After a little study on the version issue it is easy to see that the dynamic equivalence (DE) theory of translation has been applied to all translations, some just more than others. In my congregation the NIV has been labeled as a version that is "dangerous" and "misleading" (not to be confused with KJV only--more of a "formal equivalent only" situation), so I've been trying to study the version issue a little more. This is a subject that I've revisited often over the last few years, but it's only been recently that I've seen a shift in perception of where the NIV falls on the DE to formal equivalence (FE) spectrum.
The NIV on many websites is listed in categories with The Message and NLT as being a DE translation, and that's pretty much where I had always thought of it being, until I started doing some verse by verse comparison with a few other versions. Recently, I wandered onto the NLT's offical website. On one chart there, the NIV is listed in the same ranks as the NASB and gang as a FE version, and I've browsed through some other sites that classified it there as well. At least for the NLT site, I'm guessing this was done because there is significantly less paraphrase in the NIV, or because the NLT in contrast to the NIV is simply much more dynamic.
At any rate, it is obvious that the NIV isn't a TOTALLY DE translation, so when compared to other versions it falls in the middle of the "concordance" spectrum. However, older websites and articles don't share this view. Much of this older info makes what appears to be a clean cut distinction between FE and DE--either one or the other, concordant or not concordant--and the NIV is nearly always in the DE column. Newer articles make a distinction between FE, DE, and "paraphrase" or "open" translation (or some variation of this), and some add more categories to the spectrum (semi-formal, semi-dynamic, etc) so as to further distinguish the list of versions into a ranking of most to least concordant. So now that there are more classifications on the continuum than a few years back, it appears that "dynamic equivalence" has become somewhat a relative term... what was once considered to be a thought-for-thought translation is now by many considered to be a word-for-word translation, now that there is something else to compare it to. Not that this is bad thing, just interesting.
From this, I do have some questions that have risen from these findings:
*What qualifiers decide how a version is ranked (other than their official web site says so, ie. NLT=DE)? Are there "standards" of any kind? Have the standards changed over the last few decades?
*Can and/or should the NIV be boxed into either the DE or FE translation philosophies?
*How much use of DE in a translation can a version have and still be viewed as a FE translation in the eyes of the "academic" community? Is it done on a percentage basis? If so, how do the percentages among versions compare?
*Are there any EXHAUSTIVE postings/charts comparing the NIV with one or more FE versions showing where each verse is concordant or paraphrase? (Note: the "Gender Inclusive, Part 1" chart shows where the KJV employs DE as related to gender in several verses, but no other versions are cited or compared in the chart itself, though the NIV & NASB were cited before the chart in the article. Yes, I know this would be a major undertaking, but surely SOMEONE has that kind of time on thier hands!)
Any comments, related questions, feedback etc. are welcome!
In Him,
Dave
The NIV on many websites is listed in categories with The Message and NLT as being a DE translation, and that's pretty much where I had always thought of it being, until I started doing some verse by verse comparison with a few other versions. Recently, I wandered onto the NLT's offical website. On one chart there, the NIV is listed in the same ranks as the NASB and gang as a FE version, and I've browsed through some other sites that classified it there as well. At least for the NLT site, I'm guessing this was done because there is significantly less paraphrase in the NIV, or because the NLT in contrast to the NIV is simply much more dynamic.
At any rate, it is obvious that the NIV isn't a TOTALLY DE translation, so when compared to other versions it falls in the middle of the "concordance" spectrum. However, older websites and articles don't share this view. Much of this older info makes what appears to be a clean cut distinction between FE and DE--either one or the other, concordant or not concordant--and the NIV is nearly always in the DE column. Newer articles make a distinction between FE, DE, and "paraphrase" or "open" translation (or some variation of this), and some add more categories to the spectrum (semi-formal, semi-dynamic, etc) so as to further distinguish the list of versions into a ranking of most to least concordant. So now that there are more classifications on the continuum than a few years back, it appears that "dynamic equivalence" has become somewhat a relative term... what was once considered to be a thought-for-thought translation is now by many considered to be a word-for-word translation, now that there is something else to compare it to. Not that this is bad thing, just interesting.
From this, I do have some questions that have risen from these findings:
*What qualifiers decide how a version is ranked (other than their official web site says so, ie. NLT=DE)? Are there "standards" of any kind? Have the standards changed over the last few decades?
*Can and/or should the NIV be boxed into either the DE or FE translation philosophies?
*How much use of DE in a translation can a version have and still be viewed as a FE translation in the eyes of the "academic" community? Is it done on a percentage basis? If so, how do the percentages among versions compare?
*Are there any EXHAUSTIVE postings/charts comparing the NIV with one or more FE versions showing where each verse is concordant or paraphrase? (Note: the "Gender Inclusive, Part 1" chart shows where the KJV employs DE as related to gender in several verses, but no other versions are cited or compared in the chart itself, though the NIV & NASB were cited before the chart in the article. Yes, I know this would be a major undertaking, but surely SOMEONE has that kind of time on thier hands!)
Any comments, related questions, feedback etc. are welcome!
In Him,
Dave
