Re: Now we have "Complete Equivalence"?

To: James Sennett <sennett@goliath.pbac.edu>, b-greek@virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Now we have "Complete Equivalence"?
From: Andrew Crouch <acrouch@acs.bu.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 12:59:37 EDT
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9405111020.H11120-0100000@goliath>; from "James Sennett" at May 11, 94 11:08 am

It seems to me that "Complete Equivalence" is a polemical term, pure
and simple. I don't suppose there's anyone who worked on the NKJV on
this list who would like to jump in and help us understand the
motivations/convictions of the editors??

Andrew Crouch

------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Sennett wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 May 1994, Kenneth Hammonds wrote:
> 
> > The NKJV says it is based on the translation principle of 
> > "Complete Equivalence" (CE). It is defined in the Preface of the NKJV as 
> > seeking "to preserve ALL (emphasis theirs) of the information in the 
> > text, while presenting it in good literary form".
> 
> Given that a definition will distinguish a concept from similar but 
> non-equivalent concepts, the above quotation does not provide a 
> definition of "Complete Equivalence."  *Any* translation theory worth its 
> salt will attempt to achieve that goal! (At least with an acceptably wide 
> interpretaiton of "good literary form"!  :)  )  I have long deplored the 
> NKJV because I perceived it to be almost purely a market ploy with little 
> or no substantive contribution to the cause of Bible translation.  This 
> attempt to create a so-called "Complete Equivalence" theory that somehow 
> competes with what is available is just one more example of why I have 
> such misgivings.  The concept is contentless and bogus -- it offers no 
> real alternative to the prevailing translation theories, but it makes you 
> feel good about its presence.  "Symbol over Substance," to quote the Rush 
> Man.

References:

Re: Now we have "Complete Equivalence"?

From: James Sennett <sennett@goliath.pbac.edu>