Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
82 of 84 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
How similar is the ESV to the RSV?, February 28, 2002
By A Customer
As one of the people who worked on the ESV, I would like to respond to a comment made in a number of reviews--that the ESV is remarkably similar to the RSV. This is somewhat to be expected, since translations that are essentially literal in terms of translation philosophy are going to be markedly similar to one another--moreso than translations that are more dynamic in their approach. Besides, our stated goal was to improve the RSV where necessary and not to produce a unique translation (if such a thing is even possible). We wanted to stand deliberately in the Wycliffe-Tyndale-KJV-RSV tradition, so that echoes of it could still be heard in the ESV. Nevertheless, we made approximately 75,000 changes to the text of the RSV, ranging from the deletion of a comma to reworking of an entire paragraph. It is not fair to say that the ESV is only a slightly modified version of the RSV--we weighed carefully every word against the original languages and made changes where we believed they were necessary. The full extent of the improvements can only be seen through a careful comparison of the entire text, not just a casual browsing through a few favorite passages.I would also like to respond to one of the reviewers, who stated that the ESV was completed in two years, and then implied that two years was not enough time to make a significant improvement to a document with the size and complexity of the Bible. First, the project required three years, not two. Second, the fact that we were able to use the RSV as the basis for our text saved a tremendous amount of time--we didn't have to start from scratch. Third, we made the best possible use of Bible software, email, file transfers, conference calls, and other technology to which previous translators did not have access. This enabled us to complete more work in less time. Finally, we had some of the finest evangelical scholars on our Translation Oversight Committee and our Translation Review Committee. They were already experts in their fields, many of them having written commentaries on the books they revised. This also improved the turnaround time on the review process. I hope this sheds some helpful light on the making of the ESV. Thanks for your interest.
|
|
|
142 of 152 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The ESV Sets a New Standard, October 11, 2001
I have waited for a translation of the Bible like this for some time now, and I am grateful to God that it has finally arrived.The ESV is an essentially literal translation with an eye for literary excellence. Hence, it is more accurate and precise than the NIV, and more natural and clearly expressed than the NASB. For example, the ESV translates the key conjunctions between propositions, and it also seeks to maintain consistency with recurring words. This is an area that the NIV often fails in, which makes it difficult to rely upon for in-depth study. On the other hand, the ESV seeks clarity of expression in dividing paragraphs and sentences: each paragaph is set apart by a bold section heading. The NASB, on the other hand, begins each verse on its own separate line, which makes reading the text cumbersome and awkward. The ESV also employs a helpful center-column cross-reference system (which has been updated). It includes (1) references to specific words or phrases, (2) comparative references, (3) less direct references, and (4) quoted references. There are also footnotes which indicate alternative translations and explanations of translation decisions. J. I. Packer is the general editor, with Clifford John Collins chairing the OT translation, William Mounce chairing the NT translation, and Leland Ryken overseeing the literary aspects of the ESV. More information can be found at [website] I believe that the ESV will become the Bible of choice for many students of the Word of God. soli Deo gloria!
|
|
|
46 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Is the King dead?, April 14, 2003
By A Customer
Is the NASB95 - the king of the literal bible translations dead? That must surely be the question on our minds. The answer is, "I'm not sure, but it's having a good run at it!".Firstly my comparison - I compared 50 difficult verses. The NASB95 and ESV were way way out in front of all other versions in accuracy. I gave the NASB95 a couple of extra marks over the ESV, but there's not a lot in it. Secondly, literalness. On a word for word basis the ESV actually seems a little more literal than the NASB95 in that it is much more thorough in translating all the little words, the "ands" and "buts" and so on, as well as allowing sentences to run on where they do in the original. On the other hand, the fact that it is a warmed over RSV shows through in a lot of verses that should ideally be re-worked in NASB style. However, the ESV sometimes seems to try harder in consistantly rendering the same Greek word as the same word in English - but not always, sometimes the NASB is more consistent. Conclusion - The ESV is more literal on the "forest scale", but the NASB is more literal in the "tree scale". However, the NASB appears to be quite a bit more accurate with tenses. Sometimes these verses have important theological significance. e.g. Acts 13:48 NASB "had been appointed", and Mt 18:18 NASB "shall have been bound" are more accurate than the ESV equivilents which are carry overs from the RSV (and KJV). Thirdly, readability. People are talking about the ESV being more readable than the NASB. I don't think there's a lot in it. The ESV has it's fair share of bloopers where the English is strained and the NASB is readable. Sometimes the NASB's lessor readability increases its literalness and correctness. Conclusion: I personally can't see the difference. If we could pick some verses from the ESV and some from the NASB we would probably approach perfection! Fourthly, scholarship. The ESV has taken advantage of the latest scholarship, especially in Greek and this shines through in a number of difficult passages. The NASB95 seems overly conservative in this respect. Fifthly, textually. The ESV seems to have greater respect for the standard Greek text - the UBS4. The NASB seems more conservative in following traditional readings. (Not just the bracketed passages, but of course including them). However, neither strictly adhere to UBS4, even ignoring verses bracketed in the UBS4 or NASB. Conclusion: A minor plus for the ESV. Sixthly, extra features. The ESV footnotes seem more helpful than the NASB95. On the other hand the NASB's use of italics for words not in the original language and the "*" tense asterisk to show words that were present tense in the original, emparts more information than the ESV. On the other hand, the ESV's extra literalness seems to have a little less need for the italics in places. The NASB capitalizes pronouns that refer to Christ or God. While one might regard these as an unnecessary interpretive gloss, they do improve comprehension, especially since a literal translation does not allow doing what the NIV would do, which is replace "He" with "Jesus" to clarify who is talking in long narratives. I didn't like this at first, but now I do, it's just another little feature that the NASB has to add information to the text without actually departing from literalness. Conclusion: NASB's extra features probably empart more information. The use of CAPS for Old Testament quotations is helpful in the NASB, and I like the italics and "*" tense indicator. Formats: Some people are complaining that the NASB is printed verse by verse rather than paragraph style. Actually, only some NASBs are printed that way. If you don't like it (and I don't), buy the versions that are printed paragraph style. Visit Lockman's web site if you are unclear on that. As of now, the NASB is available in pocket formats and study bibles. The ESV is planned to offer these, but not as yet. Overall Conclusion: It's very difficult to make up ones mind which is best. The arguments seem so finely balanced in either direction. The ESV is a fine effort and one of the best two translations available. At the end of the day, I think I'm going to give the win to the NASB. The extra features of the NASB95 text - CAPS for quotes and italics, plus a slight advantage in literalness and accuracy just beats the ESV to victory. Reports of the King's death have been exagerated, but I just wish there was a translation that picked the best out of the NASB and ESV.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
