Great interview! Small editorial note: the timestamp at 4:35 says “What Makes Golden Gate Unique”, so it looks like Goldingay’s name was accidentally heard by the person making the time stamps as “Golden Gate”
What made you think that they had not heard of Wescott and Hort? Both are Bible and Greek scholars and professors. I think they know all about the Greek texts and famous men like Wescott and Hort.
@@veritas399 I asked the question because they don't appear to know in the video.... You THINK they know because they are scholars. I choose not to assume. There are more "scholars" who don't know than who do.
I go away from this interview asking, "What was the objective of this 'translation' ", and "who is the intended audience?" What reader is concerned with the particularities of Greek grammar and compositional stylistics. The reader who seeks a Bible in natural sounding English to better understand the Word of God is not interested. The reader who knows even a little Greek probably doesn't need it. I didn't hear any thing about a goal of a translation in clear and natural sounding English. Knowing more than language does not automatically qualify one as a competent translator. Languages differ in their grammar and syntax. A work that sounds like Greek in English words falls short of being a competent 'translation' useful for most readers. McKnight's effort to return to the now semantically discredited idea of using a single English word throughout the work for each Greek word is a semantically invalid methodology. Each word in a language communicates a range of meanings, depending on context and topic. It is a semantic fallacy that any single word in the target language encompasses precisely the same the range of meanings as the source language word. Unnaturalness in the translation is the inevitable result. McKight tends to denature the historical setting of the text by renaming: empire for kingdom; observers for Pharisees. Better to retain the historical nomenclature and provide explanations in a glossary. I could say more but I conclude with this: I translate too - as a core element in my own study of the NT. I have been studying translation and linguistics for many years and have translated several complete books of the NT. McKight's description of his translation approach impresses me as a mishmash of idiosycratic devices, to what end I am still not sure.
Enjoyed this so much! Keep it coming.
Really interesting, thanks for this episode!
Great interview! Small editorial note: the timestamp at 4:35 says “What Makes Golden Gate Unique”, so it looks like Goldingay’s name was accidentally heard by the person making the time stamps as “Golden Gate”
McKnight was influenced by Richard A. Horsley?
Have you gentlemen not heard of Westcott and Hort. The two men from which modern bibles originate from?
What made you think that they had not heard of Wescott and Hort? Both are Bible and Greek scholars and professors. I think they know all about the Greek texts and famous men like Wescott and Hort.
@@veritas399 I asked the question because they don't appear to know in the video....
You THINK they know because they are scholars. I choose not to assume.
There are more "scholars" who don't know than who do.
Scot McKnight: " I know of someone who....using the word order of the Greek sentence" Me: would that be David Bentley Hart? 🤔
When one person translates the Bible, it falls under a paraphrase. I do not consider McKnight's work a translation.
You're entitled to your opinion
I go away from this interview asking, "What was the objective of this 'translation' ", and "who is the intended audience?" What reader is concerned with the particularities of Greek grammar and compositional stylistics. The reader who seeks a Bible in natural sounding English to better understand the Word of God is not interested. The reader who knows even a little Greek probably doesn't need it.
I didn't hear any thing about a goal of a translation in clear and natural sounding English. Knowing more than language does not automatically qualify one as a competent translator. Languages differ in their grammar and syntax. A work that sounds like Greek in English words falls short of being a competent 'translation' useful for most readers.
McKnight's effort to return to the now semantically discredited idea of using a single English word throughout the work for each Greek word is a semantically invalid methodology. Each word in a language communicates a range of meanings, depending on context and topic. It is a semantic fallacy that any single word in the target language encompasses precisely the same the range of meanings as the source language word. Unnaturalness in the translation is the inevitable result.
McKight tends to denature the historical setting of the text by renaming: empire for kingdom; observers for Pharisees. Better to retain the historical nomenclature and provide explanations in a glossary.
I could say more but I conclude with this: I translate too - as a core element in my own study of the NT. I have been studying translation and linguistics for many years and have translated several complete books of the NT. McKight's description of his translation approach impresses me as a mishmash of idiosycratic devices, to what end I am still not sure.