RE: tc-list-digest V4 #31
- On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Matthew Anstey wrote:
> Gday Ron,Thanks for these notes.
> You wrote,
> LITERAL, FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE
> 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.
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).
> LITERAL/DYNAMIC EQUIVALENTGood thought. D.A.Carson _The Inclusive Language Debate_, p. 69, agrees
> 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.
> DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT
> 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.
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
> DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT/PARAPHRASEThanks for the note. I may need to raise the TEV one notch as well.
> 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.
> PARAPHRASENO, but could you check? I do not have a copy readily available at this
> 1993 The Message
> 1971 Living Bible
> GENDER-INCLUSIVE TRANSLATIONS
> 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.
> 8. The Message (1993)It was published by Hodder & Stoughton in England and cannot be sold in
> 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?
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 (OxfordThanks, and also see Carson's 1998 book above.
> 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.
> With regards,blessings (PS I noticed your greeting; do you know Crocodile Dundee?)
> Matthew Anstey
5379 North Farm Road 179
Springfield, MO 65803