Subject: RE: tc-list-digest V4 #31

From: "Matthew Anstey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:43:47 -0800

Gday Ron,

You wrote,

	LITERAL, FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE

	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.

	LITERAL/DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT
	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.

	DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT/PARAPHRASE
	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.

	PARAPHRASE
	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)
 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?

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.

With regards,
Matthew Anstey

---

From: "Prof. Ron Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:52:14 -0600 (Central Standard Time)

> functional approach to translation. Certainly they were very free in many of

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).
 
> Why is the NJB listed here? I would have thought it was in the previous list

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
these.

> straight from the original languages, and the idea that it is a paraphrase

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

> 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
location.

> 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  :)

> articles is by John Harris in The Bible Translator, Vol. 48 No. 2 (April,

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

> Matthew Anstey

blessings (PS  I noticed your greeting; do you know Crocodile Dundee?)
Ron Minton
5379 North Farm Road 179
Springfield, MO 65803
(417)833-9581