Page 201 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY

When we say that the Scriptures are natural in form, adjustment of the actual literary form of the metaphor
we are simply saying that, written as they were by or simile. ... The other is making explicit some part of
native speakers, they fell within the bounds of natural the implicit information which is carried by the figure
Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek. the use of words and (Ibid., pp. 137-138, 143-144).
their combinations; the syntax; the morphology—all Beekman and Callow propose changing the images
was natural. and details of the Bible when people of a modern
This characteristic of the original should also be found culture cannot understand what the Scriptures say. They
in a translation (Beekman and Callow, Translating the give many illustrations of such changes which have been
Word of God, p. 40). made in Wycliffe versions. The Zapotec translation of
Beekman and Callow develop this line of thinking by Mexico changed “the babe leaped in her womb” of Lk.
giving illustrations of ways Scripture can be changed to 1:41 to “the baby played” (p. 147). Some African
conform to modern cultures. This thinking is faulty. The translations have changed “your hearts are hard” in Mt.
Bible translator’s job is to translate that which God has 19:8 to “your ears are hard” or “your stomach is
written. His job is not merely to interpret the original hard” (p. 147). Beekman and Callow suggest that “the
concepts of Scripture, then rephrase those concepts in a tongue is a fire” of Ja. 3:6 could be translated “a fire
general sense in another language. His job is not to ruins things; what we say also ruins things” (p. 149).
change the images of the Bible to adapt them to a We believe this is wrong thinking. Bible translators
modern culture. do not have the authority to change the Word of God
The Bible, if translated properly, will NOT sound like this. If the Bible’s images cannot be understood by a
“natural” to a modern reader. God simply did not write people, it is the job of the teacher to explain them—not
a Book which sounds natural to modern man. If the job of the translator to change them. Inspiration is
translated properly, much of the Bible will not be easy to not a pattern for translation.
understand. Clear understanding of the Scriptures only By the way, in light of the examples we have seen,
comes through faithful evangelists and teachers and perhaps you can see now why we contend that the
through sound teaching tools. This is a basic fact about dynamic equivalency principles used by Wycliffe and the
the Bible: It is a difficult book to understand. It’s culture United Bible Societies are not significantly different than
is foreign to most of us today; it’s teachings are the paraphrasing of Kenneth Taylor. Perhaps you can see
absolute, eternal, heavenly, and foreign to fallen man. why Wycliffe’s John Beekman says the Living Bible is
Did God make a mistake? Of course not. God knew the most natural English translation and why he
what He was doing when He designed the Bible as He recommends it. The examples Beekman recommends
did. Further, it is His Book, not ours, and it is our job to from Wycliffe translations are just as loose as the Living
faithfully, accurately translate it, then teach people the Bible.
meaning of it. DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY ATTEMPTS THE
Yet dynamic equivalency proponents think we have IMPOSSIBLE.
the freedom to change the Word of God and adapt it to In several ways, dynamic equivalency attempts things
modern man. This is exactly what Beekman and Callow which are impossible. Let’s consider some of these:
propose:
First, dynamic equivalency attempts to retain the
Naturally, the original writers drew on their own exact meaning of the original while allowing for great
culture for the images they used; and for any given
receptor culture, it is likely that some of these images changes in adapting the Bible message to the language
will be unknown. Such images as ‘wineskins,’ and culture of the receptor people. Consider the
‘whitewashed sepulchres,’ ‘anchor,’ ‘shipwreck,’ ‘sword,’ following statement by United Bible Societies translator
and ‘crown’ are familiar in relatively few of the Thomas Headland:
cultures for which new translations are currently being “The goal in Bible translation is to make a translation
made. Hence, the meaning of the figure breaks down that will communicate to the target culture without
at its very center—the image itself, since the image their having to learn the Judeo-Greek culture, while at
conveys no meaning at all to the readers of the RL the same time being faithful to the uniqueness of the
[receptor language]. ... When careful questioning of historical and theological setting of the Scriptures. No
the RL readers reveals that a particular metaphor or simple task!” (Thomas N. Headland, “Some
simile is failing to communicate the meaning of the Communication Problems in Translation,” Notes on
original, then the translator needs to find out what is Translation, No. 88, April 1982, p. 28).
causing the problem—the image, the topic, the point of Headland says this is no simple task. In truth, it is an
similarity—and to correct the translation so that the impossible task! God chose to reveal His Word within
problem is resolved. ... the framework, largely, of a Judeo-Greek culture, and if
There are two principal modifications of the form you change the Bible to such an extent that the readers
which are permissible for the translator. One is

Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity 201