Dynamic equivalence and theological terms in Bible translations : with special reference to 'righteousness', 'flesh', and 'in Christ'

(1)

DISSERTATIONS | LEENA HARTUS | DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND THEOLOGICAL TERMS IN BIBLE... | No 151

uef.fi

PUBLICATIONS OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology

Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology

PUBLICATIONS OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

LEENA HARTUS

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND THEOLOGICAL TERMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

This research studies, how to translate theological terms that are vital to understanding Christian theology. The emphasis is on the theory of dynamic

equivalence, since it has had a long impact on Bible translation work around the world. Dynamic

equivalence deals with a question, how to mediate the message of the original text to a new audience.

But has the theory resulted in losing central theological concepts, such as ‘righteousness’,

‘flesh’, and ‘in Christ’?

LEENA HARTUS

(2)

(3)

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND THEOLOGICAL TERMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ‘RIGHTEOUSNESS’,

‘FLESH’, AND ‘IN CHRIST’

(4)

(5)

Leena Hartus

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND THEOLOGICAL TERMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ‘RIGHTEOUSNESS’,

‘FLESH’, AND ‘IN CHRIST’

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology

No 151

University of Eastern Finland Joensuu

2020

(6)

Grano Oy Editor: Matti Kotiranta

Sales: University of Eastern Finland Library ISBN: 978-952-61-3346-1 (print)

ISBN: 978-952-61-3347-8 (PDF) ISSNL: 1798-5625

ISSN: 1798-5625 ISSN: 1798-5633 (PDF)

(7)

Hartus, Leena

Dynamic equivalence and theological terms in bible translations. With special reference to ‘righteousness’, ‘flesh’, and ‘in Christ’.

Joensuu: Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2020

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland

Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology; 151 ISBN: 978-952-61-3346-1 (print)

ISSNL: 1798-5625 ISSN: 1798-5625

ISBN: 978-952-61-3347-8 (PDF) ISSN: 1798-5633 (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The topic of the research is to study how theological terms that have a wide range of meanings have been translated. I chose three case studies, three terms, that are important in Christian theology, namely dikaiosu/nh, sa/rc and e)n Xristw?~. All of these are used in a variety of contexts in the Bible. They are also polysemic words or expressions. This poses a problem for Bible translations: how to mediate the original message of the text to a new audience.

Equivalence is an important concept in translation studies. The translation should be equivalent to the original text. Formal equivalence means that the grammatical form and structure are equivalent to the original text. The main idea in dynamic equivalence is that the impact of the translation on its intended audience is similar to the impact of the original text on its original audience. The theory was developed by Eugene A. Nida.

This theory and its later developments have been popular in the Bible translation world.

There are also other translation theories, but even though they are more modern, they do not offer tools in solving the problem of translating theological terms.

I used the linguistic methods of semantic and pragmatic analysis to study the words dikaiosu/nh, sa/rc and e)n Xristw?~. Semantic analysis deals with the definitions that dictionaries give to these terms. While doing the pragmatic analysis, I studied how the terms have been used in the Bible. I divided the occurrences of the terms into three categories or semantic domains, and I chose two examples from each category, one from the OT and one from the NT, to study them in more detail. The third part of this research was to study how these terms have been translated in different types of translations. I studied translations in three languages, namely Finnish, English, and German, and I chose three translations per language. One of them was formal, one dynamic, and one thoroughly dynamic.

The first result of this research was that the dynamic translations tend to vary their translational equivalents, while formal versions use the same word almost every time.

Dynamic versions use mostly clear and up-to-date language, but formal ones are not always so clear to the reader. According to this research, the translations managed to mediate the message to their intended audience quite well, but in some cases, the language was complicated, so the message was not clear. There were also cases when translators had wanted the text to be easy to understand for their intended audience, and they had simplified it so that the original message may not be mediated properly to the reader.

Keywords: Bible translation, theological terms, Eugene A. Nida, dynamic equivalence,

(8)

(9)

Hartus, Leena

Dynaaminen ekvivalenssi ja teologiset termit raamatunkäännöksissä. Esimerkki - ta pauk sina ’vanhurskaus’, ’liha’ ja ’Kristuksessa’.

Joensuu: Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2020

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland

Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology; 151 ISBN: 978-952-61-3346-1 (nid.)

ISSNL: 1798-5625 ISSN: 1798-5625

ISBN: 978-952-61-3347-8 (PDF) ISSN: 1798-5633 (PDF)

TIIVISTELMÄ

Tämän tutkimuksen aiheena on tutkia, kuinka teologisia termejä on käännetty eri tyyppisissä raamatunkäännöksissä. Olen valinnut kolme esimerkkitapausta, jotka kaikki ovat tärkeitä kristillisen teologian kannalta. Nämä ovat dikaiosu/nh, sa/rc ja e)n Xristw?~. Kaikkia näitä termejä tai ilmauksia käytetään erilaisissa konteksteissa Raa- matussa. Ne tuottavat haasteita raamatunkääntäjille: kuinka on mahdollista välittää alkuperäinen viesti uudelle kohdeyleisölle niin, että näiden termien merkitys säilyy.

‘Ekvivalenssi’ eli vastaavuus on tärkeä käsite käännöstieteessä. Käännösten tulisi vastata alkuperäistä tekstiä. Formaalinen vastaavuus tarkoittaa, että käännöksessä kieliopillinen muoto ja rakenne ovat vastaavia kuin alkuperäsessä tekstissä. Dynaa- misen vastaavuuden perusajatuksena taas on, että käännöksen vaikutus omaan koh- deyleisöönsä on samanlainen kuin alkuperäisellä tekstillä oli alkuperäiseen kohde- yleisöön. Tämän teorian on kehittänyt Eugene A. Nida. Teoria ja sen myöhemmät versiot ovat olleet suosittuja raamatunkäännöstyössä. On myös olemassa uudempia teorioita, mutta ne eivät tarjoa uusia työkaluja teologisten termien kääntäjämiseen.

Olen käyttänyt kielitieteen metodeja, semanttista ja pragmaattista analyysia tut- kiessani termejä dikaiosu/nh, sa/rc ja e)n Xristw~?. Semanttinen analyysi sisältää merki- tykset, joita eri sanakirjat antavat näille sanolle. Pragmaattinen analyysi taas käsittelee sitä, kuinka näitä sanoja on käytetty Raamatun teksteissä. Olen jakanut jakeet, joissa nämä sanat tai ilmaukset esiintyvät, kolmeen kategoriaan ja olen valinnut esimerk- kitapauksia näistä kategorioista, yhden VT:sta ja yhden UT:sta, voidakseni tutkia tarkemmin kuinka sanoja käytetään. Kolmas osa tutkimustani on tutkia, kuinka näitä termejä on käännetty eri tyyppisissä käännöksissä. Tutkin suomen-, englannin- ja sak- sankielisiä käännöksiä. Olen valinnut kolme käännöstä jokaisella kielellä, joista yksi noudattaa formaalista ja yksi dynaamista ekvivalenssia. Kolmas valittu käännös on ns.

radikaali dynaaminen versio, joka seuraa dynaamista ekvivalenssia vielä tarkemmin kuin edellä mainittu dynaaminen käännös.

Tämän tutkimuksen mukaan dynaamiset käännökset käyttävät selkeää kieltä, kun taas formaaliset käännökset ovat usein vaikeammin ymmärrettäviä. Tutkimukseni mukaan käännökset pääasiassa onnistuivat välittämään alkuperäisen viestin koh- deyleisölleen, mutta joissain tapauksessa käännöksen kieli oli monimutkaista, joten viesti saattoi jäädä lukijalle epäselväksi. Joissain tapauksissa kääntäjä oli halunnut yksinkertaistaa käytettyä kieltä, mikä on johtanut siihen, että alkuperäinen viesti ei välttämättä välittynyt lukijalle.

Asiasanat: Raamatun kääntäminen, teologiset termit, Eugene A. Nida, dynaaminen

(10)

(11)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The process of making a Bible translation is often a long journey, with many challenges and twists on the way. James L. Crenshaw describes the process of translation:

Ideally, I suppose, the translator remains invisible, functioning like a window, thus allowing viewers on each side to see clearly. In reality, a translator builds a bridge connecting two different countries, and visitors cross in either direction. This journey between two quite different lands seeks to familiarize foreigners with every hill and valley from one end of the country to the other. No single trail accomplishes the goal;

instead, one travels along the path of etymology, the winding road of idiom, the avenue of context, the cul-de-sac of sound, the street of signs. Furthermore, one needs to be alert to the politics inherent to the translator’s task, whether overt or covert. However innocuous windows and bridges appear to be at first glance, they conceal conscious decisions at every turn, for translators inevitably interpret. Like interpretation, translation demands art and artifice.¹

My journey of studying Bible translations and theological terms has also been a long one, with challenges and some twists on the way, but it has also been a journey full of joy of learning something new. I would like to thank all of those who have supported me on this journey. I am especially grateful to my supervisor, professor Lauri Thurén for his guidance and support throughout the whole process. I am also grateful to lecturer Anssi Voitila, who gave me feedback and valuable comments that helped me to claryfy and improve the text. I would also like to thank pre-examiners of the thesis, Antti Laato and Niko Huttunen, whose remarks were constructive and helpful. I am also thankful for Mikael Agricola -foundation and the Philosophical faculty in the University of Eastern Finland for supporting my work financially.

I am also grateful for my family, friends and colleagues, who have accompanied me on this journey and encouraged me to carry on. I would like to dedicate this work to all of those who have been willing to learn a new language and culture, in order to be able to bring the Word of God to people who have never heard it in their own language before.

Vammala, February 2020 Leena Hartus

1 Crenshaw 1995, 51.

(12)

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: sa/rc in Rom 8:3 ... 20

Table 1.2: Translation types ... 27

Table 1.3: Rom 3:21‒22... 29

Table 1.4: Theories of ‘meaning’ according to Akmajian et al. ... 37

Table 1.5: Different types of presuppositions ... 39

Table 2.1: Translations used in this research ... 43

Table 3.1: Hebrew background of dikaiosu/nh ... 62

Table 3.2: Greek-English Lexicon: semantic domains of dikaiosu/nh ... 65

Table 3.3: The usage of dikaiosu/nh according to the semantic domains ... 70

Table 3.4: dikaiosu/nh in legal sense ... 72

Table 3.5: The Structure of the Isaiah Apocalypse according to Goldingay ... 73

Table 3.6: dikaiosu/nh as the right way of living ... 78

Table 3.7: dikaiosu/nh and saving acts of God ... 83

Table 3.8: Translations used ... 88

Table 3.9: Formal translations... 89

Table 3.10: Dynamic translations ... 90

Table 3.11: Thoroughly dynamic translations ... 90

Table 4.1: Translational equivalents of rc*b* in the LXX ... 112

Table 4.2: Hebrew background of sa/rc ... 113

Table 4.3: Greek English Lexicon: semantic domains of sa/rc ... 114

Table 4.4: The usage of sa/rc according to the semantic domains ... 119

Table 4.5: Usage of sa/rc as concrete sense ... 121

Table 4.6: Usage of ‘flesh’ in abstract sense ... 126

Table 4.7: Usage of sa/rc in expressions ... 131

(16)

Table 5.1: The word ‘Christ’ according to the semantic domain ... 156

Table 5.2: e)n Xristw|~ and salvation according to Grundmann ... 160

Table 5.3: ‘In God’ and ‘in the Lord’ formulae in the OT text ... 162

Table 5.4: Examples 1–2 in the formal translations ... 164

Table 5.5: Examples 1–2 in the dynamic translations ... 165

Table 5.6: Examples 1–2 in the thoroughly dynamic translations ... 165

Table 5.7: Use of e)n Xristw?~ in the NT ... 167

(17)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Different functions and text types ... 26

Figure 1.2: Original communication ... 32

Figure 1.3: A literal translation into the receptor language ... 32

Figure 1.4: An adjusted translation into the receptor language ... 32

Figure 1.5: Some varieties of meaning... 36

(18)

(19)

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE TOPIC OF THE RESEARCH

The topic of this research is how to translate theological terms or expressions that have a wide range of meanings and a long history of interpretation. The problem is further complicated by the various situations in which Bible translations are made in the modern world: some translations are made in a context where there is a long Christian tradition, while others are made in a missional context, where this does not exist.

