Revised Translations – Warmed Up Leftovers?
It seems from a number of biblioblogs I follow that there is a general criticism of translations that are “merely” revisions of a previous translation. Curiously, this charge does not seem to be leveled against the TNIV. However, I think it is simply near-sighted to out of hand declare a translation to be nearly useless simply because it is a revision. Is the NASB useless or a “warmed up leftover” of the ASV since it is not an original translation? I have not read anyone make such a charge against the NASB.
But those who are trying to destroyed the ESV frequently lay the charge that the ESV is merely a slight revision of the RSV. I would like to make a few comments about that charge.
First, no one charges the NRSV as being terrible because it is just a revision of the RSV. I think it can reasonably be argued that a revision is MORE valuable because it takes a good translation and improves upon it through its revisions (at least hopes to be an improvement).
Second, the RSV was a good translation. Most may not realize that the real reason for the lack of acceptance of the RSV was because of its handling of Isaiah 7:14. Not translating “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 sealed the fate of the RSV, though the translation did a very good job revising the ASV. Therefore, any translation that uses the RSV as a beginning point should not be immediately discounted. The NRSV is esteemed highly in academic arenas, though it “merely” revises the RSV. The RSV was good. It was never broadly accepted because of Isaiah 7:14, not because it was a bad translation.
Third, if you don’t like the ESV, that is fine. But be sure the reason is more than just the fact that a translation is a revision. If you are against revisions, then you can only use the KJV (which could be called a revision in a way), NIV, HCSB, NET, or NLT. That is it. All other major translations are revisions. The ESV takes a good translation and makes it better. The NASB took a good translation and made it better. The NRSV took a good translation and made it better. The TNIV took a good translation and made it better.
Even translations that I do not think too highly of has been of value in my studies. Own every major translation. Read them. Compare them. Study from them. You will not be hurt by this. What is there to be gained by avoiding a translation? The argument is not different than the KJV-only people. Should we have a TNIV-never group? Or a ESV-never group? Ridiculous. Appreciate the differences. While you may not be fond of a particular translation, I guarantee that there will be a rendering that will be superior in occasional places. I am going to preach from the NET next week because I thought its rendering of Hebrews 12:1-2 was excellent. The variety of translations should be seen as a help and not a threat to deeper Bible study.
Don't forget to browse The Bible or Translations.
Your Thoughts
10 Comments so far10 Responses to “Revised Translations – Warmed Up Leftovers?”
By submitting a comment here you grant Christian Monthly Standard a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at our discretion.
ElShaddai Edwards
May 4, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Good post – thanks for sharing the thoughts! I would add the NEB to your list of significant translations that are not revisions. It too was revised (REB), but the original is still popular in some quarters.
I think much of the criticism of the ESV as a revision has been with regards to its marketing – the sales message that “the ESV is the most important translation of our generation” rings a bit hollow when ~90% of the text is unchanged from the RSV. I would prefer that they gave credit where credit is due, as you have done.
Craig
May 4, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“But those who are trying to destroyed the ESV”
Do you really think there’s a plot afoot?
:-}
Dave
May 4, 2009 at 11:36 pm
I grew up with the RSV, and loved it. However, bible reading at family devotions meant using different versions, we’d read a verse each and occasionally pipe up about how it was different in different translations. I have very fond memories of this.
When the NIV came out and my church switched I began using that translation almost exclusively. Lately, however, I’ve been collecting different versions. One of my favorites is a NRSV Study Bible. The language reminds me of the RSV I knew and loved as a teenager. I also have a Berkley Version (I know nothing about the history of that version other than it was my grandmothers and it has really cool footnotes, although it’s not technically a study Bible). It reads more like the KJV/ASV than the RSV, but I like it sometimes. An unusual one is “Da Jesus Book,” a New Testament translated by Wycliffe Bible Translators in Hawaiian (Polynesian) Pidgin. That’s fun to read. The disciples are referred to as “Jesus’ guys.”
Brent Kercheville
May 5, 2009 at 6:46 am
ElShaddai Edwards – I agree that it would be better to be more forthright about what the ESV is, and proclaim it. It is the RSV, but even better!
Brent Kercheville
May 5, 2009 at 6:48 am
El Shaddai Edwards- By the way, I think the TNIV could take your same suggestion. Proclaim that it is a revision of the NIV, but only better.
ElShaddai Edwards
May 5, 2009 at 7:21 am
The marketing problem with saying that the ESV is “a better RSV” is that the RSV is the translation that the target audience for the ESV attacked and tore down (over one verse) for the greater part of a generation. They *have* to market the ESV as a *new* translation in order to avoid that historical baggage and the admission that “the RSV was a good translation.”
The TNIV could use *any* amount of marketing support more than what it currently gets, but certainly a big-name endorsement along the lines of “a revision of the NIV, but only better” would help promote that translation.
What’s been missed or underreported in the ESV/TNIV “war” is the impact that the ESV has had on NASB sales – since both represent a conservative evangelical response to the RSV. That’s a whole other angle to this conversation: revision vs. response.
(For the record, neither the ESV or TNIV are at the top of the stack of translations that I regularly use.)
Gary Zimmerli
May 5, 2009 at 8:25 am
My own opinion of the ESV is that, while a “good” translation, it’s not the great end-all of English translation like it’s strongest supporters seem to think it is. And in fact there are at least a couple and maybe several translations that I think are better, including the TNIV and the NASB. The RSV may have been the best when it was first produced, and it still is quite good, but I think since then a number of “better” translations have appeared.
The ESV’s marketing hyperbole turned me off, I admit, but the translation needs to be evaluated for what it is, not how it’s marketed.
Wayne Leman
May 5, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I, for one, am happy to criticize the TNIV or any other Bible version for not sufficiently revising its predecessor when there is a need for it.
The NRSV is far more than a slight literary revision of the RSV. It is a major revision, if we look at the percentages of changes made to the RSV text.
The ESV makes very little change to the RSV text, other than–and this is important for its audience–revising some verses to be more theologically conservative.
The NASB was a major revision of the ASV, as was the RSV.
There is nothing wrong with revisions.
The bigger question is what is the quality of the result.
Thanks for posting on this important issue. No one should dismiss any translation simply because it is a revision of another. But it is totally legitimate to critique (graciously, professionally, positively, of course) any version which needs further revision to measure up to good standards of exegetical accuracy and English literary quality.
Rich Shields
May 5, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Interestingly, the RCC revised the RSV in 2002 (Ignatius Press) and it makes for an excellent Bible, quite similar to ESV but better in several ways. In some places it correctly translates the text, whereas ESV did not (see John 20:23 ESV is abysmal, and NIV is not good either).
Brent Kercheville
May 5, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Wayne- Absolutely. If it is a bad revision, then so be it. But being a revision does not make it a bad translation.