The Christian Qur’anic hermeneutic of the dynamic equivalence model

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Dynamic equivalence translation

Following Nida, Kraft (1979a) states that a dynamic equivalence translation aims at the equivalence of response rather than equivalence in form. It seeks more than mere communication of information. It looks to produce a responsive element in those who receive the message. Kraft says, “… the new aim is to go beyond the focus of earlier translation theory. There is still focus on words, grammar, and expression – but for the purpose of building a communicational bridge between the author and the contemporary hearer” (1979a:270). He seeks to draw translation efforts away from a plain meanings approach towards a receptor-oriented theory. This change unites the view of supraculture he takes from Smalley with Nida’s teaching on translation. Meaning is not found merely within the text, but occurs at the time of reading by the audience in their context.
Translators who follow Nida and Kraft, of whom Brown (2011b) is an excellent example, took the dynamic principles of translation even further. Brown writes many articles for International Journal of Frontier Missions (IJFM). One of his primary concerns is making appropriately sensitive translations for the Muslim world. His major contention is that familial titles and concepts, such as son and father, should be translated to convey social relationships instead of biological ones. Sonship can be derived by several different means including procreation, adoption, marriage, or upbringing (2011b:106). “It is crucial to note that social father and biological father are overlapping categories, and a parenting father is in both categories. So a man can be described as a child’s social father without implying that he is the child’s biological father as well… ” (2011b:105). As an example, Brown and the Greys point to how the evangelist in Luke 2 describes both God and Joseph as pater to Jesus (2011:106). “The challenge for translators is to find expressions in their target languages that have a similar scope of meaning” (2011a:125). They illustrate the situation superbly by introducing the story of a Muslim lady who begins reading a portion of the Gospel of Luke. Upon seeing familial terms that she believes could imply sexual activity between God and Mary, she discards the Gospel and condemns it for promoting offensive ideas about God (2011b:105). Thus the DEM focus on receptor-oriented translation is maintained, as noted in the “Basic Principles and Procedures for Bible Translation” of the Forum of Bible Agencies International (2011:149). Brown and the Greys seek to align themselves with the Forum’s
approach.
For target languages that do not have appropriate non-biological terms for familial phrases, such as “Son of God,” Brown and the Greys suggest the rendering “the offspring of God” (2011b:109). They justify such tactics by stating that the phrase “Son of God” refers primarily to ontological aspects of the trinity rather than economic ones. They claim that most theologians recognize that “… the Bible primarily presents an ‘economic trinity’ in which the role of divine sonship is functional as well as ontological” (2011b:
110). If it is difficult to find clearly non-biological terms in the target language, then the economic aspects of words and phrases should be emphasized. They suggest footnoting the familial term in the translation that references a mini-article. The mini-article would explain several ontological aspects of the phrase that the receptor would be encouraged to consider. They recommend several ontological aspects to be set forth, including the consubstantiality of Father and Son and the eternal begetting of the Son.
Brown and the Greys (2011b) carry forward not only receptor-oriented translation, but also the anthropological dialectic. The dialectic can be seen in their labor to widen the semantic range of difficult terms and concepts for the receptor to excessive proportions, and their promotion of emphasizing the economic aspects of the trinity over the ontological aspects. We visit again the DEM understanding of ontological/economic trinity again in chapter 4. As Brown and the Greys (2011b) state, the terms pater and uios bare a wide semantic range that include most types of familial relationships, even biological ones. These biological aspects, as well as the concepts they represent, cannot be avoided. In Matthew 1 alone we are presented with a number of biological and social usages. The evangelist presents the genealogy (genea) of Christ, Christ as son (uios) of David and Abraham, and Christ as born of (gennao) Mary. In Luke 3 Christ is called the son (uios) of Joseph. Though Luke qualifies his usage of son in relation to Christ, the very same word carries through the remainder of the genealogy and is applied to obvious biological relationships. The Jewish audience of Matthew’s day was no less sensitive to the issues of monotheism than Muslims of our own day. Yet no great explanation is given as to why terms that carry biological connotations are included. Only in the most extreme statements, such as Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23, are the terms qualified. Further, there is no doubt that a general familial term, like uios, that could include biological meaning is stronger than another word or words that only signify social meaning. There is often great love, devotion, and sacrifice in adoptive or other social fathering relationships. However,
if the affections of a biological relationship are ordered and nurtured properly, then the connection it signifies is deeper than any other. A biological father is not any more legitimate of a father than an adoptive one, but his relationship does have a more extensive root.
Translation is on unstable ground if conducted in a way that implies anything less than the strongest relationship within the Godhead. Considering that most of the Islamic world has little place for the practice of adoption, it is likely that some Muslim readers could assume the relationship between God the Father and His Word to be less than the most intimate kind. It is possible that they would assume it to be similar to the relationship between Allah and their own beloved prophet. My point is not to argue about the definitions of such familial statements, or to suggest that Brown and the Greys (2011b) have not done their research. On the contrary, they do a very good job of showing how such terms are used. I am not stating that biological terms should always be used or that translators should be given strict requirements on how to render certain politically charged terms. I am saying that Brown and the Greys (2011b) show the mark of the anthropological dialectic in the extreme emphasis they place upon the receptor. All efforts are exerted to prevent offense or misunderstanding for the receptor. The semantic range for controversial terms must be like a smorgasbord for the translator. While I agree that translations should avoid unnecessary misunderstanding, the sensitivities of the reader should not be such a heavy concern that the message is compromised in the movement from the original language to the target one.
As stated above, the dialectic means that the responsibility is upon God, or in this case the translator of God’s message, to remove all obstacles for the receptor. Luke and Matthew stop short of saying that Jesus was Joseph’s boy, but continue communicating in terminology that can be difficult for strict monotheists. It seems that the evangelists expect the receptor to read thoughtfully and consider the entirety of their writings, and judge anew the identity of Jesus Christ. We should ask no less of those for whom we translate than the Biblical writers asked of the original audience. As Brown and the Greys state, the goal of translation should be to “… avoid incorrect meanings that fail to communicate the informational context, feelings, and attitudes of the original inspired text” (2011b:109). It does not appear that the Muslim lady mentioned in the opening of the article had such an appropriate attitude. There are many Muslims who would not give up so quickly. Even if they read a term or idea that seemed difficult, new, or incorrect they would continue. They would search for the big picture of what the Gospel as a whole presents. People born into Muslim families are capable of reading with equity. We must also have confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to move in the hearts and minds of people of other faiths as the read the Scripture.