The ideal of a translation as a whole has changed through the years. In some periods of time, the ideal was to imitate the source text as closely as possible, and in other times, the ideal was to produce a text that was closer to paraphrasing than translation.¹ Translations are also made to meet different needs: some of them are made for popular reading, such as manuals for household equipment, and some are for experts only, such as an academic article published in a scientific journal.² This is also true for Bible translations: some of them are made for a special group only, and some for popular reading. For example, the thoroughly dynamic translations used in this research are often made for average people who may not have any connection to the church.³

The first translation theories were developed in the 1950s, even though there had been plenty of discussion on the topic for centuries.⁴ Linguistic theories, which were the first systematic formulation of translation, were rudimentary. They were mostly descriptive theories, explaining how some particular cases should be translated.⁵ Communicative theories were developed in the 1960s, and the most popular one of these is dynamic equivalence. The father of the theory was Eugene A. Nida, who presented his major ideas in the book Towards the science of translating. These ideas were revolutionary at the time.⁶

The main point in dynamic equivalence is that the impact of the translation on its audience should be similar to the impact of the original text on the original audience of the text.⁷ It is difficult to measure the impact of a text on its audience, especially when there is a historical and cultural gap, so Nida developed his ideas towards being a functional theory: the translation should have a similar function to the original text.

Nida and Jan de Waard have stated that functional equivalence is not essentially different from dynamic equivalence. Both terms refer to a rendering of a source text

1 Nida 1964, 11‒14; Nida & Taber 1974, 1.

2 Nida 1964, 156.

3 For example, the Finnish translation Uusi testamentti nykysuomeksi (UTN): Rintala 1972, 162; Räisänen 1972, 174.

4 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 35.

5 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 35–36.

(20)

item in its closest natural equivalent in a receptor language.⁸ Since Nida has written out his dynamic theory in a more detailed way than the functional development of the theory, I will concentrate on the dynamic theory in the theoretical part of this research. I will, however, use Bible translations that are described as either dynamic, functional, or communicative in this research.

Several other translation theories have been developed since Nida’s theory, such as skopos theory and Katharina Reiss’ theory. These do not, however, offer new tools in translating theological terms, but they deal with other translational issues.⁹ Dynamic and functional equivalence, on the other hand, deal with the problem of literal or not- literal translation, which is the topic of this research. In addition, dynamic equivalence has been popular and more influential in the Bible translation world, and there are several Bible versions that advertise themselves as being dynamic, functional, or communicative. The purpose of this research is to study Bible versions, and that is why I will concentrate on dynamic theory and its later developments instead of other, more modern translation theories.

I will take a closer look at one problem that is common to both dynamic and functional equivalence, and that is how to translate term-like words that are used in the Scriptures. These often have a wide range of meanings. They are used in different senses in the text, but these senses have at least some common features. Translation of these words has been problematic, partly for that reason, and so on some occasions, translation becomes more an explanation of the text, in which translators have tried to explain what is meant by the author in that particular context.

Translating the theological terms that are widely used in the Bible poses a challenge to a translator. Firstly, there is a problem in using word concordance: these words often have wide range of meanings and they are used in a variety of contexts. Languages differ from each other, and the semantic fields of the words do not often match in two different languages. Therefore, using the same word as a translational equivalent may not be the best way to mediate the message of the original text. But then, if word concordance is not used and the words are translated according to their context, which is an idea promoted by the theory of dynamic equivalence, using different words as translational equivalents in different contexts, this can lead to a situation in which the reader of the Bible translation does not see the connection between these contexts and does not learn the important concepts of Christian theology. Michael Marlowe raises the question of whether, if the words are not mentioned in the Bible translation used by majority, we shall, at some point, lose these concepts from our theology.

A wide issue in Bible translation as a whole is how to translate theological terms or concepts from one language to another, and that is why I take two term-like words as examples. These are dikaiosu/nh ‘righteousness’ and sa/rc ‘flesh’. Both of these are polysemic words, and they have new kinds of meanings in the Septuagint (LXX) and in the NT, which are not used in other Greek texts. Part of this is due to the Hebrew background of the Greek in the LXX and NT.

I will also study the expression e)n Xristw~? ‘in Christ’. This is not considered as a term as such, but it is used more or less consistently by Paul in the NT text. It is

8 Statham 2003, 111.

9 Reiss’ theory is concerned with different text types and how that affects the translation. The main idea in skopos theory is that the translation should always have an aim (skopos). A more detailed description of these two theories can be found in section 1.2.4.

(21)

used in a variety of contexts, and it has a wide range of meanings, and that is why it is interesting to study how it has been translated in different types of translations.

The expression sounds unnatural in Finnish. According to the theory of dynamic equivalence, the language of the translation should be natural and easy to understand for the implied audience. That is why the translation committee of the 1992 Bible in Finnish first translated the expression according to its context, and without using the

‘in’ form. The expression was, however, replaced in the text in several cases, because, according to the critique presented by Heikki Koskenniemi and Jukka Thurén, it was as unnatural to a source text audience as it is to modern-day readers.¹⁰ Reasons to choose these three examples are that they are frequently used in the Bible, especially by Paul, and they are important concepts in the Christian faith.

