TransÜD – A rb e i t e n zu r Th e o ri e u n d Pra x i s

d es Üb ers etze ns u n d D o lme t sc h en s

Toward a Science
of Translating?
Eugene A. Nida and
His Theory of Dynamic Equivalence

Stefan Felber
 Stefan Felber
Toward a Science of Translating?
Eugene A. Nida and His Theory of Dynamic Equivalence
 Hartwig Kalverkämper / Sylvia Reinart (Hg.)
TransÜD.
Arbeiten zur Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens
Band 150
 Stefan Felber

Toward a Science of Translating?

Eugene A. Nida and His Theory of Dynamic Equivalence

Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

Umschlagabbildung unter Verwendung von Adobe Firefly

peer reviewed content

ISBN 978-3-7329-1121-9
ISBN E-Book 978-3-7329-8795-5
ISSN 1438-2636

© Frank & Timme GmbH Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

Berlin 2025. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Das Werk einschließlich aller Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.

Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechts-
gesetzes bedarf der Zustimmung des Verlages. Das gilt insbesondere
auch für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, die Einspeicherung und
Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen, Text- und Data-Mining
sowie Einsatz und Training von KI-Systemen.

Herstellung durch Frank & Timme GmbH

Wittelsbacherstraße 27a, 10707 Berlin
info@frank-timme.de
Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier.

www.frank-timme.de
 

Table of contents

Preface ................................................................................................... 11

Preface to the English edition . ............................................................ 15

Conventions and Abbreviations ........................................................... 17

Guide to Foreign-Language Terms ....................................................... 19

1 Historical introduction ..................................................................... 21

1.1 “Revolution” through “new methods”: 

the significance of Eugene Nida’s theory ....................................... 21
1.1.1 Resounding success ............................................................. 21
1.1.2 Competition, crowding out, and clutter – 
recent market statistics ....................................................... 27
1.1.3 Impact on religious socialization ......................................... 35
1.1.4 Translations and types of translation ................................. 37
1.1.5 New developments in translation theory ........................... 47
1.1.6 The influence of “dynamic equivalence” 
on translation examples . ..................................................... 51
1.1.6.1 Preliminary considerations: 
Nida’s favorite example – Mark 1:4 – 
and its reception . .................................................. 51
1.1.6.2 On exegesis of Mark 1:1ff. ..................................... 55
1.1.6.3 On translations of Mark 1:4 .................................. 64
1.1.6.4 Further examples using word count statistics .... 69
1.1.6.5 Preliminary findings and issues . .......................... 73
1.2 Guiding questions, approach, 
and research contribution of this study . ....................................... 75
Limitations to the subject of study ................................................ 77
Research contribution . ................................................................... 79

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 5

Table of contents

1.3 Research on Nida’s writings . .......................................................    80

1.3.1 Overview ............................................................................    80
1.3.2 A few works in detail .........................................................    82
1.4 Eugene Nida: the man and his journey, 
new institutions, new translations .............................................    97
1.4.1 Sources . .............................................................................    97
1.4.2 Portrait ...............................................................................    98
1.4.3 Nida’s journey ....................................................................    99
1.4.3.1 Beginnings ..........................................................    99
1.4.3.2 The American Bible Society (ABS) . ................... 108
1.4.3.3 The World Federation of Bible Societies (UBS) . 111
1.4.3.4 The Bible Translator and Helps for Translators .... 113
1.4.3.5 Critical editions of the Urtext ............................ 117
1.4.3.6 Translation consultants ..................................... 120
1.4.3.7 “Practical Anthropology” ................................... 122
1.4.3.8 Versión Popular and Today’s English Version . .. 123
1.4.3.9 Rising criticism ................................................... 132
1.4.3.10 Impact and significance of 
Today’s English Version . .................................... 136
1.4.3.11 Imitators ............................................................. 139
1.4.3.12 Ecumenical collaboration 
among Bible societies ........................................ 143
1.4.3.13 Tireless travelling and writing ........................... 152
1.4.3.14 The British path .................................................. 155
1.4.3.15 The Greek Lexicon .............................................. 156
1.4.3.16 Scholarship and awards ..................................... 159
1.4.4 The man – a tribute ........................................................... 161

2 The dynamic-equivalent theory of translation

as presented in Nida’s writing ....................................................... 165

2.1 Key concepts und continuity of Nida’s theory of translation .... 165
2.1.1 General theory of translation ........................................... 166

6 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 Table of contents

2.1.2 Language as communication ............................................ 170

Dynamic and functional .................................................... 174
2.1.3 Language as a mirror of culture ........................................ 177
2.1.4 Semantic classes, universals, and kernel sentences ....... 185
2.1.5 Focuses and developments . ............................................. 188
2.2 Nida’s writings on translation before the 1960s ........................ 190
2.2.1 The first textbook (1947): a middle way .......................... 190
Summary and perspectives . ............................................. 197
2.2.2 The 1950s: new questions, broadened horizons ............. 198
2.2.3 Incarnation and translation .............................................. 205
2.3 Studies in anthropology, communication, and mission ............. 210
2.3.1 Customs and Cultures (1965cc/1963cc): 
accept the foreign, subdue cultural pride ........................ 211
2.3.2 Message and Mission: The Communication
of the Christian Faith (1960m/1990m) .............................. 215
2.3.2.1 Intercultural communication . ........................... 215
2.3.2.2 The theological basis of communication .......... 217
2.3.2.3 Language and revelation .................................... 221
2.3.2.4 Bible translation: 
transmission ensured by intelligibility . ............ 226
2.3.2.5 Summary and perspectives: 
continuity and change . ...................................... 229
2.3.3 Religion across Cultures (1968/1979): 
theology as the grammar of religion ................................ 230
2.4 Toward a science of translating:
transformational-generative grammar and Nida ....................... 232
2.4.1 Objectives and approach . ................................................. 232
2.4.2 Chomsky’s Revolution ....................................................... 234
2.4.3 Nida’s relationship with 
transformational-generative grammar ............................ 244
2.4.4 Previous work on the subject ........................................... 265
2.4.5 Preliminary findings and critical inquiries ....................... 273

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 7

Table of contents

2.5 Nida’s key works on translation theory ...................................... 281

2.5.1 Toward a Science of Translating (1964t) ............................. 281
Summary, perspectives, and approaches to criticism .... 307
2.5.2 The Theory and Practice of Translation 
(1969tp, with Charles Taber) . ........................................... 309
Summary and further approaches to criticism . .............. 327
2.5.3 Meaning Across Cultures 
(1981mc, with William D. Reyburn) .................................. 330
2.5.4 On Translation (1984t/2006t, with Jin Di) and 
Sign, Sense, Translation (1984ss) ....................................... 331
2.5.5 From One Language to Another
(1986f, with Jan de Waard) . .............................................. 333
Summary ............................................................................ 347
2.5.6 Language, Culture and Translating (1993l) ......................... 349
Summary and perspectives . ............................................. 351
2.5.7 The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication (1996si) 
and Contexts in Translating (2001ct) ................................. 354
Summary ............................................................................ 355

3 Critique ............................................................................................ 357

3.1 Preliminary considerations .......................................................... 357

3.2 General and specifically biblical translation theories ................ 359
3.2.1 Overlooked aspects of 
biblical communication processes ................................... 362
3.2.2 Methodological problems ................................................. 370
3.2.2.1 Universal semantic classes ................................ 370
3.2.2.2 Relevance of the deep structures . .................... 375
3.2.2.3 Specific responses . ............................................ 377
3.2.3 The Word and Name of God 
in its functional understanding ........................................ 378
3.2.4 Language in religious and everyday contexts .................. 393

8 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 Table of contents

3.3 Language: more than communication ........................................ 404

3.3.1 Instrumental and connecting, constituting 
and delimiting .................................................................... 404
3.3.2 Loss and consistency in transmission .............................. 411
3.3.3 Nominalism, Cartesianism, and the consequences . ....... 414
3.4 Language and culture ................................................................... 421
3.4.1 Interdependence ............................................................... 421
3.4.2 Word and symbol: 
a translator’s view of the Gute Nachricht Bibel . ............. 423
3.4.3 The price of conforming to contemporary language . ..... 426
3.4.3.1 Loss of Psalms and hymns ................................. 426
3.4.3.2 Loss of theology and faith . ................................ 427
3.4.3.3 Loss of language – and yet: hope ...................... 430

4 Perspectives .................................................................................... 439

4.1 Looking back: Luther Bible as forerunner? ................................. 439

4.1.1 Initial questions ................................................................. 440
4.1.2 Type of translation ............................................................ 442
4.1.3 “Watch their mouths and observe how they speak, 
and then translate accordingly …” .................................... 445
4.2 Looking forward: Bible translation and revision 
between church, theology, and translation studies . ................. 452
4.2.1 Contributions to an ethics of Bible translation 
and revision . ...................................................................... 453
4.2.2 Cooperation and commitment of those 
involved in Bible translation ............................................. 456
4.3 Summary of theses . ..................................................................... 459

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 9

Table of contents

5 Appendix .......................................................................................... 469

5.1 Documentation: 
Mark 1:4 in 117 translations and renderings . ............................. 469
5.2 Literature ...................................................................................... 483
5.2.1 Additional conventions ..................................................... 483
5.2.2 Bible versions (selected) ................................................... 483
5.2.3 Catalogue of works by Eugene A. Nida . ........................... 484
5.2.3.1 Unprinted ............................................................ 484
5.2.3.2 Undated . ............................................................. 485
5.2.3.3 Forewords ........................................................... 485
5.2.3.4 Monographs and essays 
in chronological order ........................................ 486
5.2.3.5 Translation .......................................................... 514
5.2.3.6 Interviews ........................................................... 514
5.2.3.7 Reviews ............................................................... 514
5.2.3.8 Festschrifts for Nida . ......................................... 517
5.2.4 Literature on the theory of dynamic equivalence, 
on Nida, or on dynamic-equivalent translations ............. 518
5.2.5 Other literature . ................................................................ 529
5.2.5.1 Selected bibliographies . .................................... 529
5.2.5.2 Printed literature ................................................ 530
5.3 Indexes .......................................................................................... 559
5.3.1 Biblical and other ancient sources ................................... 559
5.3.2 People . ............................................................................... 564
5.3.3 Subjects . ............................................................................ 577
5.3.4 Images, diagrams, and tables ........................................... 584

Reviews . .............................................................................................. 587

