Re: Translation

On the question of translation objectives, I'd like to probe a bit myself.
Dynamic-equivalence theory, I take it, seems to presuppose/advocate the
translation itself as commentary, in the sense that the translation should
render into "equivalent" cultural categories the items, thoughts etc. of
the source text (e.g., an equivalent term for "shepherds" for cultures
without animal herding).  I have no desire to prevent people from such
ventures, but I wonder if this is not combining/confusing two tasks: 
translation and explanation/commentary.  I frankly think that for any
serious reader the better option is a translation as close to the source
culture and idiom as possible, with annotations to explain items
unfamiliar to the target culture.  If a student can't read the source text
in the source language, he/she would at least get some sense of the flavor
of the original cadence, wording and idioms (e.g., English translations of
the Psalms that convey something of the bi-colon structure of Hebrew
poetry).  Serious readers would appreciate having some feel of the
"texture" the "flavor" or "atmosphere" of the source text, I should think,
even if they have to work a bit harder to make good sense of it.  And this
type of translation would achieve the hermeneutical objective of reminding
the readers that they are reading an ANCIENT and FOREIGN text written to
ancient Israelites or Christians, whose original provenance must be
respected and taken account of as part of contemporary application
efforts.   I suppose, therefore, that I'm advocating annotated
translations of the Bible for serious users, though I would prefer the
annotations be restricted to explaining idiomatic and cultural
difficulties in understanding the text (and not include homilizing or
doctrinal explanations)
 Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba