Translating God’s Word – “Dynamic Equivalence Translations”

The second translation theory we will consider is “dynamic equivalence”. Once again, I put this phrase in quotation marks because this theory exists on a spectrum. Thus, some will call a particular translation “dynamic equivalent” while others might call it a paraphrase.

A “dynamic equivalence” translation has been defined in this way: “A dynamic-equivalence translation can also be called a thought-for-thought translation…In making a thought-for-thought translation, the translators must do their best to enter into the thought patterns of the ancient authors and to present the same ideas, connotations, and effects in the receptor language.” (From the introduction to the New Living Translation.) For this reason, some people refer to these types of translations as “thought for thought” translations. This means that rather than trying to translate each word as closely and consistently as possible, the translators aim to capture the meaning of each thought in the original document and translate it into the nearest thought in the new language.

Among English Bibles, there are a number of well-known translations which more or less follow this theory. These include the New International Version (both the 1984 and the 2011 editions), the Christian Standard Bible, The New Living Translation, the Contemporary English Version, and the Good News Bible.

There are two main advantages of this translation theory. First, the translations produced by this method are easier to read and understand, and generally are written in smoother English. In general, they avoid unfamiliar terms and use sentence structures that are more natural to English. Because of English style, they also tend to break long Greek or Hebrew sentences into two or more shorter sentences in English. For example, in the NIV, Ephesians 1:3-10 in the NIV is broken into four sentences, while in the ESV it is composed of only two sentences. In Greek, it is all actually one very long run-on sentence! Thus, the ESV tries to keep closer to the long sentence – but that can be more difficult for the reader to understand, so the NIV chose to break it into four separate sentences.

Second, “dynamic equivalence” translations often make it easy to understand the central meaning of a verse. Because they are aiming at capturing the meaning of the original in a though for thought way, the central concerns are often easy to see.

However, there are also two disadvantages to this translation theory. First, nuances and secondary meanings of the verse are often lost, especially when comparing with other verses having the same underlying words or phrases in the original languages. This does not always happen, but it is more likely with a “dynamic equivalence” translation than an “essentially literal” translation.

Second, because these translations are trying to capture the original on a “thought for thought” level, it may require more interpretation by the translator. Sometimes the words or phrases in the original are ambiguous, with two or more possible meanings, but “dynamic equivalence” translations usually smooth this out, choosing one of the possible meanings for the translation.

Again, let me state that these strengths and weaknesses are not meant to say this is the “correct” translation method. I am simply pointing out potential strengths and weaknesses, and this will be done for each translation method.

Next time we will look at what is known as the “paraphrase” translation theory.

In Christ,

Bret