Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: tc-list-digest V4 #31

Expand Messages
  • Prof. Ron Minton
    ... Thanks for these notes. I too am surprised at the amount of functional E. in the KJV, but I have found it more literal than those below it in the list.
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 3, 1999
      On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Matthew Anstey wrote:
      > Gday Ron,
      > You wrote,
      > LITERAL
      > ...
      > 1611 King James Version
      > 1917 The Holy Scriptures (Jewish)
      > For what reason do you see KJV as literal? It must be assessed against its
      > context not ours. The introductory essay in the first edition of the KJV
      > (there were over 100 editions) promoted what many would see as a more
      > functional approach to translation. Certainly they were very free in many of
      > the translations.

      Thanks for these notes.
      I too am surprised at the amount of functional E. in the KJV, but I have
      found it more literal than those below it in the list. Also, I put the
      KJV near the end of the literal section because it is less formal than
      those above it (Yet occasionally the NIV is more literal than the KJV).

      > 1952 Revised Standard Version
      > 1978 New International Version
      > 1989 New Revised Standard Version
      > 1970 New American Bible
      > 1996 New International Version Inclusive
      > You are right in placing the NIV and NIVI in here, as they are a curious
      > mixture of both formal and dynamic translations. This happens when large
      > teams are involved, as seen in the LXX according to some. By they way, I'm
      > glad you have included the "Stealth Bible," which is what some people have
      > called the NIVI.
      > 1985 New Jerusalem Bible
      > 1989 Revised English Bible
      > 1996 New Living Translation
      > 1995 Contemporary English Version
      > 1985 Tanakh: A New Translation (Jewish)
      > 1970 New English Bible
      > Why is the NJB listed here? I would have thought it was in the previous list
      > with NIV.

      Good thought. D.A.Carson _The Inclusive Language Debate_, p. 69, agrees
      with you, but again note that I put NJB first in its category, making it
      almost the same as the NIVI just above it. I will try to re-examine

      > 1976 Today's English Version
      > 1995 God's Word
      > 1996 New Century Version
      > 1958 Phillips Version
      > Again, why is the TEV in this list? It is miles apart from God's Word or New
      > Century. Just because the readability level has been lowered does not mean
      > it is a paraphrase. The CEV actually has an even lower readability level,
      > and it is in the previous list. The TEV (as was the NJB) was translated
      > straight from the original languages, and the idea that it is a paraphrase
      > is misleading.

      Thanks for the note. I may need to raise the TEV one notch as well.

      > 1993 The Message
      > 1971 Living Bible
      > 1. ** An Inclusive Language Lectionary (N. Council of Chur, 1983)
      > 2. New Jerusalem Bible (NJB - 1985)
      > 3. New Century Version (NCV - 1986, 1987, 1988)
      > 4. New American Bible (NAB - 1988 and 1990 revisions)
      > 5. Revised English Bible (REB - 1989)
      > 6. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV - 1989)
      > 7. Good News Bible (GNB - 1992 revision)
      > Are you sure that earlier versions of TEV were not gender-inclusive?
      > You are probably right.

      NO, but could you check? I do not have a copy readily available at this

      > 8. The Message (1993)
      > 9. The New International Reader's Version (1994, 1996, not 1998).
      > 10. ** The Inclusive New Testament (Priests for Equality, 1994)
      > 11. Contemporary English Version (CEV - 1995)
      > 12. God's Word (GW - 1995)
      > 13. New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI-1995)
      > it was published only in Great Britain)
      > What exactly do you mean? It is available for purchase in Australia and I've
      > seen it in Canada, but it was only _published_ in GB. Are you referring to
      > it not being published in USA?

      It was published by Hodder & Stoughton in England and cannot be sold in
      the USA. I do not know if Zondervan has bought the marketing rights yet
      or not, but they planned something like that to protect NIV sales :)

      > 14. ** New Testament and Psalms, An Inclusive Version (Oxford
      > University, 1995)
      > 15. New Living Translation (NLT - 1996).
      > ** = The more radical feminist translations.
      > I think you need to be very careful with this sort of characterisation. NIT
      > (#14) is aiming for a lot more than gender-inclusive language, it is trying
      > to eliminate all bias, so much so that they even remove references to God's
      > "right-hand" so as to not offend left-handed people. I think that the scope
      > of the inclusiveness is greater in these versions, including names for God
      > of course. Just a thought. An excellent overview of gender-inclusive
      > articles is by John Harris in The Bible Translator, Vol. 48 No. 2 (April,
      > 1997): 207-217.

      Thanks, and also see Carson's 1998 book above.

      > With regards,
      > Matthew Anstey

      blessings (PS I noticed your greeting; do you know Crocodile Dundee?)
      Ron Minton
      5379 North Farm Road 179
      Springfield, MO 65803
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.