Comments on: Review: Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for An Essentially Literal Approach.

By: c. stirling bartholomew

c. stirling bartholomew — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:00:24 +0000

Fellow like this could give literal translation a bad name

By: Mike Aubrey

Mike Aubrey — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:25:05 +0000

As I recall, the concept of dynamic equivalence originates historically from the Christian mission field, as those engaged with translating the Bible wrestled with the task of conveying Biblical concepts and customs to their host culture, which in all likelyhood was very different from that of the ANE or 1st Century Palestine.

Yes, but there’s more to it than that, both in terms of linguistics as well as history.

First, Dynamic Equivalence was just as much a result of linguistic investigation as it was a result of cultural necessity. Nida was a great linguist and there are some who still consider his work to be some of the best work (e.g. Robert Van Valin Jr., in his intro syntax book [2001] recommends Nida’s book on morphology from the 1950′s over everything else written since then.

Secondly, most of the time the fact that these cultures that Bible is translated are pre-modern actually results in cultures that are in many ways significantly closer to ancient culture than we are. We’ve just been reading scripture for the past 2000 years so we tend to think it’s somehow familiar.

By: Tim Goodbody

Tim Goodbody — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:34:59 +0000

Ok, I get it. Mind you, the ESV has a select band fo theology books that it “matches”!

thanks

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:45:05 +0000

Tim:

When I wrote:

“First, on p. 128, Ryken suggests that, ‘[t]he theological language of the Bible needs to match the language of our theology books,’ and further suggests (without evidence, though I believe he is probably correct) that essentially literal translations do a better job.”

I meant that I suspect that essentially literal translations do a better job at matching the language of theology books, not that they do a better job of translating the Bible in general. (I don’t know for sure that they do match, and even if they do, I’m not convinced that that’s a point in favor of the translations, though it’s an interesting issue.)

At any rate, I hope I’m not quoted out of context. My comment “do a better job” only concerned the degree to which the ESV and similar translations match theology books, and at any rate it was only speculation on my part.

By: Tim Goodbody

Tim Goodbody — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:35:01 +0000

Thanks Joel – here’s the thing
you wrote
“First, on p. 128, Ryken suggests that, “[t]he theological language of the Bible needs to match the language of our theology books,” and further suggests (without evidence, though I believe he is probably correct) that essentially literal translations do a better job.”

Which I read as you saying you agree with him that essential literalism is good. Having been reading this blog for a few weeks, this is what confused me.

can you put my mind at rest?

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:25:38 +0000

I try not to “demolish” anything in a review — particularly when an author cares as much about a subject as Dr. Ryken clearly does. But I disagree with him about essentially literal translations. I have always felt that such an approach misrepresents the Bible, and his book did not change my mind. If anything, it reinforced my concerns.

What did I write that was confusing?

By: Night and Day « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

Night and Day « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:58:11 +0000

[...] have reviewed Leland Ryken’s new book on translation. One knows little about the issue and the other knows a lot about it. See the difference. Also check out Bryan’s thoughts on the first [...]

By: Tim Goodbody

Tim Goodbody — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:40:29 +0000

Joel I’m confused.
I feel strongly that word for word representations are not translations in the true sense.Anyone who has to pray the psalms from the 1662 prayer book soon sees that!
I struggle (as someone with academic and practical qualifications in linguistics, translation and theology) to find any engagement with someone like Ryken (wasn’t he in Star Trek?) who would obviously consider me a monstrous liberal.
As I recall, the concept of dynamic equivalence originates historically from the Christian mission field, as those engaged with translating the Bible wrestled with the task of conveying Biblical concepts and customs to their host culture, which in all likelyhood was very different from that of the ANE or 1st Century Palestine.
To reject this in favour of an infantile building block approach like “essential literalism” would be (it seems to me) to reject the foundational principle of Bible translation – to enable others to hear the good news in a language they understand.

This is what Jerome, Tyndale, Wyclif and Cranmer wanted; it is what the GNB, the NLT and the Message (which I don’t think has ever overtly claimed to be a translation btw)intend. For me Bible translation is not about perfection of language, it’s about telling the good news.

One of the things that steered me away from Bible translation as a vocation was the disproportionate amount of work that goes into doing English versions, when there are still many many languages and dialects with NO scriptures available to native speakers. Do we really need another NIV or a Klingon Bible?

I’m also confused about what you really think, as you seem to demolish the approach and content of the book, then at the end you say you agree with Ryken about essentially literal translations (or did I misunderstand you?)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify the situation for me

thanks

By: Two Very Different Reviews « ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ

Two Very Different Reviews « ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:16:51 +0000

[...] Hoffman writes: Unfortunately, Ryken’s work is marred by a disdain for scholarship, rhetoric disguised as [...]

By: Mike Aubrey

Mike Aubrey — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:56:46 +0000

by the way, it needs to be clear what kind of consultant Ryken was: a *English* literary consultant. He doesn’t know Greek or Hebrew and he’s not trained in linguistics & translation — something he consider one of his big strengths.

He’s a gifted literary critic & English writers. I’ve read several of his essays & his major work on Milton’s Paradise Lost with much enjoyment. But this is not his field and it’s clear.