10 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 

Preface

Over the past 50 years, a process unprecedented in the history of Bible

translation has taken place. An explosion of new translations has expanded
the once far narrower range, with many straying far from their source text.
The condensed and theologically succinct chain “baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4 KJV ) can now be rendered in an entirely
different form, namely as a sermon quotation. As will be shown, each individual
component is deliberately turned into its own short phrase. Nothing is left to
be desired in terms of clarity; however, the connection between repentance/
justification and the sacrament is lost: “Change yourselves from the ground
up and turn to God, so that He can forgive your sins. Be baptized by me!”1
With more available translations, Bible sales are increasing. An increasing
number of publishers want to put their own translations on the “market.” Here,
however, there is a paradoxical coincidence: never before have there been so
many translations, yet there has also never been such widespread ignorance
of biblical texts, even within church spheres.
The significance and aims of new translations have been intensively
debated since the 1960s. However, this has had no influence on either the
number of new publications or the willingness to undertake new projects.
In terms of their character, many first editions have been produced relatively
freely, but revised later for greater fidelity to the original text.
Theory and terminology of “dynamic” or “functional equivalence” have
served as guidelines for distinguishing and justifying new projects (e.g. Good
News Bible, Gute Nachricht Bibel). For example, when the Lutheran Dean Kurt
Hennig from Esslingen criticized the German Bible Society’s Gute Nachricht
project in 1982,2 the society responded with a rebuttal “which culminated in

1 Translated from Hoffnung für alle 1983: “Ändert euch von Grund auf, und kehrt um zu Gott,
damit er euch eure Sünden vergeben kann. Laßt euch von mir taufen!”; for exegesis and
comparison of translations see esp. Part 1.1.6; translations of the passage listed in 5.1.
2 idea-Nachrichten 37/1982 and idea-Spektrum 38/82, p. 8.

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 11

Preface

the fact that the critic had not considered the objective of the Bible version.”3
Having witnessed similar instances among other publishers and translators,
I have focused my attention on the spiritus rector of many of the new, more
freer translations: Eugene A. Nida (1914–2011). It is him and his translation
theory that Bibles such as Gute Nachricht and Hoffnung für alle reference (in
their afterword and preface respectively). My discussion of Nida in this study
has been guided by a desire to honor his tireless dedication and tremendous
lifework with a sympathetic presentation and a patient ear. At the same time,
however, we must assess whether the implications and consequences of his
translation theory with respect to philosophy of language, theology, and
practice do justice to the particular natures of the Bible or of the literature to
be translated – or whether they actually run contrary to those natures.
It will, I trust, become clear how fundamental a break has been made by
Bibles that dispense with the specific language of the Scriptures and convey
its content in consumer language. The way in which a devoted Christian with
a great lifework has changed the course for millions of Bible readers is not
without tragedy!
Although Bible translations produced on the basis of Nida’s theory now
often dominate the markets (see Part 1), little is known of him in the German-
speaking world. In order to fill this gap, an extensive look at Nida’s journey
(Part 1.4) and the development of his theory (Part 2) are needed before
criticism can be expressed. My critique proceeds – put simply – on the basis
that translation should correlate most closely with the source text and not with
hypothetical communication processes (Part 3). The work concludes with an
evaluation (Part 4), including a look back to the Lutherbibel (and its current
reception among advocates of dynamic-equivalent translations) and a forward
glance to future Bible translation.
One practical-theological lacuna remains. I am aware of neither sociological-
empirical nor theological-evaluative studies that reflect the consequences
that have arisen from recent Bibles – i.e. their interdependencies in services,
church structures, and religious socialization, as well as in denominational and
confessional distinctives, and in the aforementioned paradoxical simultaneity

3 Frankemölle, Bibel und heutiger Leser, 120 (emphasis mine).

12 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 Preface

of the wide range of translations and ignorance of the texts. It seems to me

that practical theology has been largely untouched by the phenomenon of the
newer translations, at least in the German-speaking world. The same was true
of German-language exegesis, albeit less universally, until the publication of
the Bibel in gerechter Sprache.
Much of this study (Parts 1 and 2) was carried out during a sabbatical
year as Scholar in Residence at Regent College, Vancouver, from July 2008 to
July 2009. I am indebted to the college, the J. R. Allison Library, Izumi Araki,
and Robert Byers for their support during my stay. Parts 3 and 4 developed
gradually in 2010 and 2011. I have been able to present and debate some areas at
conferences of the Society of Biblical Literature (2011 and 2012) and at Forum
Bibelübersetzung, Wiedenest, especially 1.1.6 and 2.4. I have expounded the
issues before many congregations and committees, initially alongside Rev. Dr.
Bernhard Rothen and Prof. Dr. Peter Wick in Basel (2003 and 2004). The broad
response, the strong agreement, and also the strong disagreement have meant
that the subject matter has never left me. I extend my warmest thanks to the
above-named individuals for their many years of support.
I sincerely thank several of the translators of Hoffnung für alle and the
Neue Genfer Übersetzung for amicable and controversial discussions. I also owe
my thanks to Douglas Trick, M.A. for in-depth conversations at the Canada
Institute of Linguistics, Trinity Western University, and likewise to Prof. Hal
Harris in Dallas, who edited the NET Bible. Many thanks go to Rev. Dr. Werner
Neuer and Rev. Dr. Reiner Andreas Neuschäfer for their valuable guidance and
encouragement while critically reading the manuscript. I would also like to
thank Dr. Neuschäfer (d. 2016) for the final proofreading and theology student
Christian Hübler for help in many different areas. I thank the German Bible
Society, especially Dr. Rolf Schäfer, for their extensive help in the technical
preparation.
Finally, I thank all who made the year of study in Vancouver possible:
Pilgermission St. Chrischona for the sabbatical year, the surprising number
of people who offered financial support to me and my family, and my parents
in particular. Last but not least, I thank my own family who often had to be
apart from me, but eagerly accompanied me to Canada and lovingly shared
in the ups and downs of the work.

