical DE translation.

> ... Perhaps a better choice for an
> example is Jer 6:10 also from the above study.
>
> their ear is uncircumcised
> their ears are closed
> they are stubborn and refuse to listen to your message
>
> The way I would classify these as word-for-word, dynamic equivalence,
> and paraphrase. ...

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of dynamic equivalence as 
defined by Nida and others. The rendering you call "paraphrase" is from 
TEV which you list as "Dynamic Equivalence". So I think your categories 
have become confused here.

> ... The binary right/wrong division of Wayne Leman doesn't
> come into it because it misrepresents where on the spectrum these
> versions sit, the intention of the translators when they prepared
> them, and the requirements of the reader. On the last point, the reader
> requirements vary depending on whether they are reading publically,
> for private devotional purposes, or acedemically for theologcal
> or other study.
>  

Wayne would be the first to recognise that different audiences and 
audience requirements require different translation styles and 
methodologies.

> One final example, Gen 27:41, the following are word-for-word, dynamic
> equivalence, and paraphrase to me:-
>
> Esau said in his heart
> Esau said to himself
> He thought to himself
>
> Here Leman accepts the second and third as right and rejects the first as
> wrong. If you told me the third is dynamic equivalence I wouldn't object.
>
> Back to the NLT and similar.
>
>  
>
> > in what way does the NLT
> > differ so widely from the TEV, Dynamic Equivalence,
> >    
>
> I don't own a copy, I only know it from passages people have either
> read aloud or asked me about. There is a tendency for some preachers
> to ``version shop'' to find the ``juiciest'' rendering. Perhaps I only
> hear its excesses because that's what appeals to, or disturbs, them.
>
> Leman's biases are quite clear when you have accuracy figures like:-
>  

They are quite clear when you read his definition of accuracy.

> NASB(1995) 37.5%
> JPS(1985)  58.3%
> TEV        91.7%
>
> I think a better way of assessing accuracy is to count how many times
> a version departs from its stated place on the version spectrum.
> If the NASB rendered Ps 75:5 as ``Don't lift your fists in defiance
> at the heavens'' then I would say it did its readers a disservice at this
> point, while for the paraphrases it would be just fine.
>  

Good point. The problem is that many translations don't state their 
"place on the version spectrum", and even claim to be the one version 
suitable for all. Of course it is the marketing people who make such 
claims, because the market simply wouldn't be large enough if restricted 
to the audience for which the translation is actually suitable.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005