1. Define the terms “formally equivalent” and
“functionally equivalent” with regard to translation theories. Which one is
considered more “word-for-word” and which is more “thought-for-thought”? What
criteria should a person use to choose a Bible translation? Respond to this
quote: “If they can’t read Hebrew and Greek, then Christians should use at
least 2 Bibles: one formal and one functional equivalent. That way they can see
some of the nuances in the languages as understood by the translators.” Do you
agree or disagree? Be sure to give reasons. What translation would you
recommend for a new believer and why? What is your favorite translation?
When you first hear the names
of formal and functionally equivalent, many different things can come to mind.
Formally equivalent means “more word for word translation”[1]According to William Mounce
in his book Greek for the Rest of Us,
“The “formal” means that there is a grammatical formal equivalence: if the
Greek has a participle, the English has a participle; if the Greek has a
conjunction, the English has a conjunction; and if the Greek has ten words the
English tries to have ten words.”[2] Function equivalents also
known as dynamic equivalents do not function in the same way as a formal
equivalent. “Dynamic translation chooses whatever words the English requires in
order to convey the same meaning.”[3]So according to the
definitions given by Mounce formal tends to be more of a “word-for-word” type
of translation which are Bibles like the NASB, ESV, and the KJV. The functional
equivalent type are more of your “thought-for-thought” and those Bibles are
your NIV and NLT.
When trying to decide what type
of Bible to use a person needs to consider their ease of reading, and whether
they want something that is more “literal” or something that is a little looser
in its translation. You also need to consider whether or not if it was
translated by a team of people or by a singular person. It is better when done
by a team because you have a better chance of reaching the actual meaning of
the text instead of one person’s lone interpretation. Also, when choosing a
Bible you need to ask yourself “What am I going to be doing with this reading?”
If you are planning on serious study I would suggest using a more formal
translation, however, if you are doing devotional reading and would like for it
to be a little less tedious I suggest using a dynamic translation.
If a person does not know the
original languages should they read two Bibles? Well, that depends on what they
are doing their reading for. True they would see some of the nuances say if
they were to read the ESV and the NLT together, but do I feel that it is
necessary, no. I trust the men and women who have worked on my Bible. Now when
doing word study work or things of that nature yes more than one Bible is
essential. After a person has taken the time to decide what version of the
Bible they are going to do their general reading from they should not have to
second guess that their translators did something wrong. I have to say I would
recommend either the NIV or NLT to a new believer. The reason behind that is
they do not use all of the “super-Christian” terminology. They break words like
propitiation down to simpler meanings. While
they do some interpretation it is not on any major doctrinal issues, so I would
rather a new Christian enjoy reading the Bible than to be confused by words not
easily understood. I myself use the ESV for most of my reading and studying because
it provides a good balance between the two sections, but being more formal.
Bibliography
Blomber,
Craig L., and Jennifer Foutz Markley. A Handbook of New Testament
Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.
Klien, WIlliam W., and Craig L. and Robert L. Hubbard Jr.
Blomberg. Introduction to Biblical Interpretatioin. Nahsville: Thomas
Nelson, 2004.
Mounce, William D. Greek for the Rest of Us. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment