NASB / ESV Revisions??

[larryjf]

The Biblia Hebraica Quinta is due to be completed in 2015.

I haven't heard anything about production of NA-28, but i know Wieland Willker has made suggestions for both textual and apparatus changes to that edition.

I wonder if ESV and NASB will hold off on any updated versions until these come out.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Probably.

 

[kevin.carroll]

I suppose it doesn't matter, if you're a KJV only type. ;-)

 

[beej6]

The ESV revision is due early next year, I believe.

 

[larryjf]

If anyone has any links regarding the ESV revision please post them. I am quite anxious to see what kind of changes they made.

I am hoping that the 1 Sam 13:1 passage will be revised, it makes for a strange public reading...

Saul was...years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by beej6
The ESV revision is due early next year, I believe.

If that's true, no reason to buy one now.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by larryjf
1 Sam 13:1
Saul was...years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel.

That is the oddest thing I think I've ever seen in a translation of any kind, that wasn't some fragmentary Sumerian inscription or Qumran flake, or the like. What is that doing in an otherwise reliable translation of the Scriptures? That is the best they could do to make that place readable?

I am looking at the electronic version, after all. What do the print versions say? Same garble?

 

[larryjf]

Yes, the print versions have the same "..." reading.
It's really bad if it catches you by suprise while reading aloud.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

Originally posted by larryjf
1 Sam 13:1
Saul was...years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel.

That is the oddest thing I think I've ever seen in a translation of any kind, that wasn't some fragmentary Sumerian inscription or Qumran flake, or the like. What is that doing in an otherwise reliable translation of the Scriptures? That is the best they could do to make that place readable?

I am looking at the electronic version, after all. What do the print versions say? Same garble?

The Notes:

Notes:
1 )The number is lacking in Hebrew and Septuagint
2 )Two may not be the entire number; something may have dropped out

NASB:
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel. (italics in original)

NIV:
Saul was thirty {1 A few late manuscripts of the Septuagint; Hebrew does not have thirty.} years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-{1 See the round number in Acts 13:21; Hebrew does not have forty-.}two years.

 

[Pilgrim]

Evidently the Hebrew is difficult here and scholars aren't too sure what to make of it. According to the NIV text note, a few late copies of the Septuagint say Saul was 30 years old.

I suppose most of you don't have a copy of the RSV, but I still have my New Oxford Annotated Bible I acquired years ago from taking a NT class at a liberal college. Remember that the ESV is basically a light revision of the RSV with the theological problems and liberal bias fixed. Quite often, whenever I find an idiosyncratic rendering in the ESV (meaning one a bit different from other versions) I find that it is a rendering carried forward from the RSV, and that is the case here at 1 Sam 13:1. Not knowing the original languages, I don't know whether it is more accurate than other versions or not in these places, which is one reason why I've never switched to the ESV.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by fredtgreco


NASB:
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel. (italics in original)

NASB 95 has: "Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty two years over Israel." (italics in original).

KJV/NKJV: Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

NKJV footnote: "The Hebrew is difficult (compare 2 Samuel 5:4; 2 Kings 14:2; see also 2 Samuel 2:10; Acts 13:21)."

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by larryjf
The Biblia Hebraica Quinta is due to be completed in 2015.

I haven't heard anything about production of NA-28, but i know Wieland Willker has made suggestions for both textual and apparatus changes to that edition.

I wonder if ESV and NASB will hold off on any updated versions until these come out.

The NASB 95 is based on NA-26.

 

[larryjf]

The NASB 95 is based on NA-26.

Which means it's already a generation behind the ESV which uses NA-27 and UBS-4.

The ESV also uses a different Hebrew text - Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by larryjf

The NASB 95 is based on NA-26.

Which means it's already a generation behind the ESV which uses NA-27 and UBS-4.

The ESV also uses a different Hebrew text - Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

There are far fewer variants between Hebrew mss than Greek. The Masoretes, et al, were much more careful with copying than the many who copied the Greek mss.

 

[larryjf]

There are far fewer variants between Hebrew mss than Greek. The Masoretes, et al, were much more careful with copying than the many who copied the Greek mss.

That's why the Hebrew texts are generally Diplomatic Editions as opposed to Eclectic Editions as we find in the NT texts.

And it doesn't really speak to the fact that the NASB and ESV do use different underlying texts for both the OT and NT.

