What is the pitfall of dynamic equivalence theory?

Here's a helpful article on equivalence. It doesn't really go into newer theories, as you've listed, but does sum up some problems with equivalence. https://map.bloomfire.com/posts/777915-yancy-smith-on-equivalence

In short, the problem is cross-cultural. Dynamic equivalence endeavours to translate meaning rather than words. Words, however, acquire meaning, in interaction with contexts. Hence different context, different meaning. Certain biblical terms acquire certain meanings in, say, a western context. To do dynamic equivalence translation is to take the meaning that arises from one context and to transport it into another context, in which actually the actual words would have had different meaning. Meanings are therefore orphaned. Classically this results in the production of bible translations that do not have orthodox interpretations in their target culture, as they are designed to be interpreted in a western culture. The community that is given that bible can be forced to go to international languages such as English, and to Western contexts, in order to get orthodox understandings.

Any translation of words is a translation of meaning. Translation of individual words should look at the meaning of the words in their context. Dynamic equivalence endeavors to translate meanings of larges blocks of text in context. Just 'translating words' brings challenges too. Here is part of Jim's reply once it passes through a few machine translations by Google without anyone checking for the meaning "Some of the Bible can make sense in any context West. Actual results will come from the right to the different situations that may not be very different from the military base provides a dynamic balance. Rather they are designed to be interpreted in classical Western culture may include lethargy, etc. are made in the non-translated interpretation of the traditional aims. "

Of course any translation is a translation of meaning. But without going into technical arguments, there is a simple distinction between dynamic or functional equivalence and formal or literal equivalence. It is in what these strategies are trying to achieve and neither of them achieve it all the time. Formal equivalence TRIES to find a word in the target language which is exactly equivalent in meaning to the word in the original language. Dynamic equivalence translating tries to look beyond individual words and discover the total meaning in larger blocks of text - in sentences or verses or paragraphs. Let me choose a text to illustrate. A literal gloss of the Greek Phil 1:8b would be something like this: 'I yearn for you all in the bowels of Christ Jesus'. In most languages this makes no sense, especially to the naive reader. What are the bowels of Jesus? I grew up with the KJV version and that is what it said. Now we understand that in the culture of the Bible times, the bowel or more likely the abdomen or inner body was considered to be the seat of emotions. So since KJV times, most English Bible translations have used 'heart' instead of 'bowel', the heart being where English speakers locate emotions. But I have worked as a TC on languages where heart was just as incomprehensible as bowel. Some Pacific languages prefer 'belly' or 'insides'. The use of heart is here is actually a very simple form of dynamic equivalence. A heart is not a bowel but the dynamic equivalent of bowel is heart. But there is a further problem. If I literally say 'I yearn for you all in the heart of Christ Jesus', in the target language am I fooling myself, satisfying my conscience that I have translated the Word of God. You asked about the pitfalls of dynamic equivalence but before I get to that let me point out the pitfalls of formal equivalence. Too many literal or 'word for word' translations do not communicate. It satisfies the translator's conscience that they have accurately translated the Greek or Hebrew but if the translation is not comprehensible, THEY HAVE FAILED. Many modern English translations realise that simply substituting heart for bowel does not help much in the target language. So using dynamic equivalence principles, we ask 'What does the whole sentence mean?' The GNB translators asked this question and came up with 'My deep feeling for you all comes from the heart of Christ Jesus himself'. I believe that to be a good dynamic equivalent of what Paul was trying to say. What are the pitfalls of dynamic equivalence translation. Whole books have been written on this. I believe in dynamic equivalence translation but here are two pitfalls that worry me most. 1) There is a tendency to translate from dynamic equivalent translations and not the original Greek or Hebrew. This is laziness on the part of the TC! The role of the TC is to make sure that the native speaker translators understand the meaning of the ORIGINAL text which requires great integrity and intellectual honesty on the part of the TC. The GNB may be helpful to the indigenous translators who speak English as a second language as it may be simpler to read than other English Bibles but it must not be the basis of translation. Otherwise we get a translation two jumps from the original and this is sometimes not culturally correct. It is how some English speakers understand the text in accordance with their own language and culture. It CAN possible also be a suitable approach to the text in the target culture but we should never presume so. We must not translate from one dynamic equivalent translation into another. 2) The second pitfall of dynamic equivalence is that it provides opportunities for the TC (and the translators) to feel they have the freedom to skew the text towards their own theology or the theology of their particular Christian denomination. There are very worrying and unethical examples of this error. When there is a choice, it is very tempting for TCs to encourage a translation which reflects their own theological position. None of us can be totally doctrinally neutral, even though we are supposed to try to be, but we must be aware of our biases and act here with great integrity. I could go on but have said enough already. Sorry to be so long winded but the issues do matter. Grace and Peace. John