I want to take issue with Timothy Ward, in his book, Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (p. 91), regarding translations of the Bible in the section “The Holy Spirit and the Transmission of Scripture.” Ward writes that:
“Dynamic equivalence translations of the Bible, such as the New International family of versions, are based on the quite correct notion that the basic unit of meaning is the speech act (such as the sentence or phrase), and that this, rather than the individual word, is the unit the translator needs to concentrate on reproducing in the receptor language.”
Ward makes at least two errors here. First, the choice is not between the “sentence or phrase” and the “individual word(s).” The choice is between the original text (words and syntax) and the meaning of the original text (authorial intent) as determined by the translator. Dynamic equivalence translations, which are a relatively new concept, are the result of an attempt (however noble) by the translators to determine what the author meant to say to his original audience in its geographical and historical context. This is the pursuit of authorial intent. All translators have to make determinations and assumptions. This translation approach is more prone to error than simple translation of the text because it relies on a greater number of assumptions (many of which that can be quite subjective) than its opponent.
Second, authorial intent is not the responsibility or objective of the translator, but the student of Scripture. Dynamic equivalence translators are striving for a thought-for-thought rather than a word-for-word (Formal Equivalence) translation. Dynamic equivalence places upon the translator, not only the burden of determining what a text actually says, but the additional burden of determining what a text actually means. The problem here is that dynamic equivalence translators effectively add a layer of personal commentary to their translations, which can obscure the actual meaning of a text. In order for the student to get at the original text, he must wade through the layer of personal commentary built into the translation.
Precision in translation should be preferred to readability. It is sometimes argued that the readability of dynamic equivalence translations is better than formal translations. But, of what value is readability if it sacrifices accuracy? The study of Scripture should be based on the purest form of translation possible. I travel the world as Associate Director for World Hope Bible Institute. I teach systematic theology to thousands of indigenous pastors and ministry leaders in places as remote as the jungles of Papua, Indonesia, the plains of East Africa, and the Amazon Basin of Peru. I rarely enjoy an English speaking audience. I teach through translators. This is a difficult task because I am constantly wrestling with my translators who, too often, try, however inadvertently, to bend my remarks around to their doctrinal views, and thus do not always represent with precision the content of the course I am teaching. Or, if they aren’t trying to influence the content of the course, they regularly default to trying to translate what they thought I meant, rather than what I actually said. When that happens, the students, who will never study English, much less Hebrew and Greek, are left with the tainted instruction delivered through translator. A translator’s prime objective is not authorial intent, but faithfulness and precision.
