[B-Greek] How literal to render

Minton, Ron rminton at bible.edu
Tue Nov 30 11:32:06 EST 2004


This may be a little off topic, but how literal should we try to render
Greek grammar?  I often struggle with literal or functional when working in
the GNT.  I am also trying to evaluate how English Bible translators have
done the same.  I have listed below my analysis.  

Please examine this list (arranged from most to least literal) and let me
know what changes you would make in my evaluations.

What do you feel is the best category to aim for in an English translation?
Thanks,
Ron Minton
.....................
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)
985 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)
989 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
2001 Today's New International Version (TNIV)

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT
1989 Revised English Bible (REB)
1985 Tanakh: A New Translation (Jewish) (TANT)
1970 New English Bible (NEB)
1995 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
1996 New Living Translation (NLT)
1976 Today's English Version (TEV)

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT/PARAPHRASE
1995 God's Word (GW)
1991 New Century Version (NCV)
1958 Phillips Version (PHIL)

PARAPHRASE
1993 The Message (TM)
1971 Living Bible (LB)




More information about the B-Greek mailing list