Here's some criticism of the RSV that has nothing to do with the textual issue (i.e. Alexandrian vs. Byzantine):
Quote:
The Revised Standard Version is a curious production. The revisers apparently were committed to the philosophy of dynamic equivalence; and, I believe, had they been producing a completely new translation, they would have produced something like the Good News Bible. But they were revising the American Standard Version, the most literal of the formal equivalence translations. Bound by a commitment to the ASV, but philosophically committed to a radically different philosophy from that which lay behind the version being revised, they produced a document which is philosophically schizophrenic.
Robert P. Martin, Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989. p. 10
|
Since the ESV started with the RSV text and is essentially a light revision of it that fixed the theological problems, to a large extent Martin's comments are applicable to the translation philosophy of the ESV as well. However, overall I think the ESV is more literal in some places, particularly Romans, IIRC. I don't know that we've ever gotten an official accounting of the
changes made to the text of the ESV in 2007 either.
__________________
Chris
Member at
Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA
Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great
virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon