Esv/nrsv

Part of the problem with these shot-gun posts is that they cover such a broad area.

Just examining your first example [Pro. 3:25]: the ESV follows the Hebrew text in a literal manner, word for word: the NRSV adds to the phraseology the work "strikes".

Personally I like the ESV's solution better, and many other versions follow through with a similar translation style as the ESV (KJV, NKJV, NAS, ESV, HCS, YLT).

As I slowly examine the ESV in my personal studies I am finding it trustworthy and quite faithful to the original text,
AND at the same time it provides interesting literal translations that are unique to other versions.

Rush job? Not at all.

Rob

 

I looked closely at the first few comparisons... maybe I'll do more later.
ESV still at the top and the NRSV at the bottom.

3:25 __ the ruin of the wicked
the storm that strikes the wicked

Hebrew 'show' means devastation, ruin, waste (Strong's 7722)
There is no word or phrase that means "storm" or "strikes" in the original language.
Many versions have destruction (NLT, Darby) or desolation (KJV, Young, ASV).
Although "the storm that strikes" does bring devastation to my mind now (because of Katrina and the recent tsunami),
it may not to others. The ESV is straightforward and does not leave much room for interpretation here.
_______________
5:10 __ lest strangers take their fill of your strength
and strangers will take their fill of your wealth

Hebrew 'koach' means strength, power, might (Strong's 3581).
ESV: has the support of the NASB (I will not include supports from the RSV).
NRSV: has the support of the KJV, NKJV and NIV.
I really prefer the more literalness ESV/NASB here. A power base can come from other sources than riches.
_______________
6:13 __ signals with the feet
shuffling the feet

Hebrew 'malal' means to speak, utter, say (Strong's 4448).
ESV: has support from the NIV, NASB and NLT; KJV has speaketh.
NRSV: has support from the NKJV.
The ESV/others convey communication by the feet, which is lost by the NRSV/NKJV.
_______________
6:26 __ a married woman / hunts down a precious life
the wife of another / stalks a man's very life

Hebrew 'ishshah' means to woman, wife, female (Strong's 802).
Many have adultress (KJV, NKJV, NASB, Young).
ESV: none exactly like this
NRSV: has the support of Darby.
While the NRSV/Darby is better than the ESV here, I think adultress is even better. In context the ESV might be understood:
the verse is comparing a prostitute's price to this type of woman's (what type of woman would she be?).

Hebrew 'tsuwd' means to hunt eagerly or keenly (Strong's 6679).
ESV: has support of the KJV, NASB, Young, Darby.
NRSV: none exactly like this
Some have prey (NKJV, NLT).
I favor the ESV/others over NRSV, but I think prey may be better yet. "Hunt" and "stalk" are nearly synonymous in the sense of seeking. "Stalk" seems specifically the searching prior to the killing for food; "hunt" in this sense seems to include the violent end (although hunting can be unsuccessful).

Hebrew 'yaqar' means valuable, prized, weighty, precious (Strong's 3368).
ESV: has support from most versions consulted.
The NRSV leaves this important adjective out completely.
_______________
10:15, not 8 __ A rich man's wealth is his strong city
The wealth of the rich is their fortress

Hebrew 'qiryah simply means city, town (Strong's 7151).
ESV: has the support of the KJV, NKJV, Young, Darby; the NIV has fortified city.
NRSV: has the support of the NASB and the NLT.
I do like the ESV/others a little better on the a fortress is not necessarily a city.

In summary, I find the ESV more complete and more accurate in five of the seven instances above. The two instances where I felt the NRSV was better, they were both weaker than other translations.

In this small sampling, the ESV was about twice as likely to be similar to other translations. The ESV is at times in agreement with the NIV, NASB (its near cousin), NLT, Young, Darby and the KJV. Therefore, to criticize the ESV for its language is to also criticize these other versions.

No version is perfect; if the intention was to show that the ESV is worse than some others, these verses were not the proof to me.

 

Even if the ESV or whatever Bible version does have dated language, does that make them bad? I get the idea that the author of all these threads like this one thinks so. Nevertheless, it does not. I have most major bible translations in English - old and new. I learn a great deal when reading them. Even some newly published history books I have are filled with dated, archaic language. Yet, I do not see people railing against them (history or other books) like they do against Bible versions. Makes me kind of wonder.

 

I happen to like the ESV. It is a literal translation of the texts that underlie it. Sometimes that makes for akward English, but I like that better than someone interpreting it for me. I do not demand that new Bible translations be in old speak as you call it, but it just happens at times - just as it does in new history books, science books, and encyclopedias. These many long posts seem like they are meant to change our minds and convince us to like whatever you like the best. I read a many different styles of writing - old and new - and see no need to stop now just because you want everything to be how you like it.

 

I do suspect that the ESV wording is different than other versions (but I have not read it much). In the Proverb verses you posted the ESV agreed frequently. I would appreciate a few specific and obvious examples submitted of the ESV's inconsistancy of language style. Thanks

 

Rippon, these examples demonstrates the difficulty translators have, especially if they want to claim to have a literal translation.

The example in 1 Sam. 11:2 is most interesting:
__ that I gouge out all your right eyes (ESV)
__ namely that I gouge out everyone's right eye (NRSV)

I like the NRSV better but can see why the translators of the ESV went the way they did.

In Hebrew the word for EYE is singular…but the NRSV uses the word EVERYONE which is not a proper translation for the word, at.tem.
Literally it should read: “gouge (out) all your right eye”.

Where you claim that the ESV uses time-warped English, I would say it uses Hebrew-warped (or Greek-warped) English.

This is a strength of the New American Standard Version, to which the ESV stands up to quite well.


Additionally, I’m finding I like the choices that the ESV has made regarding many textual variants.
Here’s an example I found today:

"We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,"
(1 Corinthians 10:9, ESV also KJV, NRSV, RSVnote, NEBnote, TEVnote )
Seen in the earliest known text p46 and in D G K Psi 614 630 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect lat vg syr(p,h) cop

Compare with:
"Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents."
(1 Corinthians 10:9, NASB95 –also ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, NEB, TEV)
Seen in S B C P 33 104

Rob