The issue of translating theological terms has been resolved in several ways in different types of translations, and the result is that formal or so-called literal translations may be complicated to a reader who is not familiar with Christian theology, and dynamic translations are easier to understand, but it may be possible that, instead of translating the text, the translator is explaining the text to the reader.

Another problem with dynamic translation is how a reader of the translation can learn those concepts that are vital to understanding Christianity if they never see them in the Bible translation. In this research, I am firstly studying the meaning of these three terms; secondly studying what kinds of translational equivalents they get in different versions; and thirdly studying the theological backgrounds of the translations, if possible, and whether the translators have made theological interpretations that can be seen in the text.¹¹ James L. Crenshaw describes well the role of a translator in his commentary on the book of Joel.

Ideally, I suppose, the translator remains invisible, functioning like a window, thus allowing viewers on each side to see clearly. In reality, a translator builds a bridge connecting two different countries, and visitors cross in either direction. This journey between two quite different lands seeks to familiarize foreigners with every hill and valley from one end of the country to the other. No single trail accomplishes the goal; instead, one travels along the path of etymology, the winding road of idiom, the avenue of context, the cul-de-sac of sound, the street of signs. Furthermore, one needs to be alert to the politics inherent to the translator’s task, whether overt or covert. However innocuous windows and bridges appear to be at first glance, they conceal conscious decisions at every turn, for translators inevitably interpret. Like interpretation, translation demands art and artifice.¹²

There are two widely used Bible translations published by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland in Finnish from the last century: the older one was published in 1933 (OT) and 1938 (NT), and the more recent one in 1992. The older translation was based on formal or semantic equivalence and word concordance. The term-like words are almost always translated the same way, with the same words. The 1992

10 RKK 1989, 521–523.

11 The translations used in this research are presented in more detail in the following section, but they are mostly Protestant translations, or made in co-operation with several denominations.

12 Crenshaw 1995, 51.

(22)

Bible was based on dynamic equivalence, and in line with the theory, there is no word concordance. Terms discussed here are mostly translated according to context. For example, Paul mentions sa/rc three times in Rom 8:3. It is translated as ‘flesh’ in the older translation, but in the 1992 Bible, the word ‘flesh’ is not mentioned at all, but it is translated in a different way each time. The same kind of difference is seen in two English translations, the King James Version (KJV) (1611) and the New International Version (NIV) (1984), as shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: sa/rc in Rom 8:3

Nestle-Aland King James Version New International Version To_ ga_r a)dun/aton tou= no/mou

e)n w{? h)sqe/nei di/a th/v sarko/vsarko/v, o( qeo/v to/n e(autou= ui3on pe/

mpsav e)n o(moiw/mati sarko_vsarko_v a(marti/av kai/ peri_ a(marti/av kate/krinen th_n a(marti//an e)n th=? sarkisarki/

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh.

For what the law was powerless to do, that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in likeness of sinful man to be as sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,¹³

Translators of the NIV have combined dynamic equivalence and tradition, and it is more conservative in its choices of translational equivalents.¹⁴ The KJV is an old and formal translation, and it is not so easy to understand if one is not familiar with the text. The NIV, on the other hand, is more understandable, but the problem is that the reader does not learn major Christian concepts, because they are not mentioned in the Bible. The translator is interpreting the text already, and this does not let the reader do that. So what should be done with these term-like words? According to Nida’s dynamic theory, they should be translated according to their context.¹⁵

The topic of this research is to study the theological terms dikaiosu/nh, sa/rc and the term-like expression e)n Xristw?=, how they are used in the Scriptures, and how these terms are translated. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a term is a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses or is peculiar to a science, art, profession, or subject. One example of that, according to Merriam-Webster, is legal terms.¹⁶ One feature in translating theological terms is that these terms are not always seen as terms, as are terms, for example, in natural science. It is true that not all theological terms necessarily fit the definition mentioned above, but these words are often polysemic.

Heikki Räisänen, who was in part making a new translation of the NT into popular Finnish, Uusi testamentti nykysuomeksi (UTN), commented that these terms are not part of natural Finnish language, and so these terms were replaced with other expressions in the UTN translation.¹⁷ Another point of view was presented by James D. G. Dunn in his treatment of the Pauline concept of sa/rc. The word has a wide range of meanings

13 The Holy Bible, NIV 1992. The text is from the NIV 1984 revision. The text includes a footnote saying: “or flesh”. The 2011 revision of the NIV uses the word ‘flesh’ twice: “For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,”.

14 Kela 2007, 20.

15 Nida & Taber 1974, 15‒16.

16 Merriam-Webster.

17 Räisänen 1972, 176‒177.

(23)

that form a spectrum of usages, but Paul used it in such way that it is not always clear in which part of the spectrum the word is used in any particular case. Dunn’s conclusion was that it should be translated with the same word each time.¹⁸

Even though these three terms that have been chosen as case studies have a wide range of meanings, and they may not fit the definition of a term, they are highly important in Christian theology, and they are frequently used by various biblical authors. These usages range from a concrete sense to a highly theological one. The clearest example of this phenomenon is the word sa/rc, which in several cases refers to the concrete substance of flesh, but is also used, especially by Paul, in an abstract or theological sense. A more detailed study of sa/rc is made below, in Chapter 4. In the next section, I will present some examples of translation theories and also some terminology that is used in literature concerning translations. Section 1.3 deals with the methods I will be using in my study, namely semantic and pragmatic analysis.

1.2 TRANSLATION THEORIES

The first part of this section deals with two terms that are frequently used in translation studies. The rest of it deals with the history of translation theories, with special reference to the theory of dynamic equivalence.

1.2.1 Terminology

Here I present two major terms that are used in translation studies. These are equivalence and adequacy. Equivalence is a central term in earlier translation theories, and adequacy in later ones.

Equivalence

Equivalence can be dynamic, functional, semantic, or formal, depending on the theory on which the translation is based. The idea is that a translation should correspond to a source text according to its dynamics, function, semantics, or grammatical form.

Semantic and formal equivalence are more concerned with smaller units: for example, words in the translation should be comparable with words in the source text. Dynamic and functional equivalence are concerned with larger units.¹⁹ At first, formal equivalence was the ideal of a translation: the grammatical form of the translation is almost the same as that of the source text. Later on, semantic equivalence became more popular:

understanding the message is more important than the form of the translation.²⁰ Nida then developed the theory of dynamic equivalence in the 1960s. This means that the impact of the translation on its audience is similar to the impact of the source text on its original audience. Formal equivalence focuses on the form and content of the message of the source text, while dynamic equivalence, later termed functional equivalence,

“aims at complete naturalness of expression” in the target text.²¹

18 Dunn 1998, 70.

19 Ingo 1990, 96‒100; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 90‒92.

20 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 29‒30.

21 Hodges 2009.

(24)

Adequacy

Equivalence was seen as impossible to reach, and as a shackle to a translator. All previous translation theories were concerned with the relationship between a source text and its translation, so that the translation should be equivalent to its source text, according to its form, semantics, dynamics, or function. Later, the focus changed to the relationship between a translation and its receivers. This means that the ideal of a good translation is changed: a translation should be adequate in its own context, and not necessarily equivalent to its source text.²²

1.2.2 The history of translation

The history of translation or interpretation is long, but there are not so many theories of translation. The development of linguistics led to the development of translation theories. There are two types of theories: linguistic and communicative ones, and I will present some examples of both. This section will give some background to Nida’s theory, dynamic equivalence, which will be presented in section 1.2.5 in an overview of ideas that have been presented through the ages.

Translation and interpretation started in the early empires of the world. There were translators or interpreters, for example, in Babylon and Egypt. According to Inkeri Vehmas-Lehto, the first translators to formulate their theories about translation were Cicero and Horace.²³ Cicero said that there are two types of translation work: 1) ut interpres, which means literal translation, and 2) ut orator, which means that a translator chooses words from the target language and is not translating word for word, but in larger units. The first systematic theories of translation were developed much later. It could be said that from Cicero to the 1960s, the main theoretical discussion focused on two questions: 1) is it at all possible to translate, and 2) when translations are made and needed, how should one translate, literally or more freely? This question is the same one that Cicero dealt with: what is the ideal of the translation.²⁴

There are some Bible translations from the early days, the best known being the Septuagint (LXX), the translation of the OT from Hebrew to Greek, which was translated in the 2^ndcentury BCE. This showed that the Scriptures can be translated and still be accepted as a holy text. The most influential of these early translations has probably been Vulgate, translated by Jerome. This consists of the whole Bible, and it was translated in the 4^th century CE. Jerome’s principle as a translator was: “sense for sense, not word for word”.²⁵

The Renaissance brought Hebrew and Greek into focus in scholarship and interest:

this was one of the reasons for new Bible translations by Martin Luther in Germany and William Tyndale in England, for example. There were also Bible translations in Dutch, Bohemian, and French. According to Nida, Luther and Tyndale followed the same kinds of principles of translation: 1) shifts of word order, 2) employment of modal auxiliaries, 3) introduction of connectives when these were required, 4) suppression of Greek or Hebrew terms that have no acceptable equivalent in German,

22 Ingo 1990, 116; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 90‒92.

23 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 22‒23, 30.

24 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 22‒23, 30.

25 Nida 1964, 13.

(25)

5) use of phrases where necessary to translate a single word in the original, 6) shifts of metaphors to non-metaphors and vice versa, and 7) careful attention to exegetical accuracy and text variants.²⁶

Later on in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, secular translations were rather more like paraphrasing than translation. In contrast, Bible translators were more careful or faithful to the source text. The most influential Bible translation made during this time is the King James Version (1611). The translators did not have any new principles or theory of translation, but they chose the best features of the older translations. The KJV was not accepted at first, but later it became not just accepted but popular, and it has had a long influence on Bible translation work around the world.²⁷

Things changed in the 19^th century: the Victorian age produced translations that were more literal, and their interest was in details and form. The English Revised Version of the Bible (1881 and 1885) and the American Standard Version (1901) are good examples of that time. Words in these translations are in English, but the grammar is not.²⁸ The 20^th century brought a new interest in Bible translation work, and this meant that it expanded rapidly. There are some important factors that influenced it: the foundation of different organisations such as SIL International and Wycliffe Bible translators, the foundation of Bible translator journal and the development of linguistics and translation theories from the 1950s onwards.²⁹

Translation studies and theories have their background in the development of linguistics in the 1950s. Theories are usually divided into two groups: linguistic and communicative. Linguistic translation theories were the first theories, and they were developed in the 1950s and the 1960s. The focus was on the language. The ideal translation according to these theories was semantic equivalence between the source text and the translation.³⁰ I will first go through some examples of linguistic theories in the next section, and after that I will present some examples of communicative translation theories.

1.2.3 Linguistic translation theories

Linguistic translation theories were interested in language and translation problems;

in other words, how to translate when it is not possible to translate according to formal equivalence, which was the ideal for a translation. These theories are based on the idea that it is possible to say the same thing in other words in another language. Linguistic translation theories usually compare the functions of particular units of the source language and the target language in the source text and the translation. Another factor that linguistic theories have in common is classification of the differences in the grammar and the vocabulary in the source text and the target text. Even though

26 Nida 1964, 14‒15; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 30.

27 Nida 1964, 17‒18.

28 Nida 1964, 20‒21.

29 Nida 1964, 21‒22.

30 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 35‒36.

(26)

these theories are now seen as very limited, they are still useful in some cases in solving translation problems.³¹

There are a number of linguistic translation theories, and I have chosen two theories for closer examination. I chose the theory of Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, because this is a famous one, and it represents linguistic translation theories quite well. On the other hand, J. C. Catford’s theory is important because it is seen to be in between linguistic and communicative theories.³²

Vinay and Darbelnet

Vinay and Darbelnet presented their theory in 1958. Their book is a contrastive analysis of English and French. According to them, the choice is not between literal and free translation, but between exact and inexact translation. The major theoretical contribution in the book is the classification of translation procedures.³³ These are:

1) Borrowing: This is used in the translation of unfamiliar words, for example

‘sauna’ is often borrowed from Finnish to other languages.

