Carson addresses three areas of concern in the area of dynamic or functional equivalence. The areas of translation theory are what Eugene Nida called Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. D.A. Carson is focusing on dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence.
The first area is developments in translation theory. Carson observes that among Bible translators today, the functional equivalence theory dominates.
The next area is the rise of linguistic conservatism. These linguistic conservatives, who prefer the more “direct” translation of formal equivalence, attack dynamic equivalent translation as too paraphrastic and inaccurate. Carson states that translators have three criteria in translation: accuracy, naturalness, and clarity. Carson also added that today a fourth translation criterion has now been added which is authenticity. The linguistic conservative would argue that functional or dynamic equivalence has given up too much accuracy. Carson states that critics of functional equivalence are sometimes unfair and inconsistent in criticizing the NIV translators, for example, of interpreting rather than translating, when all translators must interpret sometimes. For example, Carson cites Van Leeuwen’s criticism of the NIV’s translation of Colossians 3:9-10: “You have taken off your old self with it practices and have put on the new self.” Leeuwen prefers the KJV: “Ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man.” But then Leeuwen gives his translation which is less direct than the NIV: “the old Adam...the new Adam.” Leeuwen is more guilty of interpreting verses translating than the NIV.
The third area is the debate over gender-inclusive language. This debate has been going on since 2000 between Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem and Mark Strauss and C. A. Carson when Poythress and Grudem published “The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words” following Strauss’ Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy.” Carson notes that Grudem and Poythress have criticized the NIV for using gender inclusive language, but Carson contends that the ESV also uses gender inclusive language. Poythress and Grudem endorse the ESV. Grudem worked ESV on as a translator. Carson gives multiple examples how the ESV used gender inclusive language whereas the RSV did not: Matthew 7:9 RSV: “what man of you”; ESV: “which one of you.” Many more examples like this are provided by Carson.
The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation
In this section, Carson addresses some of “the pitfalls inherent in some of these developments.” The first is the limits on the equivalence of response. Charles Kraft is an extreme example of abusing functional equivalence in his desire for the equivalence of response. He advocates “dynamic-equivalence churches.” Because the Kru of Liberia stated, “You cannot trust a man with only one wife” churches should tolerate polygamy, like in the OT, until it eventually goes away. Kraft writes, “In a translation it is inappropriate to give the impression that Jesus walked the streets of Berkeley or London or Nairobi. But a transculturation, in order to reach its target audience more effectively, may do exactly that.” The equivalence of response strives for the same response from the receptor language and that the original readers had with the source language.
Next, Carson address the limits on the dichotomy between meaning and message. Postmoderns contend that the disjunction between message and meaning is too great to span. The communicator’s message is never the receptor’s meaning. Believers advocate because we are made in the image of God, we may not understand exhaustively the communicator’s message, we can gain his meaning sufficiently.
Another pitfall is the limits of the equivalence between biblical history and contemporary history. “Functional equivalence must not be permitted to override the historical particularity of the Bible” Carson warns. He adds, “If, for instance, we replace ‘recline at food’ or ‘recline at table’ with ‘sit down to eat,’ we are going to have a tough job imagining how John managed to get his head on Jesus’ breast---Leonardo da Vinci notwithstanding.” The solution in part can be footnotes and teachers.
The pitfall of the limits on the distortion (witting or unwitting) of salvation history when explained. The example, Carson provides, is that functional equivalency cannot mask the salvation history found in the John 1:29 announcement, “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” because the culture has never heard of sheep and sacrifices pigs in their religion. To do so, would mean changing all references to Christ as the lamb all through the OT and NT plus substituting another animal such as the unclean pig in the OT.
Carson summarizes the limits on the pursuit of comprehensibility. Translator must not do away with the obscurity of some passages for the sake of comprehensibility. We must admit there are some difficult passages in God’s Word like Galatian 2:1-10.
Carson referenced the pioneer in functional equivalence to buttress his next warning, which is limits on the pursuit of comprehensibility. Eugene Nida argued that good exegetes and grammarians make poor translators. Conversely, Carson argues that translators need more Greek and Hebrew to protect them from the pitfalls of functional equivalency.
The following pitfall is the limits on our expectations of what the Bible by itself will usually achieve. Translators must not over exaggerate their expectations that if they nearly perfectly translate that is all that is necessary for multitudes to turn to Christ. There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit as stated by Christ in John 16:8.
Lastly, Carson confronts the limits on the use of study notes. Carson advocates “notes that are as theologically neutral as possible---notes that focus on historical, linguistic, and cultural matters---may not only prove to be a good thing but may also remove some of the pressure to de-historicize biblical texts.