Yes, and did so knowing maybe the majority of those most supportive of our work are engineers and techies. There are countless jokes about engineers’ inability to communicate emotionally, and I’ve simply assumed men here know this liability and how it limits their ability to understand Scripture at times when they miss the forest for the trees. Didn’t mean to insult anyone. Love,
2 Likes
For years we’ve been trying to arouse interest in a better NASB minus most of the italicized words and phrases added by the translators. A translation adhering closely to the original Greek and Hebrew with the text copyrighted for integrity only, not profit. It could be done for maybe ten or twenty million. Know anyone who would be its patron? Doug and I would love to help it along. Love,
7 Likes
Here’s an interesting article I just stumbled upon that explains the corruption of BDAG in particular on that particular word.
3 Likes
That is extremely interesting, and sadly consistent with the academic echo-chamber. Much appreciated, thank you. Now if I could only go back in time and not make those comments about the NKJV taking liberties with the text…
3 Likes
Is that still a good approximation?
Yes, I think so, although it might be able to be done for less. I don’t think it would take more.
All the accounting should be publicly available. ALL of the expenses made public. Too, the copyright would have to declare it free of any royalties paid to anyone. In other words, a return to prior centuries patronage.
1 Like
Only 22 more years until RSV 1952 copyright expires.
This sent me down a bit of a rabbit trail. Thomas Nelson & Sons published “The New Covenant commonly called The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Revised Standard Version” in 1946. Then the full Bible was published in 1952.
For works published before 1978, the initial copyright term was 28 years. Copyright protection began (typically) on the date of publication with notice. A copyright owner had to proactively file a registration in the year before the expiration (27th year) in order to take advantage of an extended renewal period (95 years from publication). If a work was not properly renewed, it entered the public domain at the end of the 28-year initial term. The Copyright Office maintains an online database of records (including renewal records).
After a bit of searching, I was able to find the record of the registration and renewal for the Old Testament Section of the Revised Standard Version|attachment. And there is a registration (14.2 KB) by The International Council of Religious Education for An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, which you can see by the Internet Archive copy is not the New Testament text.
All this to say, there is a chance that the New Testament RSV text published in 1946 is in the public domain. Please don’t rely on this preliminary search and go make a copy of it. But in case the 1946 New Testament text would be a helpful starting point, it may be available with some extra work to confirm.
2 Likes
So do the work, please, and let us know. Love,
More digging, turns out the copyright was filed (had to browse a virtual card catalogue to find it) and the renewal was filed in 1973. That means the copyright extends to 2041 for the New Testament RSV 1946 text.
1 Like
Thank you, dear brother.
You mentioned in that post several years ago interest in updating/revising the NASB. Given its revision in 2020, does that prevent using it? (I’m not very familiar with the copyright laws).
If it is no longer an option, is there a translation that would still be useful and usable today for revision?
Thank you for your earlier reply.
1 Like
Dear Jason,
Read this right away, but didn’t respond then because it seems foolish to try to unseat the hegemony Big Boys w/Large Royalties have on the church in America today. Among conservative Reformedish types, the ESV now reigns supreme; and among more broadly conservative Evangelicals, we’ve lost them to thoroughly neutered Bible versions.
Do I still believe in a Bible that is careful to keep all male semantic meaning components? Yes. A thousand times yes. It only becomes more clear to me as the years pass. We are neutered, as Mark Zuckerburg put it in explainign his recent shifts at FB.
But why?
Well, the church has removed her salt and light from her Holy Scriptures by neutering them. Thousands of times. We get some idea of the constancy and depth of this in my compilation simply of the word “father” and its cognates in Daddy Tried, showing how it grows decade by decade as new Bible versions are marketed.
But too, still looking at every footnote in the NASB to see how even that version hacked away meaning, and this despite its commitment to avoid dynamic equivalence, I continue to be shocked or appalled at the choices they made, and freely admit (in footnotes). These just from my reading yesterday:
2Chron 24:4 Now it came about after this that Joash [fn]decided to restore the house of the LORD.
Fn. lit. “with a heart to”
2Chron 24:5 He gathered the priests and Levites and said to them, “Go out to the cities of Judah and collect money from all Israel to [fn]repair the house of your God [fn]annually, and you shall do the matter quickly.” But the Levites did not act quickly.
Fn. Lit. “strengthen”
Fn. Lit. “from year to year”2Chron 24:10 All the officers and all the people rejoiced and brought in their levies and [fn]dropped them into the chest until they had finished.
Fn. Lit “threw”
So both the neutering and the habitual deletion of pungency even in the NASB rob us of God’s Words, and it’s inexcusable.
What version(s) to use? Honestly, at this point, I think there is such a superfluity of versions both in and out of copyright that it could be said the new translation was in the lineage of the COVERDALE/TYNDALE/GENEVA/KJV/ASV/ETC English Bibles, with a little help from friends including NASB95 and ESV. Then take the best of each and avoid the worst.
One final thought: not believing in copyrighting Scripture (except to protect the authenticity or integrity of one version’s text), I’ve often wondered what would happen if we simply took the NASB95 and redid it? My guess is they would not sue. Love,
4 Likes
Dear Tim,
The last year has certainly been eye opening for me. I first became acquainted with your ministry about 8 years ago at Christ The King church in Cincinnati. Your words of wisdom to a group of men were far more practical than my years in seminary.
Fast forward to this past year, I became reacquainted with your ministry when I found some of your blog posts on Gentle and Lowly. You were saying what I was thinking. It was helpful to know I wasn’t alone.
I’ve now read most of Daddy Tried and was disturbed (but no longer surprised) to find that the modern translators had neutered so much of the Bible. What was difficult to accept was that my seminary profs and pastors, under the banner of “modern, accurate, faithful translations,” pushed the ESV and CSB. Their emphasis on Complementarianism went hand in hand with their recommended translations. Given the royalties and prestige, and pressure from editors in academia to capitulate to the political correctness of our day, it’s much less confusing. Even men who started with a stronger stance (15 years ago) have been susceptible to shift.
Thanks for your insights and explanation of the possible options. I don’t know what I don’t know. But I do believe A more faithful translation that doesn’t flatten the meaning of Gods word is worth it.
Do you know other men capable and willing to undertake that task of translation/compilation should the funding become available? I don’t have the money. But this seems like a work too important to not think about things, should a door open to pursue a revision.
Grace,
Jason
2 Likes
Dear Jason, To be honest, I’d hoped you had been blessed with God by means. Talk to Matt Shifflett here and you’ll find you’re not the only one who believes in a revision of today’s neutered Bibles. Ask him if you can see the email he sent me a couple months ago. Good ideas.
May God do through us what He wills, dear brother. Love,
PS: I’d suggest you read the posts over at Baylyblog.com under the search of “ESV” and “complementarianism.”
2 Likes