What is optimal equilvalence? I know the NIV used dynamic equivalence. So the question is what is the difference between the two?
Here is an extract from the opening paragraph on the website.
HOW THE CSB WAS TRANSLATED
The CSB was translated using a methodology called Optimal Equivalence, which balances contemporary English readability with linguistic precision to the original languages. In the many places throughout Scripture where a word-for-word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. When a word-for-word rendering might obscure the meaning for a modern audience, a more dynamic translation is used.
The bias or translation slant of an English version is very important to me. From bible-researcher.com I lift some descriptions to explain. On the NASB it reads: "unlike the RSV, the NASB deliberately interprets the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament." On the NRSV: "The deliberately non-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament which made the RSV unacceptable to many Christians is continued in this revision." On the Revised English Bible it states: "it remains considerably less literal than the Revised Standard Version (1952). The method of translation is comparable to that of the New International Version (1973); but, being the work of non-evangelical scholars, it lacks the distinctively evangelical interpretation of the Old Testament to be seen in the NIV."
While I view the NT as explaining the OT, I find it good to also use the RSV, NRSV & REB to more closely see how the Old Covenant Jew would have heard the Hebrew words. I like it to balance against the far right slant that can be found at times in the more modern evangelical versions. As an example, Exodus 21:22:
NASB77 "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."
When this verse became a key in the abortion debate, suddenly the translation needed to be changed to support the idea that a human being exists at conception, so the NASB was changed thus:
NASB95 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."
Up until Roe vs Wade in 1973, most translations and/or commentators tilted toward "miscarriage", even the KJV "her fruit depart" was usually understood as miscarriage. But when the verse became a problem in the abortion debate, a change was made in translation of evangelical versions, but the RSV, NRSV & REB remained "miscarriage". For historical background, a couple of commentary statements on Ex.21:22.
John Trapp, Puritan: "There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God." (According to the Hodges, creationism, was the predominant view of the Reformed on origin of the soul.)
Adam Clarke: "But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder - the person was put to death."
There are a couple of excellent pages online on translations that I've found helpful:
https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf
