Bible Versions: What is the Best Bible Translation? by David Malcolm Bennett
3 F.W. Grossheide, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 307.
4 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 640.
5 The World Book Dictionary (2 vols. Chicago: Doubleday, 1969), 2:1654.
6 L. Morris, “Propitiate, Propitiation” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (4 vols. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [ed.], Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 3:1004.
7 To investigate this matter, consult the major Greek Lexicons.
8 Leon Morris (1955), “The Meaning of ίλαστήριον in Romans iii 25”, New Testament Studies, 2, pp 33-43, doi:10.1017/S0028688500017197. See also Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London: Tyndale, 1955), 125-85; and L. Morris, ISBE, 3:1004-1005.
9 See also John R.W. Stott’s note “The biblical concept of propitiation”, The Epistles of John (TNTC., Leicester: IVP, 1987), 84-88.
10 See Bruce M. Metzger, Robert C. Dentan and Walter Harrelson, The Making of the new Revised Version of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 73-84. It is noteworthy that the authors of this book are described as the “Chair” and the “Vice-Chair” of the NRSV translation Committee.
11 Harrelson in Metzger, Making, 76-77.
12 This appears as either “son of man”, “Son of man” or “Son of Man”.
13 The inclusive language issue is, of course, much more complex than I have portrayed it. Those wishing to examine it further should consult, D.A. Carson, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). This is a well-balanced consideration of the subject.
14 An earlier revision of the NIV with inclusive language ran into a storm of controversy.
First off, I would like to praise this author for giving such a balanced view of the majority of Bible translations. It is refreshing to see someone come at it from a fairly neutral angle.
However, I also have to voice some disappointment with it. First off, among the Translation and Interpreting Studies community (and amongst professionals), it is very rare to speak of any kinds of "equivalence". In fact, while Nida's work is foundational to most modern Western thought on translation, no analyst in a research or even professional settings would start looking for "dynamic" or "formal equivalence", mostly for the reasons the author gives. (I would like to congratulate the author on their handling of these terms). They simply do not make any scientific sense as terms. Language is much more complicated than can be covered by these terms – a point I go into in detail in my earlier Pneuma Review article here: https://www.academia.edu/1317676/Using_the_Right_Bible_Translation. (I would welcome it being republished alongside its companion piece.)
For this reason, even the term "paraphrase" is out of place, since, by definition, all translations are paraphrases. I therefore have to disagree with calling The Message a "paraphrase" that "must be used with caution". Actually, to a large extent the way Eugene Peterson describes his approach to translation is much closer to the way that most trained professionals would handle their work – deciding on strategies and choices based on translation purpose and intended audience. In this light, The Message has more right to the title of a "translation" than say, the NKJV, since the latter was a review of the KJV where the reviewers do not explicitly mention going back to the original manuscripts. The Living Bible is a very different case altogether.
In sum, therefore, this is a very good article but one with a few technical flaws. Please send my congratulations to the author. I would also suggest that he would find Exploring Translation Theories by Anthony Pym and Translation as a Purposeful Activity by Christiane Nord. I am sure they will aid his reflection on Bible translation even more.
First off, I would like to praise this author for giving such a balanced view of the majority of Bible translations. It is refreshing to see someone come at it from a fairly neutral angle.
However, I also have to voice some disappointment with it. First off, among the Translation and Interpreting Studies community (and amongst professionals), it is very rare to speak of any kinds of “equivalence”. In fact, while Nida’s work is foundational to most modern Western thought on translation, no analyst in a research or even professional settings would start looking for “dynamic” or “formal equivalence”, mostly for the reasons the author gives. (I would like to congratulate the author on their handling of these terms). They simply do not make any scientific sense as terms. Language is much more complicated than can be covered by these terms – a point I go into in detail in my earlier Pneuma Review article here: https://www.academia.edu/1317676/Using_the_Right_Bible_Translation. (I would welcome it being republished alongside its companion piece.)
For this reason, even the term “paraphrase” is out of place, since, by definition, all translations are paraphrases. I therefore have to disagree with calling The Message a “paraphrase” that “must be used with caution”. Actually, to a large extent the way Eugene Peterson describes his approach to translation is much closer to the way that most trained professionals would handle their work – deciding on strategies and choices based on translation purpose and intended audience. In this light, The Message has more right to the title of a “translation” than say, the NKJV, since the latter was a review of the KJV where the reviewers do not explicitly mention going back to the original manuscripts. The Living Bible is a very different case altogether.
In sum, therefore, this is a very good article but one with a few technical flaws. Please send my congratulations to the author. I would also suggest that he would find Exploring Translation Theories by Anthony Pym and Translation as a Purposeful Activity by Christiane Nord. I am sure they will aid his reflection on Bible translation even more.