If the NASB doesn't plan to have a revision after the next generation of texts it may go by the way-side.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by larryjf]

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by larryjf
That's why the Hebrew texts are generally Diplomatic Editions as opposed to Eclectic Editions as we find in the NT texts.

And it doesn't really speak to the fact that the NASB and ESV do use different underlying texts for both the OT and NT.

If the NASB doesn't plan to have a revision after the next generation of texts it may go by the way-side.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by larryjf]

Actually, I think it does speak to the issue. Fewer variants in Hebrew mean fewer variants in English. Be that as it may, NASB is absolutely of no value whatsoever from the pulpit in my opinion. It has its uses in translation for study, but its overly wooden style doomed it as a popular English version.

 

[larryjf]

Actually, I think it does speak to the issue. Fewer variants in Hebrew mean fewer variants in English.

Does that mean that you think there are few variants in the ESV OT and the NASB OT?

That really has more to do than with just the Hebrew text as the translators are different as well. For instance many times the NASB translates the Hebrew "ach" as "countryman" whereas the ESV translates it as "brother" (Lev 19:17, 25:25; Deut 1:16, 17:15, etc.)

I find it hard to believe that if the NASB gets to be a couple of generations behind in thier underlying texts that they will stay a viable translation at all.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by larryjf

Actually, I think it does speak to the issue. Fewer variants in Hebrew mean fewer variants in English.

Does that mean that you think there are few variants in the ESV OT and the NASB OT?

That really has more to do than with just the Hebrew text as the translators are different as well. For instance many times the NASB translates the Hebrew "ach" as "countryman" whereas the ESV translates it as "brother" (Lev 19:17, 25:25; Deut 1:16, 17:15, etc.)

I find it hard to believe that if the NASB gets to be a couple of generations behind in thier underlying texts that they will stay a viable translation at all.

It's not a viable translation anyhow, so I guess the question is moot.

 

[larryjf]

It's not a viable translation anyhow, so I guess the question is moot.

agreed

NASB

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Given the translational variants, even without studying the Hebrew, I could pretty well piece together why the ESV was rendered as it was. (But thank you Fred for posting the material.) Still, putting "..." into a translation seems like the strangest way to present the material. It is completely unreadable. How would you read that section in the public reading of Scripture?

{opinion on} I kind of lean toward the idea that is bit irresponsible of them. Even if the KJV/NKJV are in error, they are readable, even if difficult. Sorry, elipses indicate "something is missing here," not "we're unsure of the text here." That is irresponsible. I even prefer a NIV LXX (late) insertion over elipses. Those elipses represent to me a philosophy (or a theology) of transmission I cannot accept. {opinion off}

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by larryjf
That's why the Hebrew texts are generally Diplomatic Editions as opposed to Eclectic Editions as we find in the NT texts.

And it doesn't really speak to the fact that the NASB and ESV do use different underlying texts for both the OT and NT.

If the NASB doesn't plan to have a revision after the next generation of texts it may go by the way-side.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by larryjf]

Actually, I think it does speak to the issue. Fewer variants in Hebrew mean fewer variants in English. Be that as it may, NASB is absolutely of no value whatsoever from the pulpit in my opinion. It has its uses in translation for study, but its overly wooden style doomed it as a popular English version.

I have seen several preachers, including my current pastor, preach quite effectively using the NASB. It is certainly better than the dumbed down NIV where the pastor has to, almost on a weekly basis, point out poor renderings.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by larryjf

The NASB 95 is based on NA-26.

Which means it's already a generation behind the ESV which uses NA-27 and UBS-4.

The ESV also uses a different Hebrew text - Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

Is that true? I thought all modern translations, including NASB, NIV, RSV/ESV and NKJV basically used the same Hebrew text.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by larryjf

It's not a viable translation anyhow, so I guess the question is moot.

agreed

NASB

I seriously doubt we'll see the NASB challenge the KJV's numbers again, but I think the recent release of the very popular MacArthur Study Bible in the NASB will give it a boost.

The ESV's popularity up until now overwhelmingly seems to be in Reformed or at least Reformed-leaning circles, with most evangelicals appearing to opt for the NKJV or NIV.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by larryjf
If anyone has any links regarding the ESV revision please post them. I am quite anxious to see what kind of changes they made.

I am hoping that the 1 Sam 13:1 passage will be revised, it makes for a strange public reading...

Saul was...years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel.

Especially when the ESV is supposed to be equally useful for public reading as for private study.

 

[Pilgrim]

Besides, no translation conforms exactly with the choices found in NA-26, NA-27, or whatever. The committee of whatever translation makes their own choices, which sometimes diverges from NA/UBS.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
I have seen several preachers, including my current pastor, preach quite effectively using the NASB. It is certainly better than the dumbed down NIV where the pastor has to, almost on a weekly basis, point out poor renderings.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

Define the terms "dumb down" and "poor renderings" and then I will disagree with you.

Let me ask you this, let's suppose the Bible were originally written in Spanish and the following proverb were in it:

Barco va, barco viene.

How should it be translated? The NASB would read, "The ship comes, the ship goes." It would be a correct rendering in that it literally translated the words. But what does it mean?

The NIV might read, "Easy come, easy go." This also is a correct rendering in that it gets at the heart of the what the proverb means.

In the former case, the preacher would have to explain what the wooden translation meant in English. In the latter, the preacher might have to explain what lay under the more dynamic translation.

ALL TRANSLATION INVOLVES INTERPRETATION. There is no such thing as a translation that is free from it. Paul used the LXX and called it Scripture even though it is often wildly paraphrastic in places. Did he spend time pointing out "poor renderings?" No, he called it the Word of God and preached it. I think we could probably learn something from his example. Far too many preachers use the pulpit to showcase their educations and at the same time subtly undermine people's confidence in their English Bibles.

Finally, I would say that the average pastor is probably not qualfied to make such pronoucements as a general rule. Most pastors have had a few semesters of Greek and Hebrew and never touch it again after seminary (though there are exceptions!) The men doing these translations have devoted their lives to the study of Greek and Hebrew. Admittedly, they can be beholden to certain ideologies, etc. but for the most part they do good work.

 

[Pilgrim]

Of course all translation involves interpretation. My point was about the NASB and it being "absolutely of no value" in the pulpit. Many have agreed that the NASB is not suited to public reading, but many others have used it quite effectively from the pulpit for years, (although I would imagine most would agree it's better in the study than for public reading) and since we're talking about opinions I'd much rather have a minister preach from the NASB than NIV.

The NKJV reads more smoothly than the NASB and is probably a better all purpose translation. It is also a bit better suited to private study than is the ESV, (although the ESV cross references are better and are arguably better than the NASB's).

Those who cannot recommend the NKJV to someone as their primary Bible due to the textual issue in my opinion are no better than TR/KJV Only people. To defend the CT on the basis that no doctrines are changed, etc. and then to turn right around and say the NKJV is unsuitable because of the textual issue is nonsense, in my opinion.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Those who cannot recommend the NKJV to someone as their primary Bible due to the textual issue in my opinion are no better than TR/KJV Only people. To defend the CT on the basis that no doctrines are changed, etc. and then to turn right around and say the NKJV is unsuitable because of the textual issue is nonsense, in my opinion.

As an avid CT proponent, I have to tell you I would never argue based on the fact that no doctrines are changed. I would argue that the text is superior and why. In the end, no doctrines are affected, so if you choose to use the NKJV, you'll probably make it to heaven. Probably.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Those who cannot recommend the NKJV to someone as their primary Bible due to the textual issue in my opinion are no better than TR/KJV Only people. To defend the CT on the basis that no doctrines are changed, etc. and then to turn right around and say the NKJV is unsuitable because of the textual issue is nonsense, in my opinion.

As an avid CT proponent, I have to tell you I would never argue based on the fact that no doctrines are changed. I would argue that the text is superior and why. In the end, no doctrines are affected, so if you choose to use the NKJV, you'll probably make it to heaven. Probably.

:bigsmile:

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by larryjf

The NASB 95 is based on NA-26.

Which means it's already a generation behind the ESV which uses NA-27 and UBS-4.

The ESV also uses a different Hebrew text - Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

The NASB 77 used NA-23. We shouldn't expect a revision every time a new edition of the Greek and or Hebrew critical text is issued, and there is no translation I know of that follows the CT to a "t" anyway, and you'll find that they deviate from it in a number of places, for a number of reasons. This ESV revision (if the reports are true) coming out next year has nothing to do with updates to the text but I think is largely due to various recommendations for changes, etc.