Page 190 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY

meaning and effect to the original writings. That is what the Today’s English Version. As we noted earlier, though,
the Word of God is, and what a translation of the Bible we see no significant difference between dynamic
should be. That is what excellent translations of equivalency and paraphrasing, nor between the Living
Scripture such as the KJV and Luther’s Bible are for the Bible and the TEV. Both methods and both versions are
English and German speaking peoples. They were hopelessly corrupt.
equivalencies and they were dynamic! 3. Impact translation. Dynamic equivalency attempts
The problem is that modern dynamic equivalencies to understand exactly how the original hearers of
are NOT equal or virtually equal to the original Bible Scripture were impressed, and then create the same
text. “Dynamic” has come to mean that a literal impression in modern hearers. This is the rationale
translation of the Bible is dull and stale and lifeless, so behind, for example, the Living Bible’s use of gutter and
the translator’s job is to CREATE a lively Bible by his slang language; i.e. “son of a bitch” in 1 Sa. 20:30. [This
clever rephrasing of Scripture into colloquial language. has been changed in recent editions of the LB.] Another
“Equivalency” no longer means that the translator example is the use of symbols for explicit language in
strives as perfectly as possible for an equal transfer of comics published by United Bible Societies in Asia. The
the words and structure of the original. Rather, the passage in 1 Sa. 20:30 is illustrated with a picture of an
emphasis is on a general equivalency, with the translator angry Saul and a comic balloon containing the symbols,
having great freedom to restate, change, add to, and “@#!”, which, of course, is a commonly used symbol for
take away from the original writings. expletives or swear words. In the October 1985 issue of
Dynamic equivalency is a frightfully proud concept. the UBS Bible Translator, this comment is made: “This
Man is saying that that which claims to be the Word of symbolic device is useful in languages where the explicit
God is dry, stuffy, unintelligible to modern man, locked use of an expletive or swear word would be taboo.” This
in ancient cultural language which no longer holds is impact translation. Instead of being content to
import to today’s cultures. Man is saying that the Bible translate what the Bible actually says, dynamic
translator’s work, then, is to unlock the hidden treasures equivalency proponents must force the text to say what
of this dry book and make it LIVE for TODAY’s people. they think God intended to say.
Hence we have versions called The LIVING Bible and 4. Idiomatic translation (inculturalization). This
the TODAY’S English Version which is advertised as “The refers to the attempt by such translators to use the
Word of God ALIVE and ACTIVE.” This attitude is seen cultural idioms of the language of the people for whom
in the words of Kenneth Taylor, author of the Living the translation is intended, and as much as possible to
Bible: avoid using the cultural context in which the Bible was
“We take the original thought and convert it into the originally written. An example is a new Bengali version
language of today. … We can be much more accurate which is intended primarily for marginally literate
than the verbal translation. … Once you get the REAL Muslim and Hindu readers in Bangladesh.
MEANING of the Scriptures, they are life-transforming. 5. Functional equivalence translation. The Director of
… I felt such a thrill at my own privilege of STRIPPING Translations for the American Bible Society, David
AWAY SOME OF THE VERBIAGE. … being a co-worker Burke, used this expression to describe the newly
with God in that respect. … I flipped open my Bible
and began to experiment with this new method of released Contemporary English Version. The American
translation” (Evangelism Today, Dec. 1972, emphasis Bible Society announcement said, “The Contemporary
added). English Version differs from other translations in that it
SOME OTHER NAMES BY WHICH DYNAMIC is not a word-for-word and sequence-by-sequence
EQUIVALENCY IS KNOWN rendering which reproduces the syntax of the original
1. Thought or idea translation. The primary texts. Instead, it is an idea-by-idea translation, arranging
professed aim of dynamic equivalency is to transfer, not the Bible’s text in ways understandable to today’s reader
the very words and structure of the original, but to of English. which means that while the English
transfer the general thoughts. I say “professed” aim, rendering must equal the original language in meaning
because dynamic equivalencies are not faithful even to or context, the order of the words and style is
the general ideas of the original text. determined by today’s English usage, not by the original
Greek or Hebrew. Dr. Burke noted that Bible Societies’
2. Paraphrasing. The general thoughts of the Bible translations were the first to develop and use the
are to be rephrased in modern, colloquial language. ‘functional equivalence’ principle” (Record, American
Some deny that dynamic equivalency is paraphrasing. Bible Society, June-July 1991, pp. 3-6).
They do not want their common language work to be
called paraphrasing. These would want to make a clear 6. Common Language translation. This is one of the
distinction between the Living Bible, for example, and terms most frequently and popularly used to describe
the new dynamic equivalency versions. Common

190 Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity