Metzger on NRSV language and style
While some commenters asked for a comparison between the RSV and the ESV, I came across an article by Bruce Metzger on differences between the RSV and the NRSV. Here is Bruce Metzger on the NRSV.
In the following list, I give the RSV as the original text, then the NIV, and the NRSV, with the changes adopted, and finally the ESV, in which the RSV phrasing is retained unchanged.
1. Word order can obscure the meaning of the sentence.
Exodus 11:8
Gen. 4:20
1 Kings 19:21
Gen. 35:7
What concerns me most of all is that people from other countries are attracted to the ESV and may be unaware of how it differs from the King James Version. Crossway reports,
Note: Metzger, Bruce. Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators. Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (July-September 1993): 273-284
- Since the Bible is a source of both information and inspiration, translations must be both accurate and esthetically felicitious. They should be suitable for rapid reading and for detailed study, as well as suitable for reading aloud to large and small groups. Ideally, they should be intelligible and even inviting to readers of all ages, of all degrees of education, and of almost all levels of intelligence - all without sacrificing accuracy, in either matter or manner. Besides the several problems already considered as to text, meanings of words, punctuation, and the like, the following are illustrations of some of the more delicate stylistic problems that confront bible translators.
In the following list, I give the RSV as the original text, then the NIV, and the NRSV, with the changes adopted, and finally the ESV, in which the RSV phrasing is retained unchanged.
1. Word order can obscure the meaning of the sentence.
Exodus 11:8
- And he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger RSV
Then Moses, hot with anger, left Pharaoh. NIV
And in hot anger he left Pharaoh. NRSV
And he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger. ESV
- Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments RSV
Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. NIV
Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. NRSV
Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. ESV
Gen. 4:20
- Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle. RSV
Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. NIV
Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock. NRSV
Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. ESV
1 Kings 19:21
- Then he arose and went after Eli'jah, and ministered to him RSV
Then he set out to follow Elijah and became his attendant. NIV
Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant. NRSV
Then he arose and went after Elijah and assisted him. ESV
Gen. 35:7
- because there God had revealed himself to him RSV
because it was there that God revealed himself to him NIV
because it was there that God had revealed himself to him NRSV
because there God had revealed himself to him ESV
- did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." RSV
did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. NIV
did you lack anything?" They said, "No, not a thing." NRSV
did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." ESV
What concerns me most of all is that people from other countries are attracted to the ESV and may be unaware of how it differs from the King James Version. Crossway reports,
- In Nigeria, the ESV has already been endorsed by the largest Christian church, the Redeemed Christian Church of God. In Singapore, the ESV has been selected as the translation for the national cathedral of the Anglican Church. The Bible Societies in these countries, each of which has a large English speaking constituency, are turning to the ESV as an essentially literal translation to meet the needs of the church in their countries.
“In so many countries in Africa and Asia, people are finding that the ESV really resonates with them,” explained Derek Hill, Head of Production Services at the British and Foreign Bible Society, to an audience of more than 40 Bible Society representatives.
- Factors militating against women politically in Nigeria can be summed up as follows: Prevailing unequal division of labour in household and child care duties, negative attitudes towards women's participation in public life, the lack of confidence on the part of the electorate .... Another perceived constraint relates to the short historical traditions of women political participation combined with inaccessibility to Knowledge and education. Traditionally, women in Nigeria face ‘deep prejudices, profound discrimination, barriers to their advancement in the areas of education, politics, economics, nutrition, healthcare, equality and even survival itself.
Note: Metzger, Bruce. Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators. Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (July-September 1993): 273-284
posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 4:43 PM
38 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Suzanne, I don't think I've ever seen this kind of translational progression demonstrated like you've just done. In my opinion, you've squarely begun the process of demonstrating that the ESV is a step backwards in translation method.
There's another book by Metzger entitled, The Making of New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. I'll pull it off my shelf later this week as it might add some further weight to your case.
It is true that ESV has dropped the archaic 2nd person singular -- but keeps archaism elsewhere -- making the version internally anachronistic.
I regret the loss of 'thou' since I have been at a couple of those brudershafttrinken ceremonies, where you first start using 'du' with someone in German.
However, very few people understand 'thou' very well, how it declines, that the object form is 'thee', that the verb has to agree properly, etc. But now that 'thou' is gone, spiritual truth must be so derivative in English, so diluted, so many nuances lost, etc. etc. Really I sometimes think an English Bible is a lost cause altogether.
Anon,
You write,
Just one minor correction: the full RSV (with Metzger's contribution, the Apocrypha) appeared in 1957.
First, corrections are ALWAYS welcome. Next, these are Metzger's words. I quote,
After 81 separate meetings, totaling 450 days of work, the complete Bible was published September 30, 1952, the Feast day, appropriately enough, of St. Jerome. The new version was launched with an unprecedented publicity campaign. On the evening of the day of publication, in the United States, in Canada, and in many other plasces, 3,418 community observances were held with over one and a half million persons attending.
Now I will go and find Metzger's quote about the apocrypha, equally significant.
To continue, here is Metzger on the NRSV as a whole. First, I would like to mention for those who haven't seen them, your comments, Anon, on this previous post.
Metzger writes,
The NRSV is the most ecumenical of all English versions of he Bible. It contains not only the 66 books of the Protestant canon, but also the books of the Apocrypha, books that were included in the King James Bible. To these apocryphal books, designated deuterocanonical by Roman Catholics, are added three other texts accepted by Eastern Orthodox churches, namely, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151. The NRSV Bible is thus the only English Bible that contains all the books accepted as authoritative by Christians of all major denominations in the world.
First, corrections are ALWAYS welcome.
And, Suzanne, you can find more details about the RSV at your favourite online encyclopedia. :-)
With the discussions about the RSV lately, today I added a link to the RSV in the Versions section of this blog. And that encyclopedia link is there, not, of course, because of anything you've said about that so-called encyclopedia. :-)
FWIW, when I am doing Bible translation work, I use a programme jointly designed by UBS and SIL. I always have two versions open besides the windows for the vernacular translation. Those versions are CEV and NRSV (I also sync to a larger program with many other Bible versions open). I have come to appreciate the scholarly integrity of the NRSV, which has been recognized by many others, as well. I like to check it when I am concerned about exegetical accuracy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well, this is perhaps an even more extreme position than I would take.
I hadn't intended to be taken too seriously on this, except to highlight the fact that any translation is just that - a translation, and as you point out, not capable of precision.
Now, I want to argue against everyone learning the Biblical lgs. The investment in learning one Biblical lg really well is immense, but possible and worthwhile for those who were inclined this way early on. I fear too many people learning the lgs in a superficial way, waters down the expectations and standards. No, I can hardly stand to see what accounts for lg knowledge these days.
And what of community, of the diversity of gifts. One person knows one lg and another a different one, someone else is better at technology or English style, or history or whatever. I cannot accept that we should each of us be self-sufficient. We must specialize. It would be foolish to think that I did not specialize at the expense of other subjects.
Personally I would not expect a medical missionary to know the biblical lgs, but they might teach me a great deal about the human condition, about God's purpose, and service and many spiritual values.
I personally would not care if all they read of the Bible was the Good News Bible. I can desire to study something for myself without having that same value for everyone. Does that mean I don't think others are capable, no, they are engaged in other service of equal value.
It is one thing to tell someone else that they are capable and should aspire to read and understand Greek and Hebrew, if this is what they want to do, what they feel called to do. It is quite another to expect this of every serious Christian.
As for computers, Matthew, I learn the tiniest amount that I can get away with for my own purposes!
Just catching up with this post -- a dozen comments! :)
The first pair of examples ("1. Word order") puzzled me. Exodus 11.8 runs (roughly schematized!):
RSV/ESV: subject - predicate - modifier
NIV: subject - modifier - predicate
NRSV: modifier - subject - predicate
but Zechariah 3:3
RSV/ESV: Josh was standing ... clothed...
NIV: Josh was dressed ... as he stood...
Frank confession: they all seem pretty clear to me! I can't quite work out what is obscure about the RSV/ESV translations here.
Adding the NJPS/Tanak translation into the mix is interesting:
Exod. 11:8b
וַיֵּצֵא מֵעִם־פַּרְעֹה בָּחֳרִי־אָף׃
Tanak: And he left Pharaoh's presence in hot anger.
Pretty much stands in the RSV/ESV tradition.
Zech. 3:3
וִיהֹושֻׁעַ הָיָה לָבֻשׁ בְּגָדִים צֹואִים וְעֹמֵד לִפְנֵי הַמַּלְאָךְ׃
Tanak: Now Joshua was clothed in filthy garments when he stood before the angel.
Opts for the "Josh was clothed" option, rightly, of course, when looking back at the Hebrew. The MT's subj + verb + participial phrase + participial phrase is better rendered in the NIV/NRSV/TNK style. So how did RSV/ESV end up with the inverted word order (which isn't, I don't think, particularly obscure!)? Mabye -- I'm only guessing -- they seized on the participles:
Joshua was clothed ... standing ... .
If so, to my ear "Joshua was clothed with filthy garments standing before the mal'ak" doesn't sound quite as natural as "Joshua was standing before the mal'ak clothed with filthy garments". And maybe they've still got their eye on 3:1 where standing is the thing. I dunno.
The thing is, in this pair, the pattern used by RSV/ESV in Exodus 11.8 is pretty much the pattern used by the NIV/NRSV in Zechariah 3.3! Thus my puzzlement.....
OK. Enough work avoidance! Thanks for a typically stimulating post!
David Reimer
David,
You can see that I wrote that not all these examples concern me. I'm with you on that. However, these were Meztger's examples so I went with them. The pattern, the direction of influence was interesting.
Suzanne
Anon, you wrote concerning Isaiah 9:6:
the Hebrew doesn't say that the son will be called "Mighty God." A better translation is from the NJPS (Tanakh):
For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" -- (NJPS)
This is not surprisingly a highly controversial point. I accept that the NJPS reading is possible. But in the Hebrew there is no word corresponding to "is", simply, word for word, "wonder planning/counselling, God mighty, ..." (note that in Hebrew adjectives come after nouns). (I have no idea where NJPS got "grace" from, for Hebrew פֶלֶא pele'.) Now it is possible, compare "Shear-Jashub" = "a remmant will return" in 7:3, that this child's name is intended to be the whole of this long sentence. But it is also possible that this is intended to be a complex multi-component name. There is in fact no way to say which is correct and which is not, apart from theological presuppositions - and on this point those of the NJPS translators should be as obvious as those of the ESV translators. But if you are going to argue from the literalism of "the Hebrew doesn't say", then what the Hebrew doesn't say is that "Mighty God" is the subject of a complex sentence rather than in itself a component of a name.
Anon, I appreciate your point that "precision... is a worthy aspiration for translations, but it is quite impossible. Readers must recognize the shortcomings of translations when reading the Bible. Serious students of the Bible will learn Greek and Hebrew -- translations become scaffolding that becomes less important as students find their way in the original source materials." But I would agree with Matthew in doubting "will". Regrettably many students are unable (for reasons of time more than intelligence) to learn these original languages - and certainly not to the level which (as you effectively admitted in an earlier comment) would be required for their understanding of Job to stand on its own without the scaffolding of a translation. And, with Suzanne, I am concerned about those who manage to learn only a little of the biblical languages but think, or let others think, that it gives them a lot of knowledge and authority. I would be happy with your statement if you restricted "serious students" to pastors, Bible translators etc who certainly should know the biblical languages well. But as a goal for ordinary believers, it may be laudable but it is unrealistic.
Suzanne and David, surely Metzger's point on Zechariah 3:3 is that the RSV and ESV reading suggests that it was the angel, rather than Joshua, who was "clothed with filthy garments". In the English this is at least ambiguous, and especially when read out aloud when the comma may not be clear. The Hebrew is unambiguous that it is Joshua who is so clothed, and in fact NIV and NRSV are closer to the Hebrew word order and sentence structure. And similarly with Exodus 11:8: RSV and ESV may suggest that it was Pharaoh who was angry, but NIV and NRSV clarify that it was Moses.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon,
Thanks for this comment. As you know this has been one of my ongoing questions, what is a pragmatic approach?
Anon, thanks for your helpful comments on "mighty God", including the valiant attempt (a first?) to put Syriac script in a comment (it didn't quite work for me in Firefox, but then I don't read this script, and you gave a transliteration). I agree that we can't be sure that "mighty God" is the correct translation, and so a footnote would have been good in NRSV. No wonder Jews reject it (but I didn't find an explicit rejection at the link you gave). I just felt that your unqualified "the Hebrew doesn't say" was oversimplified, and unlike your usual scholarly caution.
Oddly, I see the Syriac fine in IE 6! I tested the Windows Syrac support some time ago so I have some sort of familiarity with it, - it looks right to me, FWIW.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Concerning Isaiah 7:14, GD asks "If it means virgin, why did the Jews that translated almah into Greek for the Septuagint select parthenos (virgin)? Furthermore, what is the sign in just a young woman being with child?"
The reason as I understand it is that parthenos did NOT necessarily mean "virgin", but could also just mean "young woman" with no necessary implication of virginity. This, if I remember correctly, was certainly true at the time when LXX was translated, and may well have still been true when the verse was quoted in the NT, although in later (especially Christian influenced) Greek it came to certainly mean "virgin". I note that the NT makes it clear that Mary was a virgin independently of the word parthenos. In Isaiah, the sign was not in fact the pregnancy, which as far as we can tell was quite normal (unless you want to argue that there was an actual virgin birth in Isaiah's time) but that before the boy was out infancy the two enemy kings would be defeated.
Meanwhile 2 Peter 1:21 in NRSV is nothing to do with a feminist agenda, but corrects the misleading reading of RSV etc suggesting, against the Old Testament record (see e.g. 2 Kings 22:14-20), that only males prophesied. I can understand your concern about Matthew 24:40,41, but it is undeniable from how Greek gender works that verse 40 can apply to either men or women but verse 41 only to women. On the phrase "married only once" in 1 Timothy and Titus, see my series about this, especially part 4.
I have to wonder what it is that makes the NRSV more accurate or more scholarly. Is it because it was done by people that have a lower view of scripture? Is it because the people that translated it are mostly of a liberal persuasion, and therefore are more qualified to make good judgements than someone of a more conservative bent?
You are asking good questions. I will answer as a theological conservative who grew up in theological backgrounds where the RSV (and now the NRSV) were condemned.
No, the NRSV does not have scholarly integrity because of a lower view of Scripture. It has scholarly integrity because its translators are true biblical scholars, well qualified to do quality biblical exegesis, and because they translated objectively when they translated verses which could have a theological bias. Are there verses in the NRSV which I wish were translated differently? Absolutely. But, overall, the NRSV is probably the most objectively translated English Bible version today. It doesn't Christianize the Hebrew Bible during translation, importing New Testament interpretations (which, as a conservative, I agree with) into the translation of the Old Testament. It leaves the translation of the Hebrew Bible passages neutral, translating just what the Hebrew text says and not what Christians believe the text to *mean* by New Testament application and Christian theology.
My prediction: the NAB (or RSV) will dominate in the pews,
Isn't the RSV out of print? I thought that was the problem.
The RSV is not out of print. A couple of nice but, but expensive editions can be found at www.cambridgebibles.com. Click on the Revised Standard Version link on the left.
The Oxford Annotated Bible is still available in the RSV as well. In fact, Oxford has a host of RSV Bibles still in print. Go to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Bibles/TextReferenceBibles/RevisedStandardVersion/?view=usa
There may be others from other publishers as well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
GD, if Matthew had wanted to make 24:40 clearly refer to men only, he could have used anēr "man" to make this clear, but instead he just used the numeral "two". Also in v.41. The gender comes from the second part of each verse, masculine in v.40 and feminine in v.41. Now I accept that the contrast between masculine and feminine suggests that in v.40 the masculine may well be intended to refer to male people only and not to be generic. This is also supported by the cultural background, in which (from my possibly faulty memory) men worked in the fields and women used handmills. So maybe "two men" is OK in v.40, and indeed this is how TNIV renders this verse. But, since gender is by no means in focus here, I think an even better strategy would be to drop both "men" and "women".
Is the NRSV really being objective on most counts, or being biased away from traditional translations? I'm considering getting one of the NRSV's, but I've read comments from scholars across all persuasions, and even many of the more moderate or liberal scholars seem to have concerns of an anti-Christian or plainly feminist bias in the translation. Furthermore, I have considered the HarperCollins Study Bible or the New Oxford Annotated Bible, but are the notes truly unbiased?
I suggest that you go to a bookstore that stocks these study Bibles and examine them for yourself. My wife and I are disappointed with some of the comments in some study Bibles which question the authenticity of some things in the biblical text. Of course, the study notes are different from the translated text itself. I was only referring to the *overall* objectivity of the NRSV translated text. I am a theological conservative and I have limited time with the large amount of work I have. Even though I am interested in what scholars of different theological frameworks believe about particular Bible passage, I do not have the time to read them all. I wish I did, but I have to make choices in life in order to get my work done and still have a life.
The NRSV translation team did have a clear mandate to remove all masculine language that was not required by the biblical text. On the whole, I think they have done a pretty good job carrying out that mandate. I think that the way they translate Hebrew and Greek gender-inclusive language is a little more accurate, for instance, than how the recent evangelical translations which follow the CSG (Colorado Springs Guidelines) have translated gender-inclusive language. (Those two versions are the HCSB and ESV.) I realize that what I have just written will be strongly disagreed with by those who believe in the CSG and follow the claims of Dr. Grudem, Dr. Piper, Dr. Poythress, and the Crossway publishing company. But I can choose to disagree as a scholar with their conclusions without questioning their intentions or motivations. They are deeply sincere and I respect their desire to be as true to the teachings of God's Word as possible (of course, for them, as for most of us, it's how we interpret those biblical teachings that we try to be as close to as possible).
So, check things out for yourself is my suggestion. Spend some time at a public or college library or a bookstore and examine the study notes in any Bible you are considering buying.
I do not own any NRSV study Bible and have no desire to do so. But there are many who do have such Bibles and like them. Perhaps such study Bibles are especially promoted by mainline denominational seminaries such as Princeton, Union, etc.
GD asked, "So, a term for "women" is not found in the Greek?"
Yes, that's right. All there is in Matthew 24:41 to mark femininity is μία mia, the feminine form of "one", repeated twice in the second half of the verse. The second half of v.40 is identical except that μία mia is twice replaced by εἷς heis, the masculine form of "one". The first half of both verses is not marked at all for gender; the subject in both cases is simply δύο duo "two", which is never marked for gender.
It is interesting to compare Luke 17:34-35. These are very similar, except that in the first of the two verses "bed" replaces "field". Even though in RSV "man" is gender generic, the RSV as well as ESV translators have "two men ... two women" in Matthew, but they drop "men" in Luke while retaining "women". NIV and TNIV have "two people ... two women" in Luke, but "two men ... two women" in Matthew. The idea of having two men in one bed was obviously too much for the translators! - even though in that culture it would probably have been normal for unmarried brothers to share beds with no sexual overtones. But this does show how cultural expectations affect the translation. Only NRSV is consistent with "two ... two women" in both Matthew and Luke. I really don't see why TNIV didn't do the same in Matthew as it did in Luke.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zondervan or IBS have effectively given TNIV away free to Bible Gateway. So they would be rather inconsistent not to allow it to be included in Bible software. But then I know that copyright lawyers are not known for consistency and logic.
Suzanne, Thanks for this.
Do these African churches, embracing the ESV as they are doing, testify to their continued dependence on American/English leadership, for better or for worse?
Unfortunately American idiology is too readily received from the rest of the world. So to see an American reflection in other countries, especially those who seem prone to dependence, should not surprise us. This view and practice of "essentially literal" has risen and gained alot of ground here. And its proponents are the most vocal.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Matthew, you make ESV sound like our salvation! I can agree to this one point of comparison between them, that in both cases someone has already paid the full price to make it freely available to all. At least that is true of our salvation. But is it actually true of ESV? I'm not sure that that is what Anon meant. Perhaps ESV is freely available only in ways permitted and controlled by the Crossway website. That sounds like the way some churches or denominations try to control our salvation. The difference comes in that Crossway may have the legal right to control ESV, but no one has the right by God's law to control our salvation.
Matthew, Matthew, didn't you realise that I was being tongue in cheek in comparing the ESV (which you must know by now I don't like!) with salvation! Did I really need a smiley? Why do you suddenly go all formal on me with "sir" and "I suggest you revise or withdraw your statement, due to present facts."
Anyway, I don't see that I have anything to withdraw. You quoted Anon's statement "Someone paid for the distribution rights", which was explicitly about ESV, and then said "Right, but we can say it is free...". To what were you referring with "it"? Wasn't I right to take this as a reference to ESV? If I really misunderstood your intention, I apologise, but I don't think you made your point very clearly. If what you really mean is that you now know that you were mistaken about ESV being free, then you are the one who should apologise, or at least clarify the actual legal position with that version.
Meanwhile I share your interest in the distribution of free Bible texts, but I am much more interested in the distribution of free salvation!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home