Re: translations


I think your summary of the state of the evidence is very reasonable. 
Though I can't speak to the textual history, I can speak to translation 
as a literary specialist.  I favor the dynamic equivalent for ordinary 
readers.  It *does* reflect a doctrinal bias more, but then most people 
are fairly committed to a denomination anyway, and don't engage 
theological questions outside the authority/leadership of their church.  
If they *tried*, with a literal translation, to do theological/word 
studies, they would probably make huge mistakes, since they wouldn't be 
trained to know what they were looking for, or what stood behind the 
text.  At most the advantage of a literal translation for a 
non-specialist would be the ability to draw a few more connections 
between related passages than would be possible in a dynamic equivalent 

And I do have a favorite in the NIV translation - as being the most 
fluent, literary, and readable of the dynamic equivalents I know of (of 
course all the literal translations are out of the running altogether!).  

-Greg Jordan