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 13

 

Preface to the English edition

A translation of this book had long been suggested, since it had received
significant positive attention and critique. The reviews include the following:

a) J. Klautke, in: Bekennende Kirche No 53/2013, pp. 41f.

b) W. Neuer, in: Diakrisis 34, 3/2013, pp. 127–130.
c) H. Seubert, in: Theologie und Philosophie 88, 4/2013, pp. 603–605.
d) H. Seubert, in: Theologische Literaturzeitung 139, 1/2014, pp. 49–
51.
e) G. Tauberschmidt, in: Evangelikale Missiologie 30, 3/2014,
pp. 162–164.
f) H. H. Klement, in: Jahrbuch für evangelikale Theologie 28, 2014,
pp. 262–265.
g) F. J. Backhaus, in: Biblische Bücherschau (bbs) 7/2014, pp. 1–5.4
h) T. Pola, in: Theologische Beiträge 45, 6/2014, pp. 379f.
i) NN, in: Stiftung Bruder Klaus, Mitteilungsblatt 4/Feb. 2014, pp. 17–
20.

In 2014, the book was awarded the Johann Tobias Beck Award for outstanding
theological research and was later published a further two times (2016, 2022).
Unfortunately, personal circumstances have delayed an English edition.
The literature research on the topic essentially ended in 2013. I added some
newer publications up to 2024 to the bibliography. (I recommend, for example,
Michael Straus, The Word as Word, 2024.) However, my line of argument
remains unaltered.
I am deeply grateful for the devoted work of the translator, Hannah
Erdmann, and the publisher Frank & Timme for their support.

4 Available at www.biblische-buecherschau.de/2014/Felber_Bibeluebersetzung.pdf (retrieved

12.10.2024).

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 15

Preface to the English edition

I would also like to thank the sponsors who enabled the publishing of
this book, among them the Swiss “Arbeitsgemeinschaft für biblisch erneuerte
Theologie” (working group for biblically renewed theology, www.afbet.ch).

S. Felber, October 2024.

16 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 

Conventions and Abbreviations

The following terms are used largely synonymously, albeit with some nuance:
source-oriented/form-oriented/structurally faithful translation; target-oriented/
addressee-oriented/communicative/dynamic- and functional-equivalent
translation. As will be shown, the school of translation designated by the
latter group should be understood as having originated primarily with Eugene
Nida. Since that time, the general understanding of this group has expanded
to include translations such as the Volxbibel, as demonstrated for example in
the Wikipedia article “Kommunikative Bibelübersetzung” (Communicative
Bible Translation, 3.10.2010). However, in line with Nida’s intentions I do not
follow this expansion. For more on the issues around types of translation see
1.1.4 below (pp. 37ff.).
In order to keep the footnotes concise, Nida’s writings are cited with
abbreviated titles, each consisting of the year of publication and the first letter
of the first word (mostly nouns; articles are omitted). Additional letters are used
where overlaps occurs. The works of other authors are cited with the author’s
name and, in the case of longer titles, an abbreviated title. Internet sources are
cited with the date on which they were last accessed. Conventions that concern
only the bibliography are stated directly before it; see p. 483 below.
Abbreviations are derived from S. Schwertner’s „Theologische Real­
enzyklopädie: Abkürzungsverzeichnis,” Berlin: de Gruyter 1994. The following
abbreviations in particular are used in this study:

ABS American Bible Society

AnthLg Anthropological Linguistics (Journal)
BBKL Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon
BFBS British and Foreign Bible Society
BiTr The Bible Translator (Journal of the UBS)
BUBS Bulletin of the United Bible Societies (Journal)
CEV Contemporary English Version (2005)
DE Dynamic Equivalence

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 17

Conventions and Abbreviations

EKD Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland

EKL Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon
epd Evangelischer Pressedienst
ESV English Standard Version (2001)
ETR Études théologiques et religieuses (Journal)
FAZ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
GNB Good News Bible (NT 1966, AT 1976)
Hfa Hoffnung für alle (1983/1996/2002/2015)
IJAL International Journal of American Linguistics (Journal)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
LSA Linguistic Society of America
KJV King James Version (1611)
LThK Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche
LXX Septuagint
NET New English Translation (2004)
NeÜ Neue evangelistische Übersetzung
NGÜ Neue Genfer Übersetzung
NIV New International Version (1973/1984)
PracAnth Practical Anthropology (Journal)
RSV Revised Standard Version (1952)
SIL Summer Institute of Linguistics
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
TEV Today’s English Version (1966)
TGG Transformational-generative grammar
ThLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
ThWNT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie
TTR Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction: Études Sur le Texte
et Ses Transformations (Journal)
UBS United Bible Societies
WBT Wycliffe Bible Translators
ZThK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

The generic masculine form is used in reference to persons.

