NASB vs. NRSV Round 2: Nevi'im
The first round of verses from the Torah proved my original suggestion regarding the NASB. Surprisingly though (to me), this second round has proved much more even between the NASB and NRSV. Here are the results:
| Reference | Larry's Evaluation | Rick's Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
Josh 18:21 |
Bnei as "sons of" is captured in the NASB95 -- this is the more literal version here. [Why the NRSV didn't use Benjaminites here is not clear; much better is the NJPS: "And the towns of the tribe of the Benjaminites, by its clans, were: Jericho, Beth-hoglah, Emek-keziz."] |
Larry, I am in agreement that Josh 18:21 is more literal in the NASB. Not only does the NRSV leave out sons, it also leaves out the “and” (for the Hebrew vav) before the last two cities listed. Although these aren’t necessary for good English and the NRSV reads better, the NASB is more word-for-word literal in this instance. |
2 Sam 1:3 |
It is funny that the NASB95 insists on the word order "from where do you come" while filing to put "And said to him" first in the sentence or inverting "From the camp of Israel have I escaped." Both the NASB95, despite liberties with the text, retain the somewhat confusing "and he said to him." Still, the word order in both is unnecessarily confused compared with the original, so I am calling this a tie. Note the KJV is far more literal than both of these versions. | I’ll have to disagree here. I don’t see how awkward word order creates a tie. Plus, the NRSV does not reflect the initial vav of the verse (captured in the word “then” in the NASB), nor the vav that introduces the quotation. That makes at least two places where the NASB is more literal. |
2 Kings 4:32 |
The NASB95 does translate v'hinei as behold, but why does it omit the "and"? Even worse, why does it put an unnecessary "and" before "laid on" which is not in the Hebrew "mat mushkav." In the KJV the "and" is correctly marked as an interpolated word. This could be a tie, but I think the NRSV is slightly more true to the Hebrew here. | Larry, I agree that neither is fully literal here, but I’ll opt for a tie because I don’t see how the NRSV is any more literal than the NASB. To pick up on a couple of your comments, I debated internally whether “lad” was more literal than “child” for na’ar. Although na’ar can mean "male" or "female" according to the context, here it is clearly male. Personally I prefer translating words like this according to the context of the gender, so I would prefer “lad” or perhaps better, “boy,” but I can’t fault the NRSV simply because I would have translated it differently. Technically, “child” is not incorrect. Also, I would guess that the reason “and” is added before “laid on” is because the verse literally reads “the boy was dead laid/lying on the bed.” A comma between dead and laid would have sufficed, but by the NASB’s own rules, “and” should have been in italics. So again, I’m going to call this a tie. |
2 Kings 17:23 |
The NASB95's "carried away into exile" is more complex than the literal Hebrew and does not communicate the idea of golut from the simple word va-yigel. One might think that "spoke through" is more literal than "foretold", but the literal sense of diber is in both phrases. In this case, the NRSV is more literal. | I agree, the NRSV is closer to the Hebrew here. |
Isa 24:15 |
The NASB95 gives the literal meaning of "east", but changes the word order rather dramatically, while the NRSV tracks it accurately. Nonetheless, the NRSV unnecessarily repeats the English word "glory/glorify" while it only appears once in the Hebrew. I'm calling this a tie, with neither version as literal as it could be. Note, that the KJV is far more literal here and superior from a literary perspective. | Larry, I don’t disagree with your general points about the rendering in these verses, and all things equal I would call it a tie as well. However, two issues make me lean the scales in the favor of the NASB. First, the NASB offers a more literal rendering of “region of light” in the notes in place of “east.” Second, in the second line, the NRSV duplicates the first line’s use of khvd by adding the word “glorify.” While this makes for smoother reading, it does not match the literalness of the NASB. |
Isa 64:11 |
First, note that this is a place where the Hebrew and traditional Protestant bible have different verse numbering. I've used the Protestant numbering here.
First we notice the gender difference, the NASB95 "fathers" and NRSV "ancestors" for "avoteinu." The NASB95 is more literal here, and I was a little surprised to see no footnote in the NRSV. The NASB95 puts "by" in italics, but somewhat unnecessarily, since a literal reading of lisrefat would be "for burning of" rather than "burned by." I will remark here that I find the NASB95's arbitrary use of italics somewhat disturbing -- it should only be used for words added to the English translation, but it seems to be rather inconsistently used for that purpose (many words added to the English translation are not italicized.) Both "our precious things" and "our pleasant places" are legitimate translations of machmadeinu and I don't find the ruin/ruins distinction significant here. So in this case, I count the NASB95 as more literal. |
I’m in essential agreement here that the NASB is more literal. However, on a minor note, is “our pleasant places” a legitimate rendering for machmadeinu? I can’t find any similar gloss in the HALOT or the BDB unless I overlooked it. |
Isa 66:11 |
These are very close. Both are using a modern interpretation of miziz which compares it with the Akkadian zizu or the Arabic zizat which means udder. However, kvodah is best translated as glorious, so the NRSV has a slight nod here. | I agree with the assessment that the NRSV is more literal, not only for what you mention, but also note that the NASB changes the singular shod to a plural [“breasts”]. |
Jer 31:39 |
Almost identical; the NRSV gets a slight nod for translating v' as "and". | Agreed, NRSV is slightly more literal for translating the two instances of the Hebrew vav. |
Ezek 43:15 |
Ignoring the rather odd alternative translation proposed by the NASB95 in the footnotes, the major differences are the omission of the initial "and" and the interjection of the bridging phrases "shall be" and "shall" in the NASB95. The first is marked as added words (using italics), the second is not, although I'm not convinced this is necessary. Similar to the last verse considered, the NRSV gets the nod solely for translating the initial v'. However, if Rick calls these ties, I'll understand completely. | No, I won’t call this a tie. As in the last instance, the NRSV is more literal. |
Jon 4:5 |
Sukah is normally translated as "booth", but "shelter" is equally valid. I would have chosen "booth" to remind the reader of the connection with the Festival of Booths, but I regard the variation as insignificant. "Ad asher" is best translated as "till", so the NASB95 gets a slight nod here. Strangely, in this case, the NRSV translates the v' in vaya'as but not in vayeshev, while the NASB95 does the opposite. |
I will agree to the tie only because the NASB offers a literal translation of city in the footnotes. Otherwise, in response to the issues you’ve already mentioned, I would have been willing to give the nod of literalness to the NRSV. Translating both instances of 'ir creates an odd-sounding redundancy in English, but it is more literal. But nevertheless, I’ll agree to a tie; although again, I almost gave this to the NRSV. |
Cumulative Scores: |
Torah: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) |
Torah: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) |
To read more click the following links:
NASB vs. NRSV
NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
Comments where these discussions are taking place