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.

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.

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.)

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.”  

Do you really think there’s a plot afoot?

:-}

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.