18 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 

Guide to Foreign-Language Terms

BasisBibel BasisBible
Bibel in gerechter Sprache Bible in Fair Language (esp. with
regard to gender; 2006)
Bibel in heutigem Deutsch Bible in Contemporary German
Bible en français courant Bible in Contemporary French
Das Buch The Book (transl. R. Werner)
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft German Bible Society
Einheitsübersetzung Unity Translation (catholic)
Elberfelder Bibel Elberfelder Bible
Gute Nachricht Bibel Good News Bible
Gute Nachricht für Sie Good News for You
Hoffnung für alle Hope for All
Lutherbibel Luther Bible
Münchner Neues Testament Munich New Testament
Neue evangelistische Übersetzung New Evangelistic Translation
Neue Genfer Übersetzung New Geneva Translation
Neues Leben Bibelübersetzung New Living Translation
Neue Mülheimer Ausgabe New Mülheim Version
Neues Testament in heutigem Deutsch New Testament in Contemporary
German
Nouvelle Edition Genève New Geneva Translation
Novum Testament Graece Greek New Testament
Schlachter Übersetzung Schlachter Translation
Société biblique française French Bible Society
Sprachphilosophie Philosophy of language
Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible Ecumenical Translation of the Bible
Versión Popular Popular Version
Volxbibel People’s Bible (transl. M. Dreyer)
Zürcher Bibel Zürich Bible

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 19

1 Historical introduction

1.1 “Revolution” through “new methods”:

the significance of Eugene Nida’s theory

1.1.1 Resounding success

Surprisingly, but not without reason, Eugene Albert Nida (1914–2011) came
to be revered as “the world’s most influential Bible translator”5 despite never
publishing his own translations.6 His optimistic theory maintains that the
meaning of a text can be captured through “basic kernels,” or kernel sentences,
and thus be transferred from one language to another without losing virtually
anything. The Director of Translation Services of the United Bible Societies
has likened this to a “revolution.” Nida developed a simple but highly effective
explanatory model which gained worldwide acceptance among the most
prominent Bible translators.7 Similar verdicts were passed in the secular

5 Christianity Today 7.10.2002, 46 (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/011/2.46.html,

29.10.2008).
6 “Lecturers and writers frequently refer to me as a Bible translator who learned something
about linguistics and translating. But I have never translated a chapter of the Bible for
publication, nor have I ever been a member of a translating committee. I am simply a linguist
specializing in language and cultural anthropology, and because of this I was invited by
the American Bible Society to find out why so many of their publications of the Scriptures
were so seldom read and so frequently misunderstood. I accepted the challenge of trying
to find out why people have so much trouble in understanding biblical texts, but in the
process I have written and lectured more in secular settings than in specifically religious
contexts [!]. I am simply a student of sociolinguistics and semiotics who has been studying
verbal [!] communication in more than ninety countries and who continues to be fascinated
by languages” (2003f, 135 [emphasis mine], directly beneath the heading “Who am I?”). See
also Elena Nida, Profile, 21.
7 Crisp, Challenges, 201f. Many others speak similarly of a “revolution”: North, Appreciation, x;
Stine, Assessment, 2004, 469; ibid., Lasting Influence, 2004, vii + 2; Charles H. Kraft in the
preface to Nida’s 1990m, vii: “The contemporary revolution in Bible translation theory
and practice owes a greater debt to Nida than to any other single individual.” Also cited
in Robertson, 50 Years UBS, 58, and by the Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship (www.
nidainstitute.org/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=0920A817-28AA-4D6F-9B9F70012FE3A462&
method=display, 16.2.2009); finally Longenecker, Quo vadis?, 343 (with superlatives added).

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 21

1 Historical introduction

domain: the Linguistic Society of America considers Nida to be “one of the

most effective spokespersons for the field of linguistics that the world has ever
known.”8 His book Toward a Science of Translating (1964t) is regarded as the
beginning of translation science/studies in its narrower sense9 – as the “bible”
not only for Bible translation, but also for translation in general.10
Nida produced numerous books and essays, some of which sell at
extremely high prices.11 Even older titles from the 1960s have been reprinted,12
with commemorative volumes and secondary literature proving the “lasting
influence”13 of the star of translation theory. Nida’s key works became standard
reference works and even the “bible” of functional equivalence.14 Stolze still
remarked in 2004 that Nida’s emphasis on the receptor and his response was
no longer questioned, but had been confessionally, epistemologically, and
sociologically validated.15
However, Nida’s many writings are not all equally well-known. The Theory
and Practice of Translation (1969tp) has been cited, reprinted, taught, and
applied most frequently, with Toward a Science of Translating and From One

The United Bible Societies (UBS) had been committed to dynamic equivalence for years, as
stated by the UBS Translation Services Coordinator Phil Noss (UBS 2000). – Cf. D. France,
Overview, 189: “Bible translation has entered a quite new phase since 1960”; 193: “But in fact
virtually all English versions of the last half century have accepted the principle of translating
idiom for idiom rather than word for word …”
8 Homepage of the Linguistic Society of America (www.lsadc.org/info/lsa-award-more.cfm,
27.1.2009).
9 Koller, Übersetzungswissenschaft, 60 (cited in Klaiber, Aufgabe, 469). Dollerup on 1964t:
“His perceptive and pioneering study opened the eyes of the scholarly community to
Translation Studies like no other work before” (Nida and Translation Studies, 81).
10 Gentzler, Contemporary Translation, 44; Dollerup, ibid., 84.
11 His autobiography Fascinated by Languages (2003f, 158 p.) costs no less than 120 USD and
up to 174 euros; Contexts in Translating (2001ct, 125 p.) is available at 116 USD, and prices
for second-hand copies range from 140 USD to an unbelievable 248 euros (www.eurobuch.
com, 17.6.2009). The paperback From One Language to Another is available for 112 to 142
euros (ibid.).
12 Message and Mission (1960m/1990m, cf. footnote 699, p. 167), Toward a Science of Translating
(1964t/2003t), Theory and Practice of Translation (1969tp/2003tp, passim).
13 Subtitle of Philip Stine’s Let the Words Be Written, 2004 (also available in Chinese).
14 Carson, Limits of Functional Equivalence, 66.
15 Stolze, Bibelübersetzung, 370.

22 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 1.1 “Revolution” through “new methods”: the significance of Eugene Nida’s theory

Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation (1986f )

also being widely referenced. Nida’s Guide for Translators and Revisers – A
Statement of Principles (196116), produced in collaboration with translators
at the American Bible Society, has not yet been superseded.17 Since 2001,
his name has been borne by an institute of Biblical studies affiliated with the
American Bible Society (the Eugene A. Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship,
New York18). Until 2008, Nida contributed the article on Bible translation to
all reprints of the 1998 Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.19 His
success was such that in November 2008, one critic described his theory “by
and large” as “translation orthodoxy.”20
In the 2009 edition of the Routledge Encyclopedia, Nida was entirely
absent from both the list of authors (presumably on account of age) and the
index. Umberto Eco, in his Experiences in Translation, makes the surprising
and misleading claim that the concept of reproducing impact originated with
his own idea of intentio operis.21 Nida is seemingly not (or no longer) well-
known in Italy, despite another institute being named after him in Misano
Adriatico (Rimini). However, there is no doubt as to his enduring significance
in the present day. A vast number22 of Bible translations produced worldwide

16 Appendix to revised edition of 1947b: 1961b, 286–340.

17 Information from correspondence with the ABS, 18.5.2009.
18 Elena Nida, Profile, 22 (announcement of the change of name, honoring Nida at a conference
in 2001); cf. www.nidainstitute.org.
19 1998a.
20 Boer, Dynamic Equivalence Caper, 4 (manuscript from a lecture at the Boston Annual
Meeting of the SBL).
21 Eco, Quasi dasselbe, 94, cf. 85, 163, 200.
22 Christianity Today (see footnote 5, p. 21) refers to over 200, while a dissertation from New
Zealand states as many as 2000: “It is almost impossible to overstate Nida’s influence on Bible
translation in the modern era, as his principles were put into practice in over two thousand
languages in the past fifty years” (Doty, Paradigm Shift, 28, same figure given on pp. 30, 50f.,
70, 99!). Given the relatively small number of total Bible translations (ca. 2,350), this figure
seems to be an exaggeration. – Even a Jewish revised version of the Tanakh (English, 1985) is
now translated “idiom for idiom rather than word for word” (D. France, Overview, 188, with
reference to Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional
Hebrew Text).

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 23

1 Historical introduction

are based on his theory23 of Bible translation. The EKL “Bible Translation”
article reports developments since 1945 as follows:

“Methods of translation have been refined to such an extent that they

may be spoken of as new methods. Not only the distinct languages,
associations, experiences, and thinking of the peoples of Africa and
Asia, but also the sociolinguistic variations of dialects in the Old
World have necessitated closer attention to the individual receptors
of Bible translations than ever before. The objective is an equivalence
of content (not form) between accuracy of translation and clarity for
the addressee. This is achieved through sociolinguistics, information
theory, structural linguistics, semiotics, and ethnology on the one hand,
and through exegetical scholarship and textual research on the other.”24

These recent developments were largely initiated by the secretary of the

American Bible Society and United Bible Society, who spent many decades
travelling and writing.25 “Cameron Townsend [see 1.4] and Eugene Nida
changed the face of Bible translation.”26 Translations based on Nida’s theory
will continue to influence cultural development for generations to come where
vernacular Bibles are received for the first time, again demonstrating the

23 The use of the singular will be subsequently explained (see Part 2, especially 2.1.5, pp. 188f.).
– However, the problem of referring to “theory” in translation studies in the first place
(cf. Steiner, Errata, 128–130) cannot be dealt with in depth here. The scholarly nature of
translation studies remains disputed; cf. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Propädeutikum, 14ff. –
Steiner (ibid., 130) speaks strongly of an “arrogant misnomer”: “The term ‘theory’, which
necessarily entails experimentation and falsification, is, when invoked by the humanities,
largely spurious. Its prestige in the current climate of humanistic-academic studies emanates
from an almost pitiable effort to ape the fortunes and public status of pure and applied
science. The diagrams and arrows with which ‘theorists’ decorate their claims are artificial.
They can prove nothing. What we need to examine are the rare and sporadic statements that
translators have left behind from their desks.”
24 EKL Vol. 1 (31984), col. 484 (emphasis in original).
25 Van Leeuwen: “If you read a Bible translated in the last half-century, you probably read a
Bible influenced by Nida” (Another Bible Translation, 29). Carson: “a remarkable reversal”
(New Bible Translations, 39).
26 Johnson, Good News for the 20th Century.

24 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 1.1 “Revolution” through “new methods”: the significance of Eugene Nida’s theory

abiding significance of his work. Under the heading “Translation Principles of

the UBS,” the 1969 edition of the TRE referred exclusively to Nida and Taber’s
theory (with one reference to William Wonderly), and this remained the case
until 1980.27 Although translation theory and debate have seen many changes in
the last decades, Nida’s concept of translation still retains the same “dominant
place” among translators, “especially those who work in receptor languages
remarkably different from either the Indo-European or Semitic languages in
which most people in the West have been nurtured.”28 His contribution to the
understanding of translation as a “communicative event” is said to be “without
peer.”29 1964t is widely regarded as the beginning of an independent field of
translation studies.30
Nida’s theory is still indispensable to contemporary Western debate
on translation of the Scriptures. The guide by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L.
Strauss (2007), for example, makes constant reference to Nida’s framework
and does not venture beyond it.31 Nida’s terminology of dynamic or functional
equivalence appears wherever Bible translation and theory are mentioned,32
despite ongoing confusion around the terms used to describe translation.33
Above all, his theory has been the primary means of providing both supporters
and critics with a linguistic framework and definitions for discussing Bible
translation and classifying existing or planned translations since the late
1960s.34 It has also frequently been used to communicate opinions on old or

27 Wootton, Art. Bibelübersetzungen, 306.

28 Carson, Limits of Functional Equivalence, 66.
29 Statham, Evolution, 39.
30 Stolze, Übersetzungstheorien, 93, with the following comment: “The encounter with
Chomsky … led him then to a ‘scientific’ basis of thought.” The results were 1964t and 1969tp.
31 Fee et al., How to Choose, 26, 60, 95, 154 (more than shown in the index!).
32 In recent books on exegetical methods, for example. See Söding, Wege der Schriftauslegung, 82f.
33 S. Porter, Issues, 353.
34 One example of many: K. L. Barker from the NIV’s Executive Committee on Bible
Translation, including in his essay “Bible Translation Philosophies …” 2003, pp. 53f. (Nida’s
quote takes up more than one page, following “we must have a working definition of formal
and dynamic equivalence”). There are hardly any alternatives (e.g. Price replaces “formal”
with “complete equivalence,” Beekman and Callow speak of “literal equivalence”; in Martin,
Accuracy, 7). –

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 25

1 Historical introduction

new translations – often through the simple model presented in Nida’s most-
read book:

Book excerpt: Nida’s criteria for translation evaluation35

This spectrum has reappeared in more recent discussions using different

terminology, but with equivalent content: W. Koller distinguishes between
adaptive and reproductive translations (adaptierende und sich einpassende
Übersetzungen), L. Venuti speaks of domesticating vs. foreignizing, Ch. Nord
of documentary vs. instrumental, J. House of overt vs. covert translations,36
W. Schadewaldt of transposing and documentary translation,37 etc. The work

Cf. Floor’s suggestion of distinguishing four types of translation (Floor, Types). Despite
repeated attempts to break down the polarity of formal and dynamic equivalence, the
discussion largely moves between these two poles (S. E. Porter, Assessment, 2009, 120; Egger-
Wick, Methodenlehre, 2011, 92–95).
35 1969tpe, 173 (1969tpd, 179). Ma (Exploring the Differences, 104) believes that Nida still
did not prioritize dynamic over formal equivalence in 1964 (from this she even constructs
different creative periods in Nida’s work). I cannot see this in light of Nida’s evaluations, nor
from the textual evidence that Ma provides (for analysis of the book 1964t see Part 2.5.1,
pp. 281ff.; for more on Ma, see Part 1.3.2, pp. 82ff.).
As a passing note on the history of translation theory, Dryden’s preface to the translation
of Ovid’s letters (1680) makes a comparable distinction (using non-biblical examples!)
between metaphrase, paraphrase, and imitation. This was not new even at the time, but
it came to be the classic statement. The key point is that here again the middle course is
put forward as the golden rule (Prickett, Words and the Word, 29f., following Charles
Martinsdale and George Steiner).
36 In Klaiber, Aufgabe, 469.
37 In Reiser, Spiegel, 52.

26 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 1.1 “Revolution” through “new methods”: the significance of Eugene Nida’s theory

of J. Catford uses the same terminology as Nida, but with different meanings
and evaluation.38

1.1.2 Competition, crowding out, and clutter –

recent market statistics
The current situation is not straightforward. Nida and his co-authors Taber and
de Waard have long lost their supremacy in the translation theory debate, and
the field is now dominated by Skopos theory, functionalist theories, relevance
theory,39 and literalist theories, also known as descriptive translation studies.
Linguistics has shared its leading role with other sciences for some time; in
this respect, my study comes a generation too late. However, new translations
that adhere to the dynamic-equivalent paradigm are still constantly appearing
on the market. If, as Nida said, theory lagged behind practice in the 1960s, the
opposite is now true! The range of Bibles in European languages is expanding
with millions of copies of dynamic-equivalent translations. The result is that
source-oriented translations (Lutherbibel,40 King James Bible, Louis Segond)
are being crowded out, despite many newer translations initially being
advertised as beginners’ Bibles (later as Bibles for anyone).41 In the German-
speaking world this has initiated a process that was already anticipated and