2) Calque: Loan translation of a syntactic unit, but its individual elements are translated literally. For example, the term ‘science-fiction’ is used in a number of languages.

3) Literal translation: When languages are closely related, it is sometimes possible to make a natural word-for-word translation.

4) Transposition: Replacing one word-class with another, without changing the meaning. For example, ‘He announced that he would return’ could be ‘He announced his return’.

5) Modulation: Variation of the message due to a change in the point of view: when a literal translation is not natural in the target language. There are several types of modulation; for example, the means versus the result: the English ‘firewood’

in French is bois de chauffage, meaning ‘wood for heating’.

6) Total syntagmatic change: The source language and the target language differ from each other, and the same thing is expressed in a different way. Proverbs are classical examples of that: ‘Like a bull in a china shop’ in French is Comme un chien dans n jeu de quilles ‘like a dog in a game of skittles’.

7) Adaption: This is used when the situation to which the message refers does not exist at all in the target language. Then the translator must create a reference to a new situation, which is judged to be equivalent.³⁴

J. C. Catford

J. C. Catford published his theory in 1965, at about the same time as Nida’s dynamic equivalence. The main concept of his theory was situational equivalence, not semantic:

“In total translation, source language and target language texts or items are translation equivalents when they are interchangeable in a given situation.” He makes a distinction between textual equivalence and formal correspondence. Each language has its own meaning, and that is why translation does not have the same meaning as the source

31 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 35‒36.

32 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 43, 47.

33 Vinay & Darbelnet 1989, 61.

34 Vinay & Darbelnet 1989, 62‒69.

(27)

text. This theory is a descriptive one and does not evaluate whether a translation is correct or not. Catford himself treats all translations as correct.³⁵

The most used material in his theory concerns translation shifts. These shifts are departures from formal correspondence.³⁶ These are: 1) Level shift: a source language item at one linguistic level has a target language translation at a different linguistic level. For example, in the phrase она заплака ‘she burst into tears’, the Russian prefix za- is translated with the verb ‘burst’.³⁷ 2) Category shift: departures of formal correspondence. Category shifts are divided into:

1. unit-shift: one item is translated with an item from a different level. For example, the Finnish word kuusikko is translated as ‘cluster of firs’. The morpheme -kko is translated uusing a word;³⁸

2. structure-shift: the structure of the source language is translated with another kind of structure in the source language. For example, in the English phrase

‘you have a cottage’, ‘you’ is the subject. When translated into Finnish, Teillä on mökki, teillä is an adverbial;³⁹

3. class-shift: the word-class or unit class of the source language is changed in the translation. For example, in the English phrase ‘a medical student’, the word

‘medical’ is an adjective, but in Finnish translation lääketieteen opiskelija the trans- lational equivalent, lääketieteen is a noun;⁴⁰

4. intra-system-shift: when the grammatical systems of the source language and the target language are similar, but when translating, the place of the word or structure is different in the target language. For example, the English word

‘trousers’ is in plural form, but the equivalent in French is a singular form.⁴¹

1.2.4 Communicative translation theories

Communicative translation theories were developed later than linguistic ones, and the dynamic equivalence developed by Nida was the first one. Nida was a linguist, so his theory still has a linguistic touch.⁴² Communicative theories differ from linguistic theories: according to them, translation is communication, with a signal and a message.⁴³ There have been several other theories since dynamic equivalence. Dynamic theory (or its later developments) has been very influential in Bible translations around the world, however, and that is why this study concentrates on that theory. I will present two examples of other communicative theories before introducing dynamic equivalence in more detail. These are functional equivalence theories, which are very

35 Catford 1989, 70

‒

71; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 47‒48, 52‒53.

36 Catford 1989, 70‒71, 74‒79; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 48.

37 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 48

‒

49.

39 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 50‒51.

41 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 51‒52.

42 Nida’s theory will be presented later more fully in 1.2.5.

(28)

close to Nida’s dynamic equivalence. I took as an example Reiss’ theory, which is a functional theory, and skopos theory, by Vermeer. This has been popular in the translation world.⁴⁴

What will be seen is that skopos theory, even though it is popular in the translation world today, has not actually offered new tools to solve the problem of translating theological terms. That is why I will concentrate on the theory of dynamic equivalence and its later developments in this research.

Katharina Reiss’ theory

The major idea in Reiss’ theory is the existence of different text types. According to her, texts are divided into three types: informative, expressive, and operative. A translator should always follow the source text in its text type. It is, of course, clear that texts are usually mixtures of text types, but usually there is still one primary type.

Translation is successful if: 1) in an informative text, it guarantees full access to the conceptual content of the source language text; 2) in an expressive text, it transmits a direct impression of the artistic form of the conceptual content; 3) in an operative text, it produces a text-form that will directly elicit the desired response.⁴⁵ These text types are described in Figure 1.1 below.

Informative text type

Encyclopaedia Report Lecture Manual Brochure

Autobiography Sermon Official speech

Play Election speech

Poem Satire Advertisement

Figure 1.1: Different functions and text types⁴⁶

44 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 58, 69‒70. There are also other theories that has been developed in translation studies in the latter part of 20^th century, but are not treated in this research. These include the work of George Steiner, Hans Vermeer, Ernst-August Gutt, Gideon Toury and Lawrence Venuti. Cheung 2013, 7–12.

45 Reiss 1989, 109.

(29)

Reiss also notes that there are different kinds of translation types, and all of them can be justified in some circumstances. In Table 1.2, column one describes how the source text is seen in the translation.

Table 1.2: Translation types⁴⁷

Text concept Translation type Translation aim

Text = sum of words Word-for-word translation

(interlinear) Comparative linguistic research Text = sum of sentences Literal translation (grammar

translation) Foreign language learning

Text = basic linguistic sign Learned translation (deliberately

marked + commentary) Study of culture-bound language differences

Text = verbal component of communication process (text with a function)

Communicative translation a) normal case

b) special subtype

a) integral comm. performance b) all kinds of changes of function

Reiss concludes that an assessment of a translation, therefore, requires that one must determine: 1) what kind of text the original represents, 2) the translator’s conception of the translation, and 3) the aim of the translated text.⁴⁸

Skopos theory

Another communicational translation theory is skopos theory. This is a part of the theory of translational action. Translation is always doing something, for example,

‘writing a translation’ or ‘putting a German text into English’. Therefore, the basic idea is that translation is an action, and an action always has an aim or a purpose. This aim is called skopos. The aim of the translation can be different from the aim of the source text. The skopos could be, for example, that the translation should be as functionally equivalent to the source text as possible. It is also possible that a translation has multiple goals, and these goals can be hierarchically structured. The skopos of the translation depends on the target audience.⁴⁹

Translational action leads to a target text (not necessarily a verbal one); translation leads to a translatum⁵⁰. A precise specification of the aim is essential to a translator.⁵¹ Vermeer describes skopos this way:

For instance, one legitimate skopos might be an exact imitation of the source text syntax, perhaps to provide target culture readers with information about this syntax. Or an exact imitation of the source text structure, in a literary translation, might serve to create a literary text in the target culture. Why not? The point is that one must know, what one is doing, and what consequences of such actions are, e.g. what the effect of a

47 Reiss 1989, 115.

48 Reiss 1989, 115.

49 Vermeer 1989, 173‒174; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 92‒94.

50 Translatum = resulting target text.

51 Vermeer 1989, 173‒174; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 92, 94.

(30)

text created in this way will be in the target culture and how much the effect will differ from that of source text and the source culture.⁵²

The skopos can be defined in an assignment for the translator, or the translator can define their own skopos. A translation should follow the skopos that is defined at the beginning of the translation work. Skopos theory campaigns against the idea that a translation has no aim.⁵³ The point is that a translation must be done systematically, according to a principle. The theory itself does not provide this principle.⁵⁴

According to most theories, a translation should be equivalent to the source text.

This equivalence can be very flexible, and it has changed through the history of translation. This demand of equivalence has been seen as a chain to the translator.

Some scholars have stated that there is no need to have an equivalence, and instead, a translation should be adequate.⁵⁵ Skopos theory replaces the equivalence with the skopos.⁵⁶

Even though the concept of equivalence is not seen as valid according to skopos theory, a translator should still remain loyal to the source text, and they are not allowed to translate the text arbitrarily. According to Vehmas-Lehto, Christiane Nord has described this as ‘loyalty’ to the text. A translator is responsible for the translation and accountable to a reader of the translation. It is not morally right to give a reader of the translation a wrong image of the relationship between the source text and the translation. A reader of the translation may assume, for example, that the intentions of the translator are similar to those of the author of the original text.⁵⁷

Skopos theory, then, is also wrestling with the concept of equivalence, even though it is not stated so clearly by the developers of the theory. Nida, however, has dealt with this question in detail in his theory, so it is worth using it as the main theory when dealing with the topic of translating theological terms in Bible translations.

I will now turn to the theory of dynamic equivalence and its later developments, which is the main emphasis of this research. Since the topic of this research is to study Bible translations, and dynamic theory has been so influential in the Bible translation world, it is more relevant to this research to study dynamic theory than other, more modern or recent theories that are not used on a large scale when making Bible translations.

1.2.5 Dynamic equivalence and its later developments

Eugene A. Nida presented dynamic equivalence in his book Towards a science of translating, published in 1964. As has been presented before, the title of the book was accurate, for not many translation theories had been developed before that. This first book by Nida is theoretical, but in his later work, he concentrated more specifically

52 Vermeer 1989, 176.

53 Vermeer 1989, 184, 186; Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 95.

55 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 90‒91, 98.

57 Vehmas-Lehto 1999, 96‒97.

(31)

on Bible translation.⁵⁸ He has also worked as a Bible translator and consultant, and he was the founder of the journal Bible translator.⁵⁹

Nida describes the principles governing translations oriented towards dynamic equivalence: “It is the closest natural equivalent to the source language message.”⁶⁰ Later on, this theory was modified, and it is nowadays called functional equivalence. This was due to criticism of the theory of dynamic equivalence. Nida wrote in 1986:

Functional equivalence, however, means thoroughly understanding not only the meaning of the source text but also the manner in which the intended receptors of the text are likely to understand it in the receptor language.⁶¹

Dynamic equivalence has been popular in Bible translation, and it has produced new kinds of translations. These have often been advertised as translations that are easier to understand. For example, in the Finnish translation of the 1992 Bible, the committee used dynamic equivalence as the main theory of the translation, but also used other theories in its work.⁶² Nida compares translations with each other to emphasise that a Bible translation is meant to be understood by the reader. He gives several examples, one of them being Rom 3:21‒22, which is presented in the following table:⁶³

Table 1.3: Rom 3:21‒22

KJV GNT64

But now the righteousness of without the law has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and all them who believe.

But now God’s way of putting men right with himself has been revealed and it has nothing to do with the law. The Law and the prophets gave their witness to it: God puts men right through their faith in Jesus Christ. God does this to all who believe in Christ.

According to Nida, the correctness of a translation must be determined by the extent to which an average reader, for whom the translation is intended, will be likely to understand it correctly. The emphasis in dynamic translation is on the likelihood of understanding the text correctly, not on the possibility of doing so. This means that a dynamic translation should be clear and easy to read for an implied reader of the text.⁶⁵

There are three principle ideas in the dynamic equivalence theory, which are explained briefly in the following paragraphs. The first one is the equivalence between reactions to and impact of the source text and the translation. The other basic feature of this theory is the use of language as a generative device. There are different levels

58 For example, Theory and practice of translation, published in 1969, contains plenty of examples from the Scriptures.

59 Kela 2007, 49.

60 Nida 1964, 166.

61 Waard & Nida 1986, 9.

62 Toivanen 1989, 54; Kela 2007, 51‒52, 54.

63 Nida & Taber 1974, 3.

64 Good News Translation, also known as Today’s English Version and Good News Bible.

65 Nida & Taber 1974, 1.

(32)

of language structure, and a deeper level is more important to the translator. The translator’s task is to produce kernels that are used as a basis for the translation.

The third principle of dynamic equivalence is the communicational aspect of the translation.

Equivalence between reactions to and impact of the source text and the translation An original idea of Nida was that the aim of dynamic translation is to produce the same kind of response in the implied receptors as the original text did in its original receptors.⁶⁶ If this is achieved, then it can be said that a translation is a good one. In many cases, there are several cultural and historical differences between a source and target culture, so that the responses of these groups cannot be identical. This is especially true in translating Scriptures, when the time gap between the source text and the translation is thousands of years. The aim of the translation is still to reproduce the original message.⁶⁷ Because the aim is to gain a similarity between the responses, the people to whom the translation is made are not just targets of the translation. They are in a key role when a dynamic or functional translation is made.⁶⁸

Use of language as a generative device

One of the major ideas of dynamic equivalence was the use of language as a generative device.⁶⁹ The idea was that each language has different levels: a surface level and deeper levels. Nida states that languages differ from each other in surface structure, but have much more parallelism at deeper levels. At deeper levels of language, it is possible to formulate kernel constructions, which are defined as the minimal number of structures from which the rest can be most efficiently and relevantly derived.⁷⁰ Nida wrote in 1964:

For the translator especially the view of language as a generative device is important, since it provides him first with a technique for analysing the process of decoding the source text, and secondly with procedure for describing the generation of the appropriate corresponding expression of the receptor language.⁷¹

As part of explaining this use of a generative type of grammar in translation work, Nida defines the tasks of translators. First, they should reduce the source text to its structurally simplest and most semantically evident form, and after that transfer the meaning from the source language to the receptor language on a structurally simple level. The final step is to generate a stylistically and semantically equivalent expression in the receptor language.⁷² This means that the translation is made from kernels, because this is more efficient. This is the same as crossing a river where it

66 Nida 1964, 149.

67 Nida & Taber 1974, 24; Kela 2007, 51.

68 Waard & Nida 1986, 33.

69 Nida 1964, 60.

70 Nida 1964, 66.

71 Nida 1964, 60.

72 Nida 1964, 68‒69.

(33)

is narrowest. Surface structures of languages are often far from each other, but at a deeper level of language, there are similarities.⁷³

In his later work, Nida redefines these tasks and writes that there are five steps in translating a verse. The first step is to indicate the basic element of each word, that is, to determine if the word is an object word, an event word, or a relational word.

Nida takes Mark 1:4 as an example: John ... [preached] a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.⁷⁴ Here, ‘John’ is an object word, ‘preached’, ‘baptism’, ‘repentance’,

‘forgiveness’, and ‘sins’ are event words, and ‘for’ and ‘of’ are relational words. The second step for a translator is to add to the analysis elements that are implicit in the text. In Mark 1:4, two things should be made explicit: ‘people’ (targets of baptism and forgiveness, subject of repentance and sin) and ‘God’ (subject of forgiveness). The next step is to formulate the kernels. There are five kernels in this verse: 1. John preached X; 2. John baptises the people; 3. The people repent; 4. God forgives X; 5. The people sin. After formulating these kernels, a translator should determine the relationships between the kernels. The last step is to formulate what Nida calls near-kernels in the target language, based on the analysis done previously.⁷⁵

The communicational aspect of a translation

The dynamic dimension of communication is important in translation,

since the production of the equivalent messages is a process, not merely of matching the parts of utterances, but also reproducing the total dynamic character of communication.⁷⁶ Dynamic equivalence has its emphasis on communicating a message to an audience.

That is why it is described as a communicative translation theory. All communication has redundancy, which means predictability of certain signals. Nida gives this example: C-- y-- s-- m- d- t--s? It is not so difficult to add missing letters to get ‘Can you see me do this?’. Redundancy also means reinforcing a signal. This is a regular part of a grammatical form. For example, the following phrase in Spanish has the suffix -a repeated four times to signal feminine gender: una persona buena y capacitdada

‘a good, qualified person’. It may seem that it is a waste of effort to use time to repeat this, but it has an important role in covering a ‘noise’ in communication. Due to the redundancy, it is not necessary to hear all the sounds of the word, or to identify all the words in a written sentence in order to understand the meaning of a phrase.⁷⁷

When there is not enough redundancy in a message, it has too much ‘communication load’. Nida uses this term to describe the difficulty of mediating the message of the source text in translation. This usually means that the translation has more communication load than the original text, because the translator unconsciously follows the source text literally, and in this way the predictability of the message becomes too low. This makes it almost impossible for the receiver to understand.⁷⁸ The situation should be the

73 Nida & Taber 1974, 33‒34; Ingo 1990, 108‒109.

74 Revised Standard Version.

75 Nida & Taber 1974, 51‒52.

76 Nida 1964, 120.

77 Nida 1964, 127‒128.

78 Nida 1964, 129‒130.

Dynamic equivalence and theological terms in Bible translations : with special reference to 'righteousness', 'flesh', and 'in Christ'

uef.fi

Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology

LEENA HARTUS

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND THEOLOGICAL TERMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

LEENA HARTUS

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND THEOLOGICAL TERMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

Leena Hartus

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND THEOLOGICAL TERMS IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

ABSTRACT

TIIVISTELMÄ

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE TOPIC OF THE RESEARCH

1.2 TRANSLATION THEORIES

‒

‒