I appreciate the value of dynamic equivalence in breaking us free
from simplistic notions of meaning, & especially for stressing
the importance of context. What bothers me is the stress on
function which Mari Broman Olsen highlights. Nida & Taber compare
the Bible to a manual for airplane mechanics (Theory & Practice
of Trans., 1)! Yet as far as I can tell, the Bible contains very
little "how to" material, & a great deal of poetry & narrative
the function of which is far from clear. Even the function of the
legal material is not unambiguous, as Talmud, etc. shows.
PS -- while the differences are certainly important, dyn. equivalence *shares*
with both positivism & fundamentalism the notion of univocity, & that is the
problem which concerns me.