Part 1 | Part 3

Nida’s first monumental step to make Bible translations less literal began when he attended the third Camp Wycliffe (which was later renamed, the Summer Institute of Linguistics, or, SIL) in the summer of 1936. ¹ This was a “Summer Training Camp for Prospective Bible Translators,” ² started by William Cameron Townsend (a.k.a. “Uncle Cam”), ³ the founder of SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators (WBT). ⁴

Though he began as a student, Nida left as part of the faculty, ⁵ a role in which he would serve until 1953. ⁶ In 1943, through Townsend’s advocacy, ⁷ he also joined the American Bible Society (ABS) as their “associate secretary for versions” (later, “Secretary for Translations”). ⁸ Through the very influential platforms of SIL and ABS, Nida taught potential and actual Bible translators, personally met with missionaries and others involved in Bible translation around the world, lectured, wrote numerous articles and books, started conferences for Bible translators, was one of the formers of the United Bible Societies (UBS), started The Bible Translator journal, and trained handpicked “Translation Consultants” to assist him in carrying out his vision for Bible translation. ⁹

These efforts, spanning almost a full quarter century, while moving him closer to his goal, served as essential preparation for his philosophical, educational, and administrative takeover of the world of Bible translation. It was not, however, until the 1960s that Nida would experience a series of major breakthroughs that would result in him obtaining his long-held desire.

The year 1960 saw the publication of Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith, arguably Nida’s most influential work. ¹⁰ For some forty years, Dr. Charles Kraft of Fuller Theological Seminary and self-professed disciple of Nida, used this as a textbook, exposing his many students to Nida’s philosophy of “communication.” It was reprinted in 1972, 1975, 1979, and revised in 1990 with Nida’s consent and help. ¹¹ It was in this publication that Nida first coined the phrase for which he is most well-known, “dynamic equivalence”:

We are concerned, that is to say, with a dynamic, not a static, equivalence. [emphasis added] ¹²

On the other hand, most people seem to prefer, not a gloss [i.e. literal] translation, but one which is more nearly an equivalence, in terms of the linguistic and cultural circumstances in which they live. They are not so much concerned with the formal [i.e. literal] resemblance as with the dynamic equivalence. [emphasis added] ¹³

This emphasis upon dynamic, rather than formal, equivalence… [emphasis added] ¹⁴

It is of great significance to note that the first occurrence of the term, “dynamic equivalence,” came in the third chapter, “The Structure of Communication,” under the subheading, “The Purpose of Communicative Procedures.” The importance of this point cannot be overstated – “dynamic equivalence” was not introduced as a theory of translation but rather as part of a philosophy of “communication.” Until this point and its implications are recognized, there will be little to no change in Bible translation.

To understand what Nida meant by “dynamic equivalence” requires a closer look at his undergraduate studies at UCLA from which his ideas on “communication” were developed:

As an undergraduate I was fascinated by developments in linguistics and practically memorized Bloomfield’s volume on Language [sic]. ¹⁵

Bloomfield’s Language became my linguistics textbook, with generous additions from Jespersen, Saussure, and Boas. Then I realized how language is only a part of the much bigger domain of cultural anthropology and that the functions of language cannot be explained apart from the total context of culture. ¹⁶

I personally have been far more influenced by Bloomfield and by Jakobson than by any other two persons interested in the areas of linguistics and communication. ¹⁷

Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949), referred to above by Nida, was a primary architect of “American Structuralism” which is “a theory of language and a corresponding view of linguistics.” ¹⁸ Bloomfield was mentored by Franz Boas, the “principal founder of modern American anthropology and the mentor of generations of linguistic anthropologists.” ¹⁹ Boas’ imprint on American Structuralism is especially evident in maintaining his belief that cultures and languages are all relative:

One especially salient feature of American structuralism traceable to his [i.e. Boas] influence is relativism, the view that cultural and linguistic categorization is imposed on experience in ways that differ, sometimes radically, from culture to culture and from language to language and that these different categorizations have equal claims on the attention of science. ²⁰

