Comments on: Something’s missing from their translation shelf

By: Terry T

Terry T — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:35:51 +0000

Like Robert I was looking for the HCSB and noticed it not in the mediating then noticed that ESV was missing as well.

Personally I still prefer the HCSB even with its occasional quirks (which translation doesn’t have a few) – I guess it reads like we speak and it is not a revision but a totally new translation, there is just something about those who are bold enough to blaze new trails rather than resurface the well worn paths. That may be why I loved the NIV so much when it came out back in high school (but I’m dating myself huh?).

Just my humble and hopefully helpful opinion.

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:12:51 +0000

I would say that NASB isn’t near as literal as YLT.

By: CD-Host

CD-Host — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:10:18 +0000

Jake –

They got the literal with the NASB. But I agree that extends the graphic out in both directions in terms of more literal and more of a paraphrase.

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:57:13 +0000

ASV is one thing to include, but I don’t even know of an RV in print. Why do these older and now rarely used translations have to be included, but some of the more common ones (today) not be included?

Anyway, I would include literal translations (YLT, ALT, etc.) and paraphrases (MSG, Voice, TLB) as well. And I would probably stack RSV with formal and lean HCSB.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:42:41 +0000

The timeline fits too:

NEB (1961 NT, 1970/72)
NIV (1973 NT, 1978/84)
REB (1989)

By: CD-Host

CD-Host — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:36:09 +0000

Yeah I could see something like this:

NEB -> Critique of NEB ->
1) NIV (competition)
2) REB (fixes)

By: CD-Host

CD-Host — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:25:09 +0000

I had the publishers never move past this. I don't think Zondervan should ever legitimize the ESV. Zondervan has always been an evangelical publisher but not a fundamentalist one. Its been 70 years since the fundamentalist/modernist wars its time for a unified protestant bible. There is no good reason Zondervan couldn't become a publisher for the evangelical mainstream and the mainline, sort of the middle 2/3rds of American Christianity. The TNIV might be liberal enough to be a unifying translation, it reads much better than the NRSV and it certainly is the case that most people on the right are OK with it. It is very mediating which I think is the right balance. With the evangelical market hitting what looks like a bad 2 generations and the mainline stable (see stats) turn the anti-TNIV campaign into a positive and move left.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:24:27 +0000

That’s a great point, CD – it’s always strikes me when I do see some of the NIV in the REB. It must have been at hand when they did the revision.

By: CD-Host

CD-Host — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:07:54 +0000

The NIV when it first came out was the “conservative answer to the NEB”. That’s going back 3 decades but the NEB / NIV comparisons were an important part of the early NIV marketing.

By: Robert Jimenez

Robert Jimenez — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:00:32 +0000

I first looked for the HCSB to see if it was missing, then the ESV.