READ CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE

Dynamic equivalence theologizing

Dynamic equivalence theologizing is a step beyond translation and transculturation of the message. It involves “… reproducing in the contemporary cultural contexts of the theologizing process that Paul and the other scriptural authors exemplify” (Kraft 1979a: 291). Kraft makes important suggestions for theology and mission at this point. In his view, Evangelicals should no longer consider theology a thing that moves from the past to the present, or from the text of the Bible to the current day. Instead, as we reinitiate today the process that occurred when the historic events of the Scriptures were recorded, then we are able to make contact with the contemporary meaning of the supracultural truth of God. The meaning of Scripture is latent until unearthed by the receptors (Kraft 1979a:297). In his book, Communication theory for Christian witness (1983), Kraft states, “… the range of meaning covered by any linguistic label is that attached to it by the members of the community, all of whom have experienced it slightly differently” (1983:90). In the case of Scriptural meaning, it must be molded in the conceptual framework of the receivers in order to be actualized. Kraft (1983) labels this process of molding or recreating dynamic equivalence theologizing.

1. The research problem, paradigm, and literature review
1.1 The research problem
1.2. The purpose
1.3 Paradigms: moving towards a new post-Enlightenment Evangelical paradigm
1.5 Methodology
1.6 Literature review
1.7. Thesis statement
1.8. Delineation of chapters
2. Patterns in missionary perceptions of Islam
2.1. The imperial period
2.2. Twentieth century models
3. The Christian Qur’anic hermeneutic of the dynamic equivalence model
3.1. What type of focus arose among Evangelicals in the later twentieth century?
3.2. What are the characteristics of Kraft’s dynamic equivalence model?
3.3. The dynamic equivalence model’s view of cultural forms
4. Objections to the dynamic equivalence model and the Christian Qur’anic hermneutic
4.1. Which Evangelicals of the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century spoke a dissenting voice and what is the value of such criticism?
4.2. Objections to the Christian Qur’anic hermeneutic and the dynamic equivalence model
5. The Christian Qur’anic hermeneutic in recent Evangelical mission
6. Towards a pre-evangelistic approach to the Qur’an in Evangelical encounter with Muslims