NASB vs. NRSV Round 3: Kethuvim
One note of difference from previous posts, though. I have switched myself to the left column and Larry to the right column for this post since I was able to write my analysis first this time.
| Reference | Rick's Evaluation | Larry's Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
Psalm 22:26 |
It's interesting that the NASB renders ‘anaw "afflicted" and the NRSV, "poor" and both offer the other's rendering as an alternate translation. Either word is suitable and part of the glosses included in most Hebrew lexicons.
I also found it interesting that the NRSV retains the use of "shall" while the NASB changed its wording to "will" in the 1995 update. These words are used interchangeably in today's vocabulary and any traditional distinction is ignored. Finally, I was about to call this one a tie, when I noticed that the 2nd person plural suffix added to levav is better reflected in the NRSV's "your hearts" than in the NASB's "your heart." So, in light of that, I'll give the nod to the NRSV as being more literal. |
I can't agree with you here on the disappearance of the shall/will distinction -- it is still in the (grammar) books, after all. However, more on topic: I also don't completely agree with you on "your hearts". This is one of those phrases that is easily translated into English -- chem is indicating that your is masculine plural but the root levav is actually singular. Thus the BDB translates it as "you yourselves." There is a deeper problem here. There is an ambiguity in the Hebrew text. Who is the subject of your this line? One possibility is that it is the Deity, and "chem" is being used as a royal identifier (or, a Messianic Christian interpretation that views this another triune reference.) The NASB95 translation allows this ambiguity while the NRSV seems to preclude it. For this reason, I would disagree with you and say the NASB95 is more literal here, since it preserves the ambiguity. |
Psalm 37:6 |
I don't feel much detail is needed here, but Larry can challenge me on this if he wants to. Although I would feel that the NRSV brings out the meaning of the verse more clearly, the NASB gives a much more literal, word-for-word translation. And since that is what we are judging on, I claim the NASB to be more literal. | I don't understand why both the NRSV and NASB95 change the word order between k'or and tzidkecha. Nonetheless, I agree that the wording of the NASB95 is more literal here. |
Psalm 104:34 |
Neither one of these verses translate ‘arav literally as "sweet," although "pleasing" captures the meaning of the idiom for English speaking audiences. The NASB attempts to reflect the extra pronoun ’anokhi [literally, "I"] in the phrase "as for me." There's no easy way to do this because samach (I [will] rejoice) is also first person singular and can create an unnecessary redundancy in English. However, it is in the Hebrew for added emphasis and since the NASB attempts to refelct this (albeit awkwardly) and the NRSV does not, I have to claim that the NASB is more literal. Larry may decide to challenge this. |
Anokhi is an interesting word, in that it carries special emphasis; famously at the start of the Ten Commandments. Nonetheless, I don't think that the NASB95, although it tries to reflect this emphasis, is a more literal translation -- in fact, it is just odd to me: "as for me" suggests a comparison -- suggesting the NASB95 is translating Anokhi in opposition to the Lord. But this is Hebrew poetry and the parallel structure is not in opposition but in sympathy. Thus, the reading of the NASB95 is opposite to what the psalmist is saying here. I'm not so sure that this is a case of the NASB95 not being literal as it is of the NASB95 simply being wrong. Even worse, the introduction of the extra phrase "as for me", even if it is not interpreted as being in opposition, breaks the symmetry of the poem. For this reason, I regard the NRSV as more literal. |
Psalm 118:8 |
This may be the first verse in which we've truly had to wrestle with the NRSV's inclusive language [i.e. "mortals" as opposed to "man"]. Any regular reader of this blog knows that I am not opposed to inclusive language as it often better communicates the meaning of the original message. This is case in point where I have offered anecdotal evidence in the past that masculine universals do not always communicate well in today's culture.
