Bibles: Paraphrase vs. Dynamic equivalent
Anyone have a good concise definition of the difference between the two?
NIV is classified as a dynamic equivalent, and The Message is a paraphrase. I know them when I see them, but how would you explain the difference?
(To be more accurate NIV claims a philosophy that is a balance between formal and functional equivalence)
Just to set the parameters of the query: I am not looking opinions about their worth, just a good, viable definition.
Oh, one more side question, has anyone made collections based on the translation philosophies of the English bibles?
Comments
-
Terry,
I looked around and didn't see a clear distinction between the two....hmmm....the definitions seem the same...
I have not made a collection like you describe; though my "favorite bibles" run the gamut...one end of the translation philosophy to the other...
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
How to choose a bible version is a great Logos resource if you have it start at page 89 and read on. If you do not here is a graphic from that resource you may find helpful. I have not found a need to set up english bible collections as such, but if I did, I would use this chart as a starting point.
0 -
John Fidel said:
How to choose a bible version is a great Logos resource if you have it start at page 89 and read on. If you do not here is a graphic from that resource you may find helpful.
Thanks John, the problem is explaining this to others without them having the background to understand the difference. I am starting a new SS class that is going to stress inductive methodology, which works best with a modern english "literal" translation (Actually best is original language<GRIN>), it can be done moderately well with a balanced version such and NIV or NET, I have no clue how to do it with The Message. Now the "How to Choose a Bible" uses that standard two translation philosophy, which would be the fist two columns of the chart, but really doesn't define paraphrase except as being at the far end of the Dynamic Equivalence spectrum.
And maybe that is the answer, there is no answer. Just a warning that the farther they get from the literal end of the spectrum, the harder it will be to extract data from the words their bible uses.
0 -
Mike Aubrey said:
Mike, I think the quote from one of the comments on your site sums it up best for me:
"One thing seems clear to me, even from the blog post and the responses
thus far, which are really more or less in agreement: there’s not going
to be any real consensus on what translation ought to be in any near
future. The questions will continue to evoke wide-ranging differing
views."0 -
Hi Terry,
The issue is not black and white. However the further right one goes in the chart the less "word for word" the translation becomes and at some point become more commentary than biblical translations. Where that point is depends on many things.
Actually if you define "literal translation" as the translating meaning from one language to another, the the formal equivalent texts may actually accomplish this better and could be called "more literal." For your purpose, with the intent to get as close to the original text in translation rather than meaning, the texts to the left suite that purpose better.
I think you are going to have a great class!
0 -
Terry Poperszky said:Mike Aubrey said:
Mike, I think the quote from one of the comments on your site sums it up best for me:
"One thing seems clear to me, even from the blog post and the responses
thus far, which are really more or less in agreement: there’s not going
to be any real consensus on what translation ought to be in any near
future. The questions will continue to evoke wide-ranging differing
views."Carl is a brilliant man and I consistently defer to him on issues related particularly to Classical Greek history & grammar, but on this particular one he's wrong and speaking outside his field. The apparent "wide-ranging differing views" actually have significant more agreement than you could imagine. But the ability to recognize that requires one to spend a significant time reading people like Nida, Sperber & Wilson, Gutt, and Larson. That's actually much of the point of behind Mildred Larson's book Meaning Base Translation.
But nobody reads those people. They're comfortable with reading the preface descriptions of translation methodology and then move on to assume that a preface to the NLT that uses the words (both inadequately & inaccurately) "thought for thought translation" is the end all for comprehending what Dynamic/Functional Equivalence translation actually is.
Worse still are those highly misleading graphs that place translations & paraphrases on a spectrum from "literal" to "paraphrase."
Ironically, so-called "literal" translations actually have significantly more in common with a paraphrase than than any *true* Functional translation. Why? Because both "literal" translations such as the NASB & ESV and also paraphrases such as The Message or the Living Bible rely at least upon intuition for determining the meaning of a text than they do focusing on being with the question of how languages mean.
0 -
John Fidel said:
Actually if you define "literal translation" as the translating meaning from one language to another, the the formal equivalent texts may actually accomplish this better and could be called "more literal." For your purpose, with the intent to get as close to the original text in translation rather than meaning, the texts to the left suite that purpose better.
This point deserves to be quoted. That is exactly why I like the NIV/TNIV.
0 -
Mike Aubrey said:
But nobody reads those people. They're comfortable with reading the preface descriptions of translation methodology and then move on to assume that a preface to the NLT that uses the words (both inadequately & inaccurately) "thought for thought translation" is the end all for comprehending what Dynamic/Functional Equivalence translation actually is.
Mike, I am going to quote the current President of the United States, and claim this subject is above my pay grade. Please understand, my audience isn't a college classroom, but an adult SS Class and if I tried to address this issue, at this level with the attendees their eyes would glaze over in about 60 seconds. My hope is to create a hunger in them for God's Word and right now I will be happy if I can convince them that Jesus didn't speak in Elizabethan English. No, isn't really that bad, because the people in my church that believe that have learned to avoid me [;)]
Frankly, this is a concept that I wrestle with. I doubt seriously if Jesus discussed these issues with the disciples as they read from the Septuagint, but I do find it interesting.
0 -
Jeremy said:
This point deserves to be quoted. That is exactly why I like the NIV/TNIV.
Jeremy, it is the reason that I study from the NASB(1995) and preach/teach from the NIV and my Top Bibles include paraphrases. I believe they all have a place (even The Message), but only if we understand their purpose. I have an extensive wood shop, with a multitude of tools, no one tool is better than any other at doing the job it was designed for. The problem starts, when I grab a screw driver when what I really need is a pry bar. [:D]
0 -
I highly recommend How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss. I used this as a basis of 2 lessons I taught my SS class to help them understand the difference and purpose of various translations.
The earlier post that used the analogy of "tools" is exactly right. I use a variety of translations as "tools" in my Bible study. Some are more suited for certain tasks than others. Each has certain weaknesses as well.
I use the parallel passage feature in Logos to quickly compare my frequently used translations.
0 -
Terry Poperszky said:
Mike, I am going to quote the current President of the United States, and claim this subject is above my pay grade.
We all have our specialties.
Terry Poperszky said:My hope is to create a hunger in them for God's Word and right now I will be happy if I can convince them that Jesus didn't speak in Elizabethan English.
I can say Amen to that.
0 -
Terry,
Well, my hope had been that I could answer your question a little more technically. I think I missed on that one. Here's another attempt:
A Functional/Dynamic translations is based on linguistic & translational theory and methdology -- it's going to seek to represent parts of the meaning of the original that are explicit in a word for word approach (i.e. pragmatic meaning).
A paraphrase tends to begin with the English text and 2) is going to be significantly more dependent upon the paraphraser's intuition about the meaning of the text without necessarily having recourse to grammatical or linguistic justification for that particular expression of the meaning of the original.
0 -
Actually you did help me refine my understanding of the difference, so your effort was not totally lost. Plus you introduced me to the well thought out arguments concerning the use of intuition in the word-for-word translations. A discussion that I am going to do some more research into.Mike Aubrey said:Well, my hope had been that I could answer your question a little more technically. I think I missed on that one. Here's another attempt:
Mike Aubrey said:A Functional/Dynamic translations is based on linguistic & translational theory and methdology -- it's going to seek to represent parts of the meaning of the original that are explicit in a word for word approach (i.e. pragmatic meaning).
A paraphrase tends to begin with the English text and 2) is going to be significantly more dependent upon the paraphraser's intuition about the meaning of the text without necessarily having recourse to grammatical or linguistic justification for that particular expression of the meaning of the original.
Mike, this is exactly what I was looking for and while I will probably end up simplifing it a bit more, it works.
As you teach a class, your students become aware of your beliefs about things such as study methodology and translation philosophy a little bit at a time. For me in starting a new class, I am being challenged to define what information I need to present up front to make sure that communication is not hampered. In academia, you can do this by requiring prerequisites, in the church, not so much. I will have a very limited time to deal with technical details, before losing their interest. Because my wife and I are going to be basing our studies on inductive methodology, the type of translation that a person is using becomes more important than one where a study guide is issued with set text to be examined and questions to be answered.
Thanks again for everyones response.
0 -
Terry Poperszky said:
Because my wife and I are going to be basing our studies on inductive methodology, the type of translation that a person is using becomes more important than one where a study guide is issued with set text to be examined and questions to be answered.
Interesting observation.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Interesting observation.
Would you care to expand on the comment? I would be interested in your thoughts.
0 -
Terry Poperszky said:
Would you care to expand on the comment?
This caught my attention because it was the opposite of what I would have said, but I could see an argument for his side.
What I would have said was that application is one hallmark of the inductive system. Application can often be personal - adjusted to one's particular personality, failings and strengths. Thus it is more dependent upon the Holy Spirit than some other forms of Bible study. Given that it is the Holy Spirit's work, the translation is less important. Somehow I don't think the Holy Spirit is hamstrung by the translation.
Study guide questions, on the other hand, are written with a particular answer and translation in mind - much more a human endeavor where translations can skew the message.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
This caught my attention because it was the opposite of what I would have said, but I could see an argument for his side.
What I would have said was that application is one hallmark of the inductive system. Application can often be personal - adjusted to one's particular personality, failings and strengths. Thus it is more dependent upon the Holy Spirit than some other forms of Bible study. Given that it is the Holy Spirit's work, the translation is less important. Somehow I don't think the Holy Spirit is hamstrung by the translation.
M.J., I couldn't agree with your remarks about application and the Holy Spirit more. I think though that we are looking at opposite ends of the process. God is God, and can do anything he wants, but I believe that the very first thing you need to do in an inductive study is find out what the author was trying to say. I recently sat in a bible study where the phrases "I believe it means this" and "this is what this means to me" where prevalent, but little attention was being paid to the words on the page. Some of the concepts that were following those statements were diametrically opposed to what was written. If scripture can mean anything, then in reality it means nothing.
So, back to where this started, my personal experience (and a generalization that doesn't always hold true) is that the farther a translation is from the words of the original languages, the harder inductive study becomes. I realize (thanks to Mike), that not everyone shares this viewpoint but as far as a generalization goes, it has worked for me. I am not as concerned about the particular translation, as I am the translation philosophy.
When a foundation is laid through understanding the text, then begins the personal process of application through the power of the Holy Spirit. I am using as a flow chart for the class:
Pray
Read
Think (Meditate)
Speak
Apply
0 -
Terry Poperszky said:
Pray
Read
Think (Meditate)
Speak
Apply
I really like this summary. Too often prayer is omitted from the list and think/meditate/ruminate is simplified to observe.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Thank you
0 -
Terry Poperszky said:
My hope is to create a hunger in them for God's Word and right now I will be happy if I can convince them that Jesus didn't speak in Elizabethan English. No, isn't really that bad, because the people in my church that believe that have learned to avoid me
In college I was a professor's assistant, grading papers and the like. I was grading some freshman Bible papers and the assignment was to make observations about a passage. One student observed that "Jesus spoke in plain English." I about fell out of my chair laughing... It's easy to forget that the implications of translation are lost on people until they are taught. I'm sorry this anecdote is off topic and in a slightly old thread, but I just had to share!
Prov. 15:23
0 -
Kevin Becker said:
'm sorry this anecdote is off topic and in a slightly old thread, but I just had to share!
Kevin, as the OP, I declare your observation neither off-topic, nor out of date [:D]
0 -
Terry Poperszky said:
Anyone have a good concise definition of the difference between the two?
At the risk of over-simplifying (& all who want to go deeper should feel that I've done so), my "in-a-nutshell" understandings (short of a definition, but useful for the parish) are:
- dynamic equivalent ~ thought-for-thought
- paraphrase ~ same idea in colloquial language
I didn't use = in describing them, because it isn't equal (defined), only ~ approximate.
I suppose my descriptions would be paraphrases of real definitions?[:D]
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
BillS said:
At the risk of over-simplifying (& all who want to go deeper should feel that I've done so), my "in-a-nutshell" understandings (short of a definition, but useful for the parish) are:
- dynamic equivalent ~ thought-for-thought
- paraphrase ~ same idea in colloquial language
I didn't use = in describing them, because it isn't equal (defined), only ~ approximate.
Bill, that's the common explanation for laypeople. But I would suggest it has done more to confuse what Dynamic/Function methodology is and has caused far, far more damage from the local church all the way through the seminary and beyond precisely because it is far too simplistic (to say nothing of inaccurate).
0 -
Here is a good article on this topic:
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CIC/translations.pdf
Pastor Mike Borgstede
LCMS
0 -
Terry, thanks so much, I too have just started a class, a little different age group (high school age) and find myself wallowing a bit. Your stated desire to encourage reading of the Word, pretty much sums up my desire as well. I so appreciate your flow chart, I may have exchanged Speak and Apply, but that may be a personal preference. I feel the need to walk in a principal practically a little to give time for the Lord to make adjustments to it, before saying too much.
After studying the translation subject a little (very little compared to other posters), I feel a little daunted in attempting to establish the authority that the Word needs to have in our lives. The greatest help I've found so far is based in Jn 1:1 showing that the Word of God is inseparable with the Person of God, thus Jesus IS the Word. We speak rightly of the Word as the Living Word of God, and practically we see it's power in our own lives and the lives of others. We spent the last 4 Lord's Days speaking about the technicalities of manuscript accuracy, and translation methods etc, but now comes the part that is most necessary, to encourage actual time with the Lord in prayer reading and meditation, all with the attitude of submission to the absolute authority of God.
I would value any additions or subtractions from these thoughts
0 -
Mark Sutherland said:
I would value any additions or subtractions from these thoughts
Hi Mark and welcome to the Forums.
Unfortunately our forum Guidelines discourage such discussions. If you can rephrase your questions as to how the Logos software may help you in this matter, please do so. Further more, please start a new thread with a new Subject.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Kevin Becker said:
One student observed that "Jesus spoke in plain English." I about fell out of my chair laughing.
I was not popular with our theological college principal when I expressed disagreement with him. He said we need the high language of the Authorised version. I mentioned that the NT was written everyday, non-literary Greek, and not always very good Greek [:P]
This is a response to an ancient post, but the subject of the thread is important to me. I paraphrase unashamedly in order to make the Word of God comprehensible to those among whom I work, who mostly have little education and many of them can't read. I think we have lost many people who used to come to our Bible study group because they couldn't understand the Bible in front of them. And our society is closer to the world of the Bible than Western society. When studying the marriages of Jacob, the women said that everything we heard about here had happened in Albania, most of it here in our village!
In order to story, paraphrase or use dynamic equivalents, we need, as far as possible, to understand the text we are adapting. I got Logos to help me do this. I particularly recommend UBS Translators' handbook, which helps the reader understand the meaning of the original ext, and gives useful hints for translating this faithfully in a way that people in another culture can understand. It's expensive (may be cheaper simply to upgrade to gold, when it comes in the base package), but has been worth every cent to me. It's normally the first commentary I turn to.
0 -
Terry Poperszky said:
Anyone have a good concise definition of the difference between the two?
We can imagine translation philosophies as being on a scale where on one end we have formal equivalence and on the other paraphrase with dynamic equivalence in between. Any given translation may fall anywhere on that scale, even landing between formal, dynamic, or paraphrase.
As a rule of thumb, you can kind of think of it like this (although its beit of an oversimplification)
formal equivalence: word-for-word
dynamic equivalence: phrase-for-phrase
paraphrase: sentence/paragraph for sentence/paragraph
0 -
Jumping in a bit late here...
I recently read "The Word of God in English" - http://www.amazon.com/Word-God-English-Excellence-Translation/dp/1581344643/ .
I highly recommend this book for issues of translation, "dynamic equivalence", literalism, etc. The author has a strong viewpoint, but he's up front about that. Note that I did find the book as a free .pdf a couple of months ago, I believe on the ESV's web site (www.esv.org).
Donnie
0
