When dealing with that which is true, precise translation is always possible. If technical manuals and medical books, instead of being translated, were rendered as loosely as have been numerous versions of the Bible since the mid-1960s, it would be impossible for those who do not understand the original language(s) of such texts to replicate their results. Thankfully, planes can be flown and successful heart surgeries can be performed by people from any language provided that they understand and follow the correct procedures.
Unfortunately, the prevailing theory of how to translate the Bible from its original languages is at odds with what the two above examples point to, namely, truth is valid for everyone, and every language is sufficient to express truth, regardless of the culture(s) with which it is associated. Tragically, some well-known and highly-respected and trusted Bible translation societies and organizations, borrowing from the Anthropological field of linguistics, teach and promote that language and meaning are relative to culture. This commitment to cultural relativism is a faulty foundation for Bible translation leading to compromised translations of Scripture. This has resulted in such notions as “Religious Idiom Translation” (RIT), 1 in which the text of the Bible is Islamized for Muslims, Buddhaized for Buddhists, Hinduized for Hindus by no less than Wycliffe Bible Translators and SIL (WBT-SIL), 2 the American Bible Society, and the United Bible Societies.
This current free-for-all in what is called “Bible translation” is in great measure due to the life and work of one of the earliest teachers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), who also served as the first Secretary for Translations at the American Bible Society, namely Dr. Eugene A. Nida.
Who exactly was he and what did he do? 3 The following quotes provide a good introduction to the man and his life work:
Eugene A. Nida is not a household name, but [he] has influenced the Bibles read by most Christians around the world. 4
[Nida’s theory of] Dynamic equivalence was a revolutionary approach to Bible translation that guided translators away from slavish adherence to the form of the source texts and instead moved them towards recasting source texts into the natural occurring linguistic forms of the receptor languages. Nida’s concept of dynamic equivalence was destined to become the accepted translation theory among a majority of missionary translators by the 1970s. His work also had significant ramifications for North American evangelicalism, since dynamic equivalence also formed the theoretical basis for most modern vernacular English translations. 5
To tell the story of this revolution in Bible translation is to tell the story of Eugene A. Nida of the American Bible Society (ABS)… Prior to this revolution, the world of Bible translation looked very different. 6
Nida brought a very broad interest to the Bible Society work in translation…he had majored in Greek, but combined these studies with the science of linguistics…he also studied cultural anthropology…Both [Nida and H.C. Rutgers of the Netherlands Bible Society] felt that the BFBS [i.e. British and Foreign Bible Society] method was too dependent upon purely literal translation of the original text…It was clear that their intention was not merely to modify or gently reform existing procedures, but to undertake a revolutionary change…Although not everything he wanted could be done at once, Nida kept a clear idea of the ultimate purposes of Bible Society work in translation before him and persistently pressed it upon the UBS [i.e. the United Bible Societies]… Only the single vision of one man over these forty years could have carried that through. When Nida left, the structure for such an agenda was in place and mostly accomplished. 7
- Some of Nida’s most significant accomplishments regarding Bible translation are as follows: 8
-
-
- an original constitutional committee member of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) in 1936 in Mexico
- an original director of SIL in its articles of incorporation in the US in 1942
- an original director of Wycliffe Bible Translators (WBT) in its articles of incorporation in the US in 1942
- formed the position of “Translation(s) Consultant” for Scripture translations
- founded the Triennial Translators Conferences
- a founder of the United Bible Societies
- founded The Bible Translator journal
- a founder of the UBS Greek New Testament
- his key roles in the publication of Practical Anthropology (now, Missiology)
- the theoretician behind the Version Popular New Testament in Spanish (a.k.a. Dios Habla Hoy), Today’s English Version New Testament (TEV; a.k.a. Good News for Modern Man), and the Good News Bible (now, Good News Translation) in English 9
-
- Nida also wrote, co-authored, or co-edited the following publications which continue to impact Bible translation: 10
-
-
- Bible Translating (1947)
- Customs and Cultures (1954)
- Message and Mission (1960; rev. 1990)
- Toward A Science of Translation (TASOT) (1964)
- The Theory and Practice of Translation (TAPOT) (1969)
- From One Language to Another (1986)
- Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (1988; 2nd ed. 1989)
- United Bible Societies (UBS) Helps for Translators series (various)
-
When one considers the changes that took place in Bible translation after Nida began teaching at Camp Wycliffe in 1936, 11 the scope of his projects and publications and their continuing, dominant influence since the 1970s, it is no wonder that three of the above quotes either described what he did as a “revolution” or “revolutionary.” Nida agreed with these assessments. Though he did not use either word, he strongly implied that he had led a Copernican revolution:
One of my most basic concerns has been communication‒communication not only in terms of translational equivalence, but also in terms of clear expositions of insights concerning language structure and behavior. Any really significant insights about language can certainly be explained in intelligible language. Accordingly, I have attempted to keep technical vocabulary to a minimum and to employ abundant illustrative data. The fact that scientific truths can normally be stated in simple language is strikingly illustrated in the history of descriptions of planetary movements. The pre-Copernican statements concerning the movements of the planets were indeed basically accurate, because by means of them the position of the planets in the visible heavens could be predicted; but these formulations were terribly complicated. After Copernicus discovered the true relation between the sun and the planets, the formulations became amazingly less complex. To a large extent, the same is true of language: correct interpretations are relatively simple, and therefore one tends to become suspicious of explanations which seem to require the use of highly esoteric symbols and numerous neologisms. 12
SIL Corporate Historian, Frederick “Boone” Aldridge well identified the motivating factor behind Nida’s revolution:
By driving a wedge between the text and its message Nida was carrying out a direct assault on the idea that literalness functioned to preserve truth. 13
The goal of moving Bible translation away from more literal translations first began to take shape in Nida’s mind during his undergraduate studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA):
On the basis of my studies in the Classics at UCLA I was amazed to find that for the most part the Greek and Latin authors had been much more intelligibly translated than the Bible. Furthermore, my professors refused to have us produce literal translations since in their judgment such translations would inevitably result in students’ failing to appreciate the style of the Greek and Latin texts. In addition, literal translations also result in bad habits in writing one’s own language. 14
When I was at the University of California, Los Angeles, our professors would never let us translate literally. They said, “We want to know the meaning. We don’t want to know just the words.” I found that a number of the Greek classics had been translated very meaningfully, much better than the Bible had been translated. I thought it a tragedy to have the Scriptures in a form that most people misinterpret. Why should the Bible be so much more poorly translated than secular texts? 15
The likelihood that beginning in 1936, a twenty-two year old graduate from UCLA with no formal theological training, 16 who did not believe that truth transcends culture but is relative to it, 17 whose view of language precludes belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible, 18 and who never translated any part of the Bible for publication 19 would be able to so thoroughly remake Bible translation in his own image does not seem possible, especially by means of his self-admittedly flawed theory of Dynamic Equivalence (a.k.a. Functional Equivalence). To understand how such a “revolution” occurred first necessitates a look into the linguistics well from which Nida’s theory is drawn, the focus of Part II of this series.
Author
Notes:
- In December 2018 the Bible Translation Conference issued a call for papers for potential presentations at its then upcoming 2019 conference, “Bible Translation and Embodiment: Incarnated Word and Incarnational Mission.” Under sub-theme 2, “Bible translation and Theology,” was the following description: “(Metaphor, religious idiom translation, theological and hermeneutical assumptions, missiological reflection on Bible translation, etc.);” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-EGHJYHeFvGNjFKE_s_eaHeQA5x4KHjR/view, accessed April 12, 2022. The Bible Translation Conference is a biennial conference sponsored by Dallas International University and SIL International. For an additional reference see author’s thesis, Adam Simnowitz, “Muslim Idiom Translation: Assessing So-Called Scripture Translation For Muslim Audiences With A Look Into Its Origins In Eugene A. Nida’s Theories Of Dynamic Equivalence And Cultural Anthropology” (M.A. thesis, Columbia International University, 2015; herein referred to as: Simnowitz-MIT), 40-41, especially footnotes, 192-195. ↩
- Legally, these are two separate, yet affiliated organizations. The Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) was originally created in Mexico in 1936. In 1942 it was incorporated in the US along with Wycliffe Bible Translators (WBT) as separate organizations but sharing the same directors. WBT was formed for the purpose of assisting SIL translators among evangelicals. See James C. Hefley and Marti Hefley, Uncle Cam: The Story of William Cameron Townsend, Founder of the Wycliffe Bible Translators and the Summer Institute of Linguistics (Huntington Beach, Calif.: Wycliffe Bible Translators, 1984), 96, 118-119; cf. Simnowitz-MIT, 102, footnotes, 452-453. ↩
- For more information on Nida see chapter 5 of author’s thesis, Simnowitz-MIT, 98-134; cf. Adam Simnowitz, “Relevant Ramblings on Bible Translation: Dr. Seuss vs. Dr. Eugene A. Nida;” https://biblicalmissiology.org/2020/03/23/relevant-ramblings-on-bible-translation-dr-seuss-vs-dr-eugene-a-nida/. ↩
- Eugene A. Nida, interview by David Neff, “Meaning-Full Translations,” Christianity Today 46, no. 11 (October 7, 2002), 46. ↩
- Fredrick A. Aldridge Jr., “The Development of the Wycliffe Bible Translators and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1934-1982” (PhD thesis, University of Stirling, 2012), 112-113. ↩
- Philip C. Stine, Biblical Scholarship in North America, vol. 21, Let the Words Be Written: the Lasting Influence of Eugene A. Nida (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 2. ↩
- Edwin H. Robertson, Taking the Word to the World: 50 Years of the United Bible Societies (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996), 58-60. ↩
- Simnowitz-MIT, 102-103, footnotes 452-458, for the first nine bullet points. ↩
- Stine, Let the Word Be Written, 81-82. ↩
- Simnowitz-MIT, 102. ↩
- Ibid., 103. ↩
- Eugene A. Nida, Language Structure and Translation: Essays, ed. Anwar Dil (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1975), 272-273. ↩
- Fredrick A. Aldridge Jr., “The Development of the Wycliffe Bible Translators and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1934-1982” (PhD thesis, University of Stirling, 2012), 112. ↩
- Eugene A. Nida, interview by JFL Correspondent, “An Interview with Dr. Eugene Nida Interview,” Wai guo yu 2, no. 114 (1998): 1. ↩
- Eugene A. Nida, interview by David Neff, “Meaning-Full Translations,” Christianity Today 46, no. 11 (October 7, 2002), 46. ↩
- Nida earned a B.A. in Greek in 1936 from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA); a M.A. in Greek in 1939 from the University of Southern California (USC), and his PhD. in Linguistics in 1943 from the University of Michigan. His degrees in Greek were not obtained in conjunction with theological instruction. See Simnowitz-MIT, 106, 108-109, 110. ↩
- Eugene A. Nida, “Missions: question and answer session” (classroom lecture, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, KY, November 16, 1994), at approximately 39:50 he said, “I don’t believe in super-cultural truth because truth only is in terms of a cultural context;” accessed April 12, 2022, http://place.asburyseminary.edu/ecommonslectureships/169/. See also. Nida’s teaching regarding “biblical relativism” in his Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions (New York: Harper and Row, 1954), 50-52. ↩
- Simnowitz-MIT, 114-115. ↩
- Eugene A. Nida, Fascinated by Languages (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003), 135: “I have never translated a chapter of the Bible for publication, nor have I ever been a member of a translating committee.” ↩
Scott, thanks for your comment. It is very encouraging, especially considering your studies in linguistics and philosophy.
Excellent first installment of your series, Adam!
Barbara, thanks for your response. I have read Meaning Across Cultures (MAC), the first six books in the last bulleted list above; a number of his other books and articles; and recordings of a number of his lectures. Nida’s attempt to distance himself from those who “seriously distort[ed] the meaning of the text” (MAC, Preface, vi) or who “seriously violated the principle of dynamic equivalence” (From One Language to Another, Preface, viii) does not negate, in the above quote by Frederick “Boone” Aldridge, that his teaching was a “direct assault on the idea that literalness functioned to preserve truth.” Regardless of what Nida and others wrote about the “limits” of “dynamic equivalence/functional equivalence (DE/FE), basing a translation on “receptor response” (more accurately, perceived receptor response) is ultimately impossible to control or limit. For more on the definition of DE/FE see chapter 5 of my thesis (link in footnotes) and Part III of this series (to be posted soon).
I am missing Nida’s last book, where he seems to want to put the brakes on a bit. He presents limits to the translations that seem to offer an improvement over many of the exaggerated applications of Dynamic Equivalent. Check
Meaning Across Culture by Eugene Nida e William D. Reyburn, Orbis Books, 1981.