[B-Greek] How literal to render
Eric Weiss
papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 30 15:50:21 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
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list