"Pilgrimettes"
From
THE PILGRIM
"Pilgrimettes"
From
THE PILGRIM
"ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE"
by
GARY
R. HUDSON
A common criticism that is hurled against modern translations of the Bible from the "KJV-Only" movement has to do with the use of "DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE" in translating.
Dynamic Equivalence is the method whereby the translator's purpose is not to give a literal, word-for-word rendition but to transfer the meaning of the text as would be best expressed in the words of the receptor [native] language. This differs from what is referred to as "complete" or "formal" equivalence, the more literal approach that characterizes the translations of the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and NASB.
Sometimes the criticism of "dynamic equivalence" especially its occasional use in the New International Version, is legitimate. On the other hand, the KJV-Only bias is very consistent when they fail to admit that even the KJV makes use of dynamic equivalence in several places, such as its translation of 2 Timothy 3:16.
D. A. Waite refers to the practice as "diabolical dynamic equivalence" and dips his pen in gall against the NIV or anyone who would dare use it, yet never discusses the dynamic equivalence of the KJV! This is indeed a deceptive double standard.
Recently in Bible study, I came across a glaring difference between the KJV and the NIV that prompted me to do some investigation.
in John 19:39
The King James Version says —
"And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight." [John 19:39 KJV]
The New International Version says —
"He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds." [John 19:39 NIV]
Well, what was the weight of the spices brought by Nicodemus to anoint the body of the Lord Jesus Christ? The KJV, NKJV, NASB, and RSV all say "100 pounds", but the NIV says it was "75".
First, I thought perhaps there was a difference in the manuscripts at this verse, that the NIV was following some other reading. But the Greek texts read the same here, so that ruled that possibility out. Then, the back of my Greek testament I discovered that a "litra", the word translated "pound" in John 19:39, is only "11.5 ounces" in weight! The word translated "hundred" is the numeral "hekaton", meaning literally "100". This would mean that the actual weight was 71.8 English pounds (Lbs). Rounded off to quarters, "75" is the truer number of pounds for the English reader (and remember it says that it was "about" that much).
The KJV, NKJV, and NASB give a "complete equivalence" here, translating as "a hundred" (hekaton) "pounds" (litras) — but these are Roman pounds. We aren't Romans, we're English-speaking, English-reading Americans! (This should answer the objection commonly raised by the KJV-Only movement against "going to the Greek" when they say, "we're not Greeks!" Well, "we're not Romans either!") For the English reader, "75 pounds" registers more accurately about the actual weight of the spices that the "hundred pounds" used in the KJV, NKJV, and NASB.
In this case, Dynamic Equivalence proved to be more accurate than "formal equivalence" or literal methods. But we are still being told that the KJV and KJV alone is "God's Word to the English-speaking people". Well, for the "English-speaking people", the NIV at John 19:39 is more accurate! People can stomp and shout as loud as they want their emotional preachments about having "the innerant Word of God for the English" in their "hands" in the "A. V. 1611 KJV", but it doesn't answer EVIDENCE. People have gotten emotional about "tongues", "revelations", and "dreams and visions" before too, but that does not make their claims any truer.
Equal fairness and sincere objectivity ought to be the approach of the believer to the study of English translations of the Bible, emotions set aside.
written by Gary R. Hudson former co-editor of Baptist Biblical Heritage
published in Baptist Biblical Heritage, now called THE PILGRIM Magazine
(Issue #6, Vol 2, No. 2, Summer 1991)
by Bob L. Ross
"DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE" in Translating
by JOHN KOHLENBERGER
NOTE: John R. Kohlenberger III is a graduate of Multnomah School of the Bible with an M.A. in Old Testament studies from Western Conservative Baptist Seminary (Portland, Oregon), and has been a part-time faculty member at Multnomah. He is a leading expert and editor on the application of computers to Bible-related reference projects and has produced the NIV Triglot, the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, and co-authored both The NIV Complete Concordance and The NIV Exhaustive Concordance. In the summer of '97, he hosted a workshop called "Understanding the Bible Controversy" which discussed many issues, primarily the use of "inclusive language" in Bible translations. The workshop was videotaped by C-Span and aired in August '97. To order the video, call (800) C-Span-98, — also, an audio cassette is available for $ 8 from the Christian Booksellers Association at (800) 252-1950. A short summary of his views follows, compiled by Lynn Waalkes & published in the September '97 CBA Marketplace —
According to Kohlenberger, there's no such thing as a completely literal translation: both word-for-word (formal equivalence) and phrase-for-phrase (dynamic equivalence) translation styles have been used since the 14th century. Neither translation style determines translation accuracy, he pointed out. Gender-inclusive language has been used in the Greek-Septuagint, the Greek New Testament, and historic English versions — including the King James Version. In fact, the KJV preface stated, "We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identify or words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done."
FEMINIST HOTBED ? Kohlenberger discussed the use of inclusive language in the Septuagint by Jewish rabbis — "hardly a hotbed of feminism" — and by the Apostle Paul when he quoted 2 Samuel 7:14. Modern inclusive translations — with the exception of the Oxford Inclusive Version (New Testament & Psalms, 1995) — aren't driven by a feminist agenda, Kohlenberger added. He emphasized that translators aren't changing the text, just the expression, so that the message will be understood the same way today as when it was written. "We may not like changes in our language," Kohlenberger concluded: "but we have to recognize them and respond to them, or we will miscommunicate or fail to communicate. If we are misunderstood, we have miscommunicated, and we have misrepresented the Word of God."
