Just thought this article by Byron G. Curtis might be of interest to some of you. https://www.academia.edu/24536103/Why_the_ESV_Falters_as_a_General_Purpose_Bible?auto=view&campaign=weekly_digest
I was more interested in his methods than his conclusion as neither of the Bibles discussed are in my top used category.
I stopped reading when he referred to a Bible being infallible - not a good way to impress someone as to your linguistic expertise in a linguistic analysis of Bibles.
So? His first sentence is humorously jargon-filled [:O] But his analysis is still interesting ...
I would agree that for reading aloud (or perhaps reading in private) the ESV comes out behind the NIV. I can't say that his methods are anything more than subjective. Why did he stop at the NIV? Why did he choose some Psalms rather than Romans to compare? Lots has been left to our imagination about his decisions and therefore his seemingly broad conclusions.
As a Bible to use for study purposes I will always take a formal equivalence Bible rather than a dynamic equivalence Bible. This is a category the author said nothing about. In this case ESV wins by virtue of being a formal equivalent translation.
I spent so much of my time with the RSV and the NIV, that you'd think I would be happy with their replacements as ESV and NIV2011. It's interesting that the writer used a large portion of the Psalms for his illustration. The original NIV was equally better with Hebrew than the RSV.
I think some of the argument fails because it doesn't take into account 1 Cor 2:15 and 1 John 2:27. The Bereans didn't have or need a general purpose Bible. How did we ever exist without one?
Just thought this article by Byron G. Curtis might be of interest to some of you. https://www.academia.edu/24536103/Why_the_ESV_Falters_as_a_General_Purpose_Bible?auto=view&campaign=weekly_digest I was more interested in his methods than his conclusion as neither of the Bibles discussed are in my top used category.
Thanks for sharing this, it is good to see different opinions. What struck me was the different meanings in the two texts. OK, they said the same thing broadly but the detail is different quite a few places and if we are looking at the jots and tittles , something is amiss. I guess with logos we can investigate these differences to see which version is the more accurate.
As a Bible to use for study purposes I will always take a formal equivalence Bible rather than a dynamic equivalence Bible.
Formal equivalence tends to emphasize fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the original language, whereas Dynamic equivalence tends to employ a more natural rendering but with less literal accuracy. According to Nida, dynamic equivalence is the "quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors." The desire is that the reader of both languages would understand the meanings of the text in a similar fashion. In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence" and preferred the term "functional equivalence". The term "functional equivalence" suggests not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the target text (translation) in the target culture, but that "function" can be thought of as a property of the text. It is possible to associate functional equivalence with how people interact in cultures.
Formal equivalence tends to emphasize fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the original language, whereas Dynamic equivalence tends to employ a more natural rendering but with less literal accuracy.
According to Nida, dynamic equivalence is the "quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors." The desire is that the reader of both languages would understand the meanings of the text in a similar fashion.
In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence" and preferred the term "functional equivalence". The term "functional equivalence" suggests not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the target text (translation) in the target culture, but that "function" can be thought of as a property of the text. It is possible to associate functional equivalence with how people interact in cultures.
I avoid judging on formal vs. dynamic distinctions because I think formal too often is associated only at the lexical and grammatical level ignoring discourse and pragmatic considerations and because I think the intent of dynamic is too often misunderstood/misrepresented. That said, I tend towards translations slightly biased towards formal.
But his analysis is still interesting ..
To some eyes maybe...
... His first sentence is humorously jargon-filled ...
I must admit that for someone who argues so vociferously for clarity and readability in the text, I could not, and still can't, understand the precise meaning of portions of that first sentence. I think "jargon" is indeed the correct term. I guess I understand it - but only in a dynamically equivalent way. [;)]
Ultimately, and without saying so in so many words, he is arguing for a text that leans towards the lowest common denominator of hearer.
Regardless of where one's personal preference lands in the formal v. dynamic continuum, it is always the responsibility of the preacher to expound the full and accurate meaning of the text - and that includes explanation of language or phrases that hearken back to the 17th century plus the so-called wooden language from the formal eq. texts, as well as sharpening and filling in glosses from the dynamic eq. texts. And [sic - apologies to Curtis], in all cases to unpack any theological bias of the translators.
I use the the NIV2011 more and more and while I still prefer the NRSV I really enjoy the 2011 although years ago i did use the NIV78/84 NIV so it is not totally new to me. I tend to feel the ESV fails as a "general purpose" Bible too, i do not hate the ESV just find it a bit too literal and it fails to understand language has changed and I do not think that noting man or brothers includes both sexes is a good solution. Even the KJV was much more gender neutral than the RSV/ESV. I understand FL uses it as a base translation because of it's generous usage, but it is not one i use too much.
-Dan
I perfer NET, NASB and NASB95 - feel kinda lonely
Hey NASB95 is still my favourite literal translation.... although the ESV became more used than it because I has the ESV with strongs on my Olivetree BibleReader so it is what i use when I want a modern literal translation to check greek hebrew where as I do use NIV tagged because it closer to my preferred NRSV.... although I go to my Accordance app to do NRSV original language unless it is in the apocrypha when I go to Logos slower but it is there....
And since I use only 1 Bible software this is the real evidence of what I use (as opposed to what I thought I used)
Still some room for the KJB, MJ.... [:)]
Already there as the AV ...[:P]
I guess I am beyond redemption, no AV or KJV in sight, don't know where the NCV sprang from - as I don't use it, expected NIV in 3rd :
MJ,
Thank you for sharing this article. It was an interesting article based on the scriptures he chose to compare. I would like to see how other portions of scripture compare so I will probably do some comparing myself.
Cliff
what I use (as opposed to what I thought I used)
Really interesting, I did not know about that "most used" column. I might be a bit eccentric:
Raamattu = the Finnish Bible, 19331938 edition (there is a newer official church edition but it is not available in Logos)
Shouldn't this be in Christian Discourse? The title alone is inflammatory.
Many excellent points were made.
Some parts sounded like the author was pitching Version A vs. Version B. Those parts can be ignored.
Quite possibly but the tittle was not meant to be so but was quoting the title of the paper. It might be better in CD but we thankfully did not go down a theological path indeed the merits I objected to were not theological grounds but on readability and usage.
This morning, I was able to get the BBQ started, just using the title. So, yes, in-flames-atory.
I tried out my most used. ESV was #70. Even my coptic and syriac far surpassed it, and I can't read either of them. The use stat is flavored by layouts, and auto-installs (eg Antioch Matthew loaded, due to another Bible passage in Matthew).
The use stat is flavored by layouts, and auto-installs (eg Antioch Matthew loaded, due to another Bible passage in Matthew).
Yes, it doesn't track how much time we spend with it open, but rather how many times we open it.
Perhaps, but the article is on an academic site, is not denominational, and I made no comments for or against. Had the paper been more theological in content rather than simply initially identifying its theological position, I would not have shared it. I would also hope that people took advantage of the opportunity to see what papers are available on the site, noted that they can be downloaded, converted and made into PB's ... I hoped that ESV/ISV was a topic of sufficient interest to actually see what the paper (and site) are.
