...by Leland Ryken. I have mentioned this book over the years here on the BB. It was published in 2002 (before the TNIV Old Testament was released). I think LR made some points and lost some ground with this book of his. Occasionally he gives the NRSV its due. But mostly he demeans it by calling it a dynamic translation (pretty strong words for him to use with reference to Bible translations). Many times when he cites what he regards as exceptionally fine ESV renderings he neglects to mention that the NRSV had the same wording. He is loathe to say that the ESV and NRSV are virtually the same in most places. He takes aim at the NIV repeatdely, but particularly dislikes the TNIV. I will mention some examples of things that I disagree with. On page 261 :"The RSV and ESV give us the rhythmic equivalent of the KJV,showing that a translation can update vocabulary without abandoning the KJV rhythm: The EARTH/is the LORD's/and the FULLness/thereOF; The WORLD/andTHOSE/who DWELL/thereIN. Excuse me, but the words thereof and therein are certainly NOT models of updated vocabulary despite LR's literary credentials. On page 231 he relates that he enjoys reading the NEB and REB "for a quality that I relish ...namely the sheer quaintness and otherness of its expressions. But in terms of understanding what the biblical text really says,this is a great distraction that undermines the clarity of the translation." Why he doesn't apply the same logic towards the queer expressions of the ESV is puzzling. The ESV surely has a number of strange and obscure renderings within its pages which undermines the clarity of the translation. On page 158 LR maintains that "the main issues of Bible translation are at some level literary in nature or involve literary principles." Really? I thought the main issue was to be faithful to the orginals while communicating clearly to the receptors. Throughout his book he derides colloquial Bibles such as on page 278. The funny thing was that William Tyndale and Martin Luther strived to use the vernacular of the common people. On page 265 :"The ESV rides on the literary coattails of the KJV,which ...is something that more translations should aspire to do." Of course the ESV rides on the literary coattails of the KJV. But I don't think that is a good thing to aspire to for Bible translations. He places tradition in too lofty of a place of honor. On page 284 he cites some passages from the ESV and says that they "have the authentic King James ring,showing that a modern translation can be fully accurate and up-to-date in language." Whereas I think the ESV is fairly accurate it is most definitely not using up-to-date language in huge swaths of its text. More in the days to come.