In the promotional material for the ESV, we are given the impression that its translators were more reliable than those who translated other bible versions. We are told that they used a different method than was used for versions such as the New Living Translation and TNIV.
It is interesting to compare the names of the translators of the ESV with those who translated the NASB, the NIV, the New King James Version, the TNIV, the New English Translation [the NET bible] and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.
Several of those who worked on the ESV also translated versions such as the New Living Translation. According to my calculations, 18 people worked on both the NLT and the ESV. How are we to make sense of this? According to the ESV publicity, the NLT was translated in a less than satisfactory way, as its translators were aiming to help us find out what the bible means. A better translational method, they say, is to tell the reader what the bible says.
Does this mean that translators such as Greg Beale, Daniel Block, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, George Guthrie, Harold Hoehner, Gordon McConville, Robert Mounce, Ray Ortlund, John Oswalt, Moises Silva and Gordon Wenham were less reliable when translating the NLT? Or did they bring some of their dodgy methods with them when they translated the ESV, thus making it an untrustworthy translation?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Which Bibles are the Best?
There is a concerted campaign in the evangelical community to promote so-called literal bible versions over so-called dynamically equivalent versions.
For example, some folk say that the English Standard Version or ESV is more accurate than Today's New International Version or TNIV.
Some say that the ESV is more accurate because it tells us what the bible says, whereas the TNIV tries to tell us what it means. The ESV translates, they say, whereas the TNIV interprets.
Now I have read the whole bible in both versions. All 260 chapters of the New Testament and all 929 chapters of the Old Testament. And what I have discovered is that both versions interpret, and the ESV does it much more than its promoters would like you to believe. I'm not criticising their translation technique, but I am warning that what is said about it is not completely accurate.
I think it may be true to say that the ESV is less interpretive than the TNIV.
We are also led to believe that the TNIV uses gender-inclusive language, whereas the ESV retains the masculine language of the bible. But this is not really exact either. If you compare the RSV [on which the ESV is based] and the NIV [on which the TNIV is based] with their later incarnations, you will see immediately that the main differences between both old versions and their new editions is the use of gender-inclusive language.
For the most part, both new editions have removed the masculine language of the RSV and NIV where there was none in the original. Both versions also have used gender-inclusive language to clarify what the original authors meant.
However the ESV translation is fairly squeamish about translating a Hebrew or Greek masculine word by an inclusive word [or words] in English, even where it is clear that the word was used in an inclusive way.
So in Romans 1:13 where the TNIV has
but has a rather lengthy, clarifying footnote link from the word brothers which says
Now if the TNIV occasionally uses gender-inclusive language where it is not necessary, it is also true that the ESV's retention of masculine language sometimes obscures the writer's meaning.
I think that if we are to understand a collection of writings that is over 1900 years old, we need all the help we can get. We need to know what the original says, but we also need to know what this means. We are fortunate that excellent translations like the ESV and TNIV have been produced, but it does not help us when one version is promoted in a misleading way which hints that it is the only really reliable version. it is also not honest to say that a version which aims to use less interpretion in its text is essentially literal when it has interpretation on every page.
Which is the best version? I think we need both. We use the TNIV for daily reading, but I often check the ESV rendering for added clarity.
For example, some folk say that the English Standard Version or ESV is more accurate than Today's New International Version or TNIV.
Some say that the ESV is more accurate because it tells us what the bible says, whereas the TNIV tries to tell us what it means. The ESV translates, they say, whereas the TNIV interprets.
Now I have read the whole bible in both versions. All 260 chapters of the New Testament and all 929 chapters of the Old Testament. And what I have discovered is that both versions interpret, and the ESV does it much more than its promoters would like you to believe. I'm not criticising their translation technique, but I am warning that what is said about it is not completely accurate.
I think it may be true to say that the ESV is less interpretive than the TNIV.
We are also led to believe that the TNIV uses gender-inclusive language, whereas the ESV retains the masculine language of the bible. But this is not really exact either. If you compare the RSV [on which the ESV is based] and the NIV [on which the TNIV is based] with their later incarnations, you will see immediately that the main differences between both old versions and their new editions is the use of gender-inclusive language.
For the most part, both new editions have removed the masculine language of the RSV and NIV where there was none in the original. Both versions also have used gender-inclusive language to clarify what the original authors meant.
However the ESV translation is fairly squeamish about translating a Hebrew or Greek masculine word by an inclusive word [or words] in English, even where it is clear that the word was used in an inclusive way.
So in Romans 1:13 where the TNIV has
I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I planned many times to come to youthe ESV says
Romans 1:13 want you to know, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you
but has a rather lengthy, clarifying footnote link from the word brothers which says
Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated "brothers") refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God's family, the church.
Now if the TNIV occasionally uses gender-inclusive language where it is not necessary, it is also true that the ESV's retention of masculine language sometimes obscures the writer's meaning.
I think that if we are to understand a collection of writings that is over 1900 years old, we need all the help we can get. We need to know what the original says, but we also need to know what this means. We are fortunate that excellent translations like the ESV and TNIV have been produced, but it does not help us when one version is promoted in a misleading way which hints that it is the only really reliable version. it is also not honest to say that a version which aims to use less interpretion in its text is essentially literal when it has interpretation on every page.
Which is the best version? I think we need both. We use the TNIV for daily reading, but I often check the ESV rendering for added clarity.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
George Whitefield by Arnold Dallimore
I got my copy of Arnold Dallimore's 300 page condensation of his own 2 volume, 1200 page work today from http://www.graceandtruthbooks.com/ and have just completed the first chapter. If the rest is as good as everyone says, it is going to be a great read.
I'll keep you posted.
I'll keep you posted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
