Dynamic equivalence in translation aims to convey the meaning and function of the text in the target language, even at the cost of departing from the original structure. Its main advantage is communicative clarity: the text becomes accessible, fluid, and understandable to modern readers. In educational or pastoral contexts, this can be a real advantage, not a disadvantage.
From an evidence-based perspective, however, dynamic equivalence introduces significant limitations. It increases the distance between the source data and the interpretation, as the translator's decisions become less transparent. Over time, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish what is directly based on the source text from what reflects cultural adaptation, theological framework, or interpretive refinement.
On a personal level, I don't judge translations as "good" or "bad" in and of themselves.
I do, however, evaluate the translation policy behind them: what priorities were adopted, what compromises were accepted, and how clearly these choices are communicated to the reader. The same translation can be appropriate in one context and misleading in another, depending on how it is used and presented.
The problem, then, is not the method itself, but the lack of clear signaling.When a dynamically equivalent translation is treated as if it were structurally close to the source, readers lose access to uncertainty, ambiguity, and alternative interpretations. Interpretive decisions disappear into the text.
How can this be remedied? First, through transparency in the translation. Whenever a translation prioritizes effect over form, this should be made apparent—through footnotes, commentaries, or parallel, more literal versions. The goal is not to discredit the translation, but to maintain a traceable connection between data and interpretation.
Second, by layering levels of reading. Dynamic translation can serve reception and understanding, but analytical work should return to forms closer to the source. Only by comparing these layers can we assess which elements are stable and which arise as a result of interpretive adaptation.
Finally, proportionality matters. The greater the role of interpretive decisions, the greater the need for interpretive caution. Dynamic equivalence is not inherently problematic—it becomes so only when its interpretive character weakens.
 |
| Eva Bronzini | pexels.com |
.jpg)
0 Comments