In the landmark book, Language, which so profoundly affected Nida, Bloomfield wrote that linguistics did not improve “until the eighteenth century, when scholars ceased to view language as a direct gift of God.” ²¹ Such an atheistic view made it easy for Bloomfield to embrace the idea that language is not “the expression of ideas, feelings, or volitions” [i.e. mentalism] but rather “merely popular terms for various bodily movements [i.e. mechanism].” ²² He further described language as “noise [of the] larynx, tongue, and lips;” an “act of speech” dependent on preceding and subsequent “practical events;” and as mere “reaction” to “stimulus.” ²³

Bloomfield’s view of language as a physical response unrelated to one’s thoughts guts individual words of any fixed meaning. By “repudiating the existence of all mentalist constructs, Bloomfield also repudiated the classical view that the structure of language reflects the structure of thought.” ²⁴ He therefore gave “primacy of the sentence over the word as the basic analytical element” ²⁵ In keeping with his belief in the inherent meaninglessness of individual words, he asserted, “there are no actual synonyms.” ²⁶ Other key features of Bloomfield’s teaching are the technical uses of “form” to refer to words, whether spoken or written; “function” to refer to the purpose of a “form;” and “equivalent” to refer to an approximate “function” when comparing different cultures and languages with one another; ²⁷ as well as the “separation of form and meaning into parallel hierarchies.” ²⁸

Nida’s indebtedness to Bloomfield and his book, Language, is clear as one considers that the following feature prominently – whether explicitly or implicitly – in Nida’s writings and lectures:

• • God is not the source of language ²⁹
  • cultural relativism (there are no absolutes) ³⁰
  • language is merely cultural (and thus subject to relativism) ³¹
  • language cannot transcend “its” culture ³²
  • language is a flawed medium of communication ³³
  • referring to speaking as an “event” ³⁴
  • words do not have fixed meanings ³⁵  
  • technical uses of “form,” “function,” and “equivalent”/“equivalence” from linguistics ³⁶

Nida carefully introduced cultural relativism and Bloomfield’s mechanistic view of language to unsuspecting evangelicals. That these two biblically incompatible beliefs with their attendant errors have come to dominate the world of Bible translation and greatly impact missions, with hardly any effective opposition from biblical conservatives, is in great measure a testament to Nida’s skill in knowing how to persuade a given audience. ³⁷

In light of Nida’s dependence on Bloomfield, his phrase “dynamic equivalence” is a rather creative euphemism for “cultural relativism,” with “dynamic” being code for “cultural” as American Structuralism heavily emphasizes that all cultures are in a constant state of flux, and “equivalence” being used in a technical sense to refer to relative “functions” between cultures (as opposed to something equal in value or synonymous in meaning as is too often assumed). In an interview for the Oral History Program of the American Bible Society, Nida provided some not-so-well-known insight into his rationale:

[S]o it seemed to me that we had to create a concept of translation based not on linguistic parallels and correspondences, but in terms of communication theory. And I did a lot of work in information theory, as a background for communication theory, and sociolinguistics and things of that type, just as these things were developing and decided we really must do something. Now we call it ”functional equivalence” instead of “dynamic equivalence”, but probably it was necessary to use things like “dynamic equivalence” because it caught peoples’ [sic] attention. And if we’d used “functional equivalence” from the beginning, it probably wouldn’t have had much impact on people. But that was, frankly, the reason. ³⁸

For all of Nida’s transparency regarding the coining of “dynamic equivalence,” he was rather disingenuous when referring to “functional equivalence.” Though he officially adopted this term in place of “dynamic equivalence” in 1986, ³⁹ for all practical purposes he had begun using it at least thirty-nine years prior. In Nida’s 1947 publication, Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, with Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages, ⁴⁰ he uses both “functional equivalent” and “functional significance.” ⁴¹ It is clear that “functional equivalence” is but a slight modification of “functional equivalent.”

Nida knew from years of experience that neither “functional equivalent” nor “functional significance” had “caught peoples’ attention.” For him to have portrayed this as a hypothetical is dishonest. In reality, once Nida felt that his more successful catchword had served its purpose he simply reverted – with the slightest of variation – to the more linguistically identifiable terminology that he had initially used. How Nida defined this “theory” will be the focus of Part III of this series.

Read Part 3