Jesus Christ

> Lire le livre : https://www.anandamayi.one/all-media/livres-et-documents
> BIBLIOGRAPHIE de… Mâ Ananda Moyî : https://www.librarything.fr/work/31625712/book/257393026

> Anandamayi, Jésus. Par-delà les siècles, les distances, les différences de cultures, apparaît une troublante résonance... Insolence de faire dialoguer ce corps-ci et ce corps-là ? Insolence d'entrelacer le Mystère de Jésus et un autre Mystère ? Mais est-ce un autre Mystère ? Y a-t'il un esprit et un autre esprit ? Y a-t'il un autre corps que ce corps ?… (mehr)

A version seeking to as lightly translate the New Testament as might be considered feasible.

No one could accuse the translation itself of seeking to flow in good quality English. The only benefit it has over the American Standard Version is that it puts on no pretense of using antiquated English; the English is generally recognizably modern, but in terms of phrasing is entirely enslaved to the Greek. The mission of the translators, in general, is successful: the MLV renders the New Testament in almost as barely translated English as one can attempt to do.

The translators believe they are doing the reader a service by putting asterisks and note references in many places; I found the convention confusing and irritating, and it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to be able to simply read the MLV text. The practice of hyphenating English words which reflect a translation of a single Greek term may have some benefit in terms of study but also makes for difficult and clunky reading. In positive terms there are a few times when the text as translated does illuminate some elements of the original which could otherwise be missed. If one is looking for an ASV type text but in more modern English, the MLV is it.

But then there's the pretension even listed on the cover: "The World's Most Accurate English Translation." Sure, if your philosophy is so thoroughly positivist and rationalistic that one would seek to participate in such an endeavor, perhaps; even then, the claim can be strongly questioned.

The translators attempt to make a science out of an art and decide nuance by fiat and mathematics, and none of this bodes well for the translation. Their claims to be the first to use a single word whenever possible to translate a given Greek word is wrong; the Jehovah's Witnesses were the first to do so with their New World Translation, and it is a debacle because of it. The MLV translators wish to avoid variety for variety's sake; well and good. But the oft repeated idea, "if God wanted a concept expressed in different terms He would have used different Greek words," is fatuous. Hebrew poetry, for instance, is defined by parallelism, frequently involving synonymous terms used in parallel to intensify or for other poetic effect. They do not even seem to understand the issue at hand: it is not as if different English terms are chosen to translate the same Greek word in different contexts just for the fun of it, but as a recognition that the semantic domains of English and Greek words do not line up in complete equivalence. At times multiple English words can be conveyed with a single one in Greek, and vice versa. Any translation that attempts to decide by fiat how to translate a term, and to justify it with math, has a serious philosophical problem.

I have written elsewhere about the fatuousness of the claim that "literal" means "accurate" (http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/literalismaccuracytranslations/); many times the literal may not fully convey meaning, and using different English terms or ideas to properly phrase meaning is not the boogeyman these translators would make it out to be. Their contempt for "theologians" is palpable and does a major disservice to the work.

The idea that they could somehow remove "opinion" from the process is utterly ridiculous, a relic of their positivist rationalism that presumes such levels of "objectivity." By the very presumption that "literal" is "accurate" they have established their opinion; their methodology is all based on their opinion. You cannot escape opinion in Bible translation: even how one decides to organize, on a text basis, a section like the Mary's Magnificat in Luke 1 indicates an opinion. The MLV, for instance, does not mark it as poetry, even though it manifestly is poetic and should be framed on the page accordingly. I have no difficulty with them having opinions and framing and translating the text accordingly; that's what all translators do. But own it, and drop the pretense of Objectivity From On High, because this translation doesn't deserve that standing.

And, for those who do not wish to insert their opinion on the text itself, the translators freely imposed their opinions about the dating of texts and circumstances and a presumption of the early date of Revelation. They establish in their introduction, as if from on high, that a Christian should not read the OT and NT together or they will be confused. Who are they to make such decrees?

For a group of people who seem quite intent on giving the reader the ability to do most of the interpreting, their introduction and notes seem to show that they don't really trust the reader very much. It's an odd juxtaposition.

And none of this, by the way, even begins to start with the translators' esteem of the Majority Text and their dogmatic insistence on it.

For a Bible student who has a decent handle on the text the MLV has some benefit as a study resource. If your philosophical presuppositions would lead you to really like the MLV, you're probably better off just learning Greek yourself. In the end, it would seem that the MLV is designed for those who would love the ASV except for its dated language and insistence on the eclectic text. Regardless, be quite wary of the translators' claims regarding the translation and much of what they have to say in their notes and commentary.… (mehr)