It’s a false dichotomy to say that dynamic equivalent translation (done properly) is opposed to literary translation. True dynamic equivalent translation will sometimes read like literature and sometimes read like the most mundane prose, according to how the original text read. I’d argue that it’s a mistake to say a priori that a translation should sound literary.

I’ll grant that current off-the-shelf dynamic equivalence translations are too stylistically one note. (Also a big problem with the very popular paraphrase, The Message, which is like unsophisticated dynamic equivalence on steroids). But that problem is equally true of literary translations in reverse. They are too one note but in the opposite direction, inappropriately so for most of the NT, not to mention that they are, in general, inaccurate to boot, as measured by the standards of contemporary translation outside of the Biblical context.

Score: dynamic equivalence -1, a priori literary translation -2. Dynamic equivalence wins.

I’m not sure that any translator worth their salt would subscribe to this blunt and naive model.

Well, Eugene Nida more or less did - but arguably has backed away from it in his later work. Surely Nida is worth a lot of salt?

I think one might well argue that NEB and REB are both “literary” and “dynamic equivalence” translations. As such, REB at least (having drawn back from some of the textual liberties of NEB) is a good translation for a target audience which appreciates literature and high level literary English.

I agree with you in rejecting the concept of a “literary translation” which is designed not to facilitate understanding of the text but to produce the response “this is strange”.