“On Englishing the Bible” is one of my very favorite books. Translation philosophy has moved on, however. You can almost say that it has thoroughly repudiated his ideas.
With exceptions, it seems that leading Western Christians in general, whether they be Catholic or not, are trying to find the golden mean between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.
It seems to me that dynamic equivalence’s height was from 1940 to 1970, a time when Christianity had to some degree regained its footing as a voice in the world, but also a time when the Church was perhaps a bit overconfident that the faith could be translated to the people of Europe and America in a modern vernacular. I think Gaudium et Spes, the JB Phillips New Testament, and the 1970 NAB New Testament have more to do with each other than scholars yet recognize.
Knox was ahead of his time. That said, I agree that dynamic equivalence’s popularity started falling off after the 70s. That is, except for the NIV, which somehow managed to be the one exception to that trend. I remember reading that it wasn’t just an English trend either, as Japan apparently started a dynamic equivalence translation in the 70s, but due to pushback from the public after they published their NT translation, they had to course-correct to formal equivalence, revising that NT translation and changing their plan for the OT translation, publishing the result in the late 80s.
Also, heads up: I just received the email about the new LOTH edition. It appears that Ascension Press will be publishing it.
Word on Fire also just announced that they will be publishing the second edition of the LOTH, and they have a new website dedicated to it: https://www.liturgyofthehours.com/
I really enjoy the Knox translation and hearing from the man himself about translating the bible is very cool. Thank you for posting that Timothy.
“On Englishing the Bible” is one of my very favorite books. Translation philosophy has moved on, however. You can almost say that it has thoroughly repudiated his ideas.
With exceptions, it seems that leading Western Christians in general, whether they be Catholic or not, are trying to find the golden mean between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.
It seems to me that dynamic equivalence’s height was from 1940 to 1970, a time when Christianity had to some degree regained its footing as a voice in the world, but also a time when the Church was perhaps a bit overconfident that the faith could be translated to the people of Europe and America in a modern vernacular. I think Gaudium et Spes, the JB Phillips New Testament, and the 1970 NAB New Testament have more to do with each other than scholars yet recognize.
Knox was ahead of his time. That said, I agree that dynamic equivalence’s popularity started falling off after the 70s. That is, except for the NIV, which somehow managed to be the one exception to that trend. I remember reading that it wasn’t just an English trend either, as Japan apparently started a dynamic equivalence translation in the 70s, but due to pushback from the public after they published their NT translation, they had to course-correct to formal equivalence, revising that NT translation and changing their plan for the OT translation, publishing the result in the late 80s.
Also, heads up: I just received the email about the new LOTH edition. It appears that Ascension Press will be publishing it.
Exciting news about the Ascension Press LOTH. I am not on their email list, but I see that they posted a preview photo on their Instagram page here:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DPg5L3mkcZ7/
The leather edition looks incredible!
Word on Fire also just announced that they will be publishing the second edition of the LOTH, and they have a new website dedicated to it: https://www.liturgyofthehours.com/