Last post I admitted to my early inadequate understanding of Nida’s theory of Bible Translation. I would like to underline the same again here with three examples:
Example 1: One of my favourite lecturers mentioned one day that the current dominant method of Bible Translation is (was, in 2002) Nida’s Theory of Dynamic Equivalence. I went home confused because I knew that the majority of recent English Bibles did not favour such a theory. I also knew that Nida had since abandoned the term ‘Dynamic Equivalence’ in favour of ‘Functional Equivalence’ (see example 2 below). I then realised that my lecturer was not referring to Bibles made in English but Bibles made in languages other than English. The point is important: Nida’s theory of Bible Translation was primarily developed for, and within, the context of African languages.
Example 2: The point is well captured by the following quote from Glenn J. Kerr, "Dynamic Equivalence and Its Daughters: Placing Bible Translation Theories in Their Historical Context," Journal of Translation 7, no. 1 (2011): 6:
By this point [1986] the term “dynamic equivalence” had taken on a life of its own to such an extent that the originator of the term abandoned it. Most of the time when someone—even a scholar or translator—speaks of dynamic equivalence, they do not mean what Nida meant. In fact, the principles and practices that are found in Toward a Science of Translating and The Theory and Practice of Translation are unlikely to be understood by someone without significant experience in the multiple-language setting of Bible translation or a linguist experienced in translation theory. What seems to have happened is that readers of Nida ignored the specific methodology, applying dynamic equivalence broadly. Any style of translation that is not overtly literal, that has any degree of equivalence, whether paraphrase, summation, cultural adaptation, or even free variation, has been called dynamic equivalence. The term had become so imprecise as to be unusable. Therefore Nida, repudiating those imprecise applications, rejected “dynamic equivalence” in favor of “functional equivalence.”Example point 3. The primary example of a Bible in English that employed Nida's Theory, was The Good News Bible (originally Today's English Version) which in the United States had to change its name again to The Good News Translation. The name change reflected the fact that English Bibles that were not using formal equivalence (word-for-word approach) were being perceived as 'paraphrases' rather than as translations. This perception still remains somewhat (particularly in the US) namely that idiomatic attempts at translation are not legitimate forms of 'translation proper'.
Three examples are enough (for a whole series of misunderstandings perpetuated by Roland Boer and opposed by Ernst Wendland and Stephen Pattemore see their article mentioned in my previous post).
Next post I would like to give three positive 'understandings' concerning Nida's theory and approach.
