NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
01/24/2007 16:26 Filed in: Faith & Reason
My post, "TNIV More Literal than the NASB?" from about a week ago prompted This Lamp reader "Larry" to challenge the NASB's reputation for literalness. In fact, Larry suggested that one of his favorite translations, the NRSV might be more literal, especially if we were to count the alternate literal translations that are sometimes provided in the NRSV. He proposed that we examine ten randomly chosen verses from five sections of the Bible to see which of the two translations were more literal. The results from the first section is below.
Now, I should point out a couple of things. Although we do discuss accuracy of translation, that is not what we are trying to determine. We are strictly attempting to determine which translation was more literal in its rendering of the original text. Having used both translations quite a bit in the past, I am still confident that the NASB is much more literal than the NRSV, but we'll let the chips fall where they may. Further, I've written before that literal is not always to be equated with accuracy. I've already stopped using the NASB in public because of its literalness. I would think that if the NRSV was more literal, that would not really be a good thing.
Our evaluations follow below. Larry began tackling this much sooner than I had opportunity, so although I made my evaluations without his findings in front of me, my responses are in reaction to what he had already posted. You can read our dialogue in the comments of the post NASB vs. NRSV to see the original context for what is below including Larry's rebuttal to my evaluation of Deut 1:34.
So...round one goes to NASB.
Now, I should point out a couple of things. Although we do discuss accuracy of translation, that is not what we are trying to determine. We are strictly attempting to determine which translation was more literal in its rendering of the original text. Having used both translations quite a bit in the past, I am still confident that the NASB is much more literal than the NRSV, but we'll let the chips fall where they may. Further, I've written before that literal is not always to be equated with accuracy. I've already stopped using the NASB in public because of its literalness. I would think that if the NRSV was more literal, that would not really be a good thing.
Our evaluations follow below. Larry began tackling this much sooner than I had opportunity, so although I made my evaluations without his findings in front of me, my responses are in reaction to what he had already posted. You can read our dialogue in the comments of the post NASB vs. NRSV to see the original context for what is below including Larry's rebuttal to my evaluation of Deut 1:34.
| Reference | Larry's Evaluation | Rick's Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
Gen 2:8 |
The NASB95 and NRSV are quite close, but have these differences: The NRSV correctly includes the initial vav ["and"] and the NASB does not. The NRSV keeps together the phrase gan b'ayden ["garden in eden"] and adds afterwards adds miqedem ["in the east"] so in this verse, the NRSV is more literal |
Larry, you are right that these verses are very close. The NRSV does retain the initial vav which is very interesting considering most of these were removed in the 1995 revision for sake of readability (along with unnecessary kai/and in Mark’s Gospel, demonstrating that he might’ve been writing in Greek, but he was thinking in Hebrew/Aramaic). I’d be interested to know how many of these are retained in the NRSV vs. the NASB.
You’re also right that the word order is closer in the NRSV than the NASB, which I had to admit was surprising when I saw your initial analysis. I concur that the NRSV is more literal in Genesis 2:8. |
Ex 18:6 |
The Hebrew begins vayomer ["and when one told"]. In this case, the NASB95's footnote slightly more correct (although not as literal as it could be.) Also the final imah ["with her"] is only in the NASB95. So in this case, the NASB95 is more literal. | Again, in agreement here. It’s the NASB’s translation of the final phrase ‘immah/with her that pushes it to being slightly more literal. Although the NRSV’s elimination of this unnecessary phrase (in English) certainly makes it more readable. |
Ex 30:26 |
In this case, only one word distinguishes the NASB95 and NRSV. The word, ha-edut, is given three english definitions by the NRSV (which also gives the original Hebrew word). One of the NRSV's translation words is the one used by the NASB95. In this case, I regard the NASB95 and NRSV as exactly equally literal. | Agreed that both are equally literal. The NRSV’s note is more helpful though. I think we’d both agree that the NRSV has better notes that most current English translations. |
Ex 38:25 |
Once again, the NRSV and the NASB95 are very close. NRSV has "of", NASB has "from" -- both are valid interpretations of the Hebrew. NRSV has "measured by" and NASB95 has "according to" -- in both cases for the b' in b'sheqel haqodesh. I think that both are equally valid. However, "mustering" is indeed the more literal translation, and since we are counting footnotes, in this case, I must say that the NASB95 is slightly more literal. | Again agreed that the NASB is more literal here, but only slightly so. On an interesting stylistic note, I find it odd that the numbers are spelled out in the NRSV. When I teach my writing classes at IWU, the general rule I teach is to spell out numbers ten or less and use numerals for anything greater because this is easier to read. I generally find the NRSV to be an easier read than the NASB, and I’m surprised to notice for the first time how large numbers are presented. |
Lev 1:7 |
The only difference his "priest Aaron" vs. "Aaron the priest". Here, Aaron the priest better tracks "Aharon ha-kohen" so the NASB95 is more literal. | Agreed that the NASB is more literal, but barely and insignificantly so. |
Num 8:24 |
Here, both verses are more literal in parts. For the NASB95, "he" correctly captures the singular in "yabo" and also "and upward" is found in the Hebrew. But the word order "do duty in the service" is more correct than "perform service in the work" [ "tsava bavodat"] So, I am calling this a tie. | For the first time, I am going to disagree with your evaluation. Although I do agree with the two different literal phrasings in each translation, I would suggest that “enter” for the Hebrew bo’ is more literal than the NRSV’s “begin.” Therefore, I would suggest that cumulative with the other issues you point out, the NASB is more literal. |
Num 10:9 |
The NRSV and NASB95 are almost identical in this case, but both are in error, because the initial v'chi tavo'u milchmah is ambiguous and unclear (I would have translated it when you are at war.) So this is a tie, with both versions falling short. | I’ll hesitantly side with you that we have a tie here. I wonder though, aside from literalness if “attacks” in the NASB is not a better rendering than “oppresses” for tzrr. If I’m reading the HALOT correctly, warfare is in mind in this word, not the less specific idea of oppression. I want to side with the NASB for being more literal here, but I’m not 100% decided, so therefore I’ll go with a tie. |
Num 25:15 |
The NASB95 translates "umot beit av" literally here, so the NASB95 is more literal. | The NASB is by far more literal here, including it’s use of footnotes. So we are in agreement here. |
Deut 1:34 |
Both the NRSV and NASB95 fail to accurately capture "et qol divreichem." NASB95 attempts to caputre this with "the sound of your words" but sound is not quite right here. NRSV simply translates "your words" but fails to capture the intensifier with the meaning "your loud words" or "your purposeful words." The NASB95 translates v'yishava as "and took an oath" while the NRSV's "and he swore" -- here, clearly, the NRSV finds a single word solution and accurately captures the meaning. However, the NRSV fails to translate the final le'omor. So in this case, we have another tie -- neither version is particularly literal. | Larry, I don’t see how you can say we have a tie here. Et qol divreichem is literally “the sound/voice of your words” so the NASB’s rendering is quite literal—and more so than the NRSV--even if it doesn’t carry the meaning completely across. But that shouldn’t matter because we’re talking about literalness in this comparison, not accuracy of meaning. If we’re going to do that, we stepping into dynamic equivalency, which I have no problem with, but that wasn’t the purpose of this comparison.
Further, the NASB renders le’mor as “saying,” which although redundant in English is literal to the Hebrew text. The NASB is undoubtedly more literal in this verse to me. So we disagree here. |
Deut 13:6 |
The NASB95 re-arranges the verse, putting entices in the middle; the NRSV also slightly re-arranges the verse putting secretly near the front. But the NASB95, by moving the first word, does the most violence to the verse. Also, the NRSV here gives more literal textual variants. So I would say this is close, but the NRSV is slightly more literal. Note that Fox's translation is far more literal here (actually, this entire analysis has clearly indicated to me that both the NASB95 and NRSV fall short in contrast with Fox, which closely tracks the Hebrew):
|
I’m going to call this a tie. Although I would decidedly say that the translation from Fox is more literal, I don’t see any harm in the NASB’s moving the first verb which is commonly done in translations because word order in Hebrew doesn’t always make sense in English. The textual variant provided by the NRSV doesn’t have anything to do with the way the text has been rendered. As I said, I’m calling this one a tie, so we disagree here. |
Cumulative Score: |
2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) |
1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) |
So...round one goes to NASB.