[B-Greek] How literal to render
Havens, Bruce
bhavens at bbc.edu
Wed Dec 1 07:25:23 EST 2004
> Ron Minton wrote: > > LITERAL > 1885 English Revised Version (ERV) >
1901 American Standard Version (ASV) > 1970 New American Standard Bible
(NASB) > 1982 New King James Version (NKJV) > 1611 King James Version
(KJV) > 1917 The Holy Scriptures (Jewish) > 2000 English Standard
Version (ESV) > > LITERAL/DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT > 2000 Holman Christian
Standard Bible (HCSB) > 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV) > 1978 New
International Version (NIV) > 1999 New English Version (NEV) > 1970 New
American Bible (NAB) > 1997 New English Translation (NET) > 2000
International Standard Version (ISB) > 1996 New International Version
Inclusive (NIVI) > 1985 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) > 1989 New Revised
Standard Version (NRSV) > 2001 Today's New International Version (TNIV)
For what it's worth, at the ETS conference 2 weeks ago in San Antonio,
Rodney Decker delivered a paper/address in which he showed that the
English Standard Version (ESV) is in many ways just as "functionally
equivalent" as the New International Version (NIV). I should add,
though, that Dr. Decker wrote in his paper that he liked the ESV, as I
recall. (If I have misspoken re: the content Dr. Decker's paper, I hope
he will correct me and/or I'll post a correction.) Also, in my perusal
of the free copy of the Book of Romans from the Reverse Interlinear
edition of the ESV that was given to attendees at the Logos/Crossways
session, I found several places where the ESV apparently just kept the
RSV wording (the ESV was deliberately based on the RSV) - e.g., Romans
3:21 and 5:12 - and where by doing so, its translation did not place the
emphasis where Paul placed it, thus causing the ESV (at least in these
instances, in my opinion) to depart from being a literal and accurate
translation. So in response to your question (i.e., "Please examine this
list (arranged from most to least literal) and let me know what changes
you would make in my evaluations."), I guess I would suggest that the
ESV maybe belongs in the "functional equivalent" category (I think
that's the term Dr. Decker said is preferable to "dynamic
equivalence."), rather than in the "Literal" category. ===== Eric S.
Weiss
For those who are interested in reading Dr. Decker's paper you can find
it at http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/ets_sbl.htm. The paper is a review
of the ESV translation with his comments at the end. He does not believe
that the ESV is more literal than the RSV as the list above indicates.
Bruce Havens
Clarks Summit, PA
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list