38 Comparison with Nida: see Qian Hu, Implausibility I, 296f. – Overview of further
distinctions: Mojola/Wendland, Era of Translation Studies, 6f. Cf. J. Munday’s classification
of translation theories (Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 2001, as
cited in S. Porter, Assessment, 145:
• “equivalence and equivalent effect” (Jackson, Nida, Newmark)
• “translation shift approach” (Catford)
• “functional theories of translation,” “discourse and register analysis approaches” (Halliday,
Baker, Hatim, Mason)
• “systems theories,” “cultural studies” (Venuti on “translating the foreign”)
• “philosophical theories of translation” (G. Steiner).
39 For overviews see: Brenner et al., Threshold; Wilt, Frames; Gentzler, Contemporary
Translation; Stolze, Übersetzungstheorien; Gerzymisch-Arbogast/Mudersbach, Methoden;
Klaiber, Aufgabe.
40 The inclusion of the Lutherbibel here will be explained subsequently (see 4.1, pp. 439ff.).
41 This was the case with the Hoffnung für alle translation, as shown by a comparison of
various publishing brochures, or Hans Hafenbrack (epd 24.3.1997, cited in Jahr, Neue Gute
Nachricht, 12).

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 27

1 Historical introduction

feared in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries – that Luther’s Bible,

long considered the “true bearer of the piety which flows from justification
[Rechtfertigungsfrömmigkeit] in our German evangelical churches,”42 would
be “washed away.”43
My impression of a “crowding out” (at the same time as an expansion
of the market) is based on my own observation of which translations are
being used for worship and private reading (and which are no longer in use).
This impression cannot be taken as representative, but can be clarified and
confirmed by a synopsis of the published figures, as follows.
The number of both Bible translations and Bible sales increased sharply
after the Second World War.44 This was partly due to greater prosperity, but
also to improved technologies and greater distribution efforts. Nida noted in
1968 (1979) that UBS sales figures almost tripled between 1964 and 1967.45
This growth applied particularly to the new dynamic-equivalent translations:
seven individual editions of the Living Bible (not a UBS publication) were
brought onto the market between 1962 and 1970 with ever-increasing numbers
of available copies. The 43rd edition (1976) boasted 21 million copies, and
the full version, available from 1971, had sold 37 million copies by 1991.46 In
1972 the Living Bible was the most frequently sold book in the United States.
In 1974 it constituted 46% of all Bible sales!47 It was still the most frequently
sold translation of the Bible in 1977.48
The Living Bible may not have saturated the “market,” but it did shape and
fundamentally change it. From 1966, 17.5 million copies of the Good News
Bible (also known as Today’s English Version) were sold in three years. A total
of 30 million were sold by 1971 and 50 million by 1976. Records from 1976–87

42 Hirsch, Bibel, 2. For an analogy in the English-speaking world, see: Norton, King James
Bible, 197f.
43 W. Walther, Luthers Deutsche Bibel, 1917, cited in Krause, Fragwürdigkeiten, 164f.
44 Daniell, Bible in English, 734: “…especially in America, especially since 1945, new translations
make the floods.”
45 1979r, 59.
46 Taylor, My Life, 284; cf. p. 218: almost 40 million.
47 Lewis, English Bible, 238.
48 Ibid., 238 (Lit.); see also Velten, Statistische Angaben, 220.

28 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

 1.1 “Revolution” through “new methods”: the significance of Eugene Nida’s theory

indicate 25 million copies.49 The 1989 Guinness Book of Records reports the
sale of over 104 million TEV New Testaments and complete Bibles between
1976 and 1988.50 Philip Stine has even calculated an immense figure of 225
million copies.51 The larger figures likely refer to the global market and the
lower numbers to American sales.
Publishers are reluctant to disclose their figures. In a private survey of six
publishers undertaken between 1986 and 1990, Carson52 reports approximately
32 million copies of the NIV and 9 million of the NKJV. No figure is given for
the TEV or GNB, but further information is found in a response by Leonard
Greenspoon: 110 million copies of the TEV were sold in 1987 alone, including
over 2 million complete Bibles (the remainder being partial Bibles). According
to Greenspoon, the Living Bible was the most sold book in the United States in
1971 and represented half of all Bibles sold in the USA in 1973.53 In comparison,
it was estimated at a Society of Biblical Literature conference on the King James
Version54 that the total print run of the KJV over 400 years (1611–2011) was
one billion copies.
This course of development has completely changed the situation of
publishers in the Bible translation market, at least where European languages
are concerned. If a translation is to be published, it must first find a niche
alongside many others. For fear of obsolescence, revisions and new translation
projects are rapidly alternated, as was correctly and pointedly predicted
by Gerhard Krause in 1981.55 According to Velten, it was in the USA – the
birthplace of dynamic-equivalent translation – that the resulting “crowding
out” first became apparent (as of 1977)56:

49 In 1977g, 9; van Bruggen, Future, 19.

50 http://bible-researcher.com/tev.html (26.3.2009).
51 Cited in W. Porter, Look, 5; the same number is indicated in Watt, Contributions, 22.
52 New Bible Translations, 62f.
53 Greenspoon, Response, 73.
54 International Meeting, London, July 2011.
55 Fragwürdigkeiten, 80.
56 Velten, Hochkonjunktur, 220. The KJV is unfortunately missing; according to the ABS it was
still outperforming its closest competitor threefold in 1969 (Daniell, Bible in English, 840;
Lewis, English Bible, 115).

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 29