Thanks for the examples, Wonderment. These demonstrate the problem quite well. I personally go for FE translations with lots of footnotes so that I can form a personalized opinion of the text. DE translations often incorporate the understanding of the translator, who might not always be impartial. The following is a short discussion of FE and DE translation, for those who are interested in the subject.
Formal-Equivalence Translation: Question: What did the original text say?
Against DE Translation, we have the accurate, word-for-word translation called
Formal Equivalence translation, abbreviated as FET, FE for short. A literal or
FE translation would closely follow the original language and could be viewed
as scientifically accurate and correct. This type of translation would be
adapted to the language of the original text. FE Translations (e.g.,, Aquila) could be used to establish the original text as
well as pronunciation. [i]
FE translation attempts to
retain the language forms of the original in the translation, regardless of
whether or not they are the most natural way to express the original meaning.
Sometimes when original forms are retained, the original meaning is not
preserved. When people speak of some versions of the Bible being literal, they
are referring to ones which have been translated with FE approach.
FE translation is
essentially the same as word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translation is
the lay term, while formal equivalence translation the technical term. Although
FE translations have weaknesses in terms of readability, overall preservation
of original meaning, and impact, they are useful for helping one understand HOW
meaning was expressed in the original text. They can help us see the beauty of
original idioms, rhetorical patterns, such as Hebrew poetic parallelism, and
how individual authors used certain vocabulary terms uniquely. It is not so
easy to appreciate these factors from reading idiomatic translations, because
these factors are related to form and idiomatic translations are willing to
lose original form to maximize preservation and understandability of original
meaning.
R.
Timothy McLay, translator of NETS Daniel, suggests that the Theodotion (or
proto-Theodotian) version of Daniel is mainly a FE translation. In the modern
era, the literal interlinear translation is classified as a pure FE
translation. To a lesser extent The New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV), 1990 edition, would qualify as a FE
translation. The translators of such a translation would work on the premise:
‘As literal as possible, as free as necessary’. They would used paraphrase or
explanatory notes only in exceptional cases, for example to elaborate on the
feminine third person singular pronoun.[ii]
Admittedly
this type of translation could cause ambiguity. Footnotes can be used to clear
this up. This is the case with the NRSV. Here the translators used footnotes to
list different meanings or translation possibilities.
Dynamic-Equivalence Translation: Question: What did the author mean?
Language experts aptly apply the word ‘dynamic’ to the receptor language – that
the receptor language is flexible and dynamic and in no way have to duplicate
the original language. This mode of translation applies what is translated to
the translator’s vernacular. Archaic words, phrases, and idioms are modernized
by replacing them with similar words, phrases, and idioms or by explaining
them.
DE
translation is free, idiomatic translation, by nature figurative and
speculative. Word order and sentence structure of the original text are changed
and adapted to the receptor language. Either additional words and phrases are
repeated without indicating it by means of cursive script (to warn the reader)
or they are completely ignored. Mostly such a translation would be an
invaluable help at interpreting the original text, but would be unable to
assist in determining the original text (cf. Aramaic Targums and LXX).
The
LXX and Aramaic Targums are classical examples of DE translations. Both are
viewed as barometers of the religious climate of their time. They are typical
DE translations because of their explanatory nature. R.
Timothy McLay, translator of NETS Daniel, suggests that the OG version of
Daniel is mainly a DE (or Functional Equivalence translation) translation. G. Bertram puts the problem
in perspective by saying: “The Septuagint
belongs to the history of Old Testament interpretation rather than to the
history of the Old Testament text. It
can be used as a textual witness only after its own understanding of the Old
Testament text has been made clear.” [Cursive script added.][iii]
The New Testament in Modern
English of J.B. Phillips, The Living Bible of Dr. Kenneth N.
Taylor, the New Living Translation, and
Today's English Version are modern
examples of DE translation.
[i] John R. Kohlenberger III, Words About the Word, Regency Reference
Library, 1992 edition, pp. 62, 63.
[ii] The
New Greek English Interlinear New Testament, The New Revised Standard
Version, New Testament Introduction, p. xiii, 1990 edition.
[iii] E. Würthwein, The Text Of The Old Testament An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, p. 66. See also S.
Ortlepp, Introduction to the
Interlinear Bible, pp. 37, 54, 55.