So, on one hand, I have no problem with the NRSV's use of "in mortals" for ba’adam as opposed to the NASB's "in man." However, in terms of literalness, the word "man" is singular (even if representing the plural) like the Hebrew singular absolute, while mortals is plural. Maybe this is splitting hairs, though. In which case, I'll give the nod to the NASB based on the fact that "trust" is word-for-word more literal for batach than the NRSV's "put confidence." So I say the NASB is more literal, but if it's any consolation, I like the NRSV's wording here better. |
Had the NRSV included a footnote here, I would have excused the introduction of the plural mortals. (By the way, this is not the first time we've dealt with this -- there is a fathers/ancestors dichotomy in both Deut 13:6 and Isa 64:11 but here it is more intrusive, because of the switch to a plural.) I give the nod to the NASB95. |
Prov 6:33 |
The NASB reflects the word order of the Hebrew in the opening line more closely. However, I've already stated in this series analysis that I don't find fault in translators shifting the verb for better English translation. Therefore, I call this verse a tie. |
It is true that the NASB95 better reflects word order here, but I do not understand how the NASB95 derived "not be blotted out" from "lo timacheh". The root M-CH-H is normally translated as wipe (this is particular clear in 2 Kings 21:13) -- and this particular clear in cases of writing (e.g. Moses name in Exodus 32:32-33). The "blot out" sense listed in BDB, for example, is not found in HALOT -- it means in the instances used as "annihilate." I this this is a case where the Evangelical leanings of the NASB95 translators show all too clearly; the translators are perhaps trying to steer the reader away from the metaphor of "washing" sin away. I could call this a draw (word order versus word choice), but I think the word choice here is so misleading that I will call this one for the NRSV. |
Job 36:5 |
These translations are identical except for the way each translates the first Hebrew word, hen. Generally, this is translated "behold" as in the NASB, but according to the BDB, it can be seen as a hypothetical participle propounding a possibility. I'm under the assumption that this is what the NRSV translators had in mind when they rendered hen as "Surely." Therefore, I call this verse a tie. |
If I were going to make the rules all over again, I would exclude verses from Job on the basis that the meaning of the text is so unclear in so many places. This verse is a perfect example -- while the words in this verse are clear enough, it has an ambiguous reading:
Behold God is mighty and rejecteth not; He is mighty in strength of understanding. Or as the New American Bible translates it: Behold, God rejects the obstinate in heart; he preserves not the life of the wicked. Or as the New Jerusalem Bible translates: God does not reject anyone whose heart is pure. [This appears to be following the Septuagint, but can be read into the Hebrew, i.e., Behold God is mighty but does not despise those with mighty, strong, understanding.] Or as the New English Bible translates: God, I say, repudiates the high and mighty. I must say that I am considerably annoyed at the way that both the NRSV and NASB95 confidently translate the text throughout the book. For lacking what I consider absolutely necessary footnotes here, I am calling this a tie. |
Lam 3:59 |
Let me give my own literal reading for this verse: "You have seen, YHWH, my oppression / judge my judgment [shafeta mishpati]."
This is very close, but despite word order on the part of either translation, the NASB is more literal in its use of fewer words in the first line. "Case" may also be more literal than "cause" for mishpat. Therefore, I consider the NASB slightly more literal. |
I see your point here, but I was a little surprised you accept an archaic reading of obscure. Of course, I am compelled to accept it, so I agree that the NASB95 is superior here. |
Dan 11:23 |
To me this is a difficult verse to put into English. Regardless, I am going to go for a tie because of the deficiencies of both translations. The NRSV completely leaves out any translation of we‘ala [reflected in the NASB's "and he will go up"], but I don't think the NASB's insertion of the italicised (i.e. added) "force of" is all that helpful or accurate. |
I agree with your analysis, but weigh the factors differently, so I'm calling this for the NASB95. |
Neh 8:14 |
The NRSV translates the initial vav that the NASB removed in the 1995 update for readability. And although it's another inclusive issue, I feel that "sons" