Re: Amplified and Berkeley Versions

From: CWestf5155 (
Date: Fri Apr 10 1998 - 14:52:55 EDT

Dear Ted,

In a message dated 98-04-09 23:29:14 EDT, you write:

> If anyone would care to respond, I'm curious to know what the general
> opinion is regarding the Amplified and Berkeley translations. Are they
> respectable translations of the original languages? Thanks.

I'll address the Amplified Version.

This is not considered a good translation by many scholars precisely because
it includes a range of meaning for key words. This is problematic from two

The Amplified purposely approaches the determination of key words in a way
that that has been called 'illegitimate totality transfer', a term coined by
James Barr, but referred to by Carson in <Exegetical Fallacies>. A good
translation determines the meaning of a word in view in a given text by its
context; it doesn't import a range of meanings into the text and consider them
as equally valid choices.

Second, this probably should not be referred to as a translation, since it is
not written in fluent English. It doesn't attempt to approximate the literary
impact that the Greek text would have had on its original readers.

Cindy Westfall
PhD Student, Roehampton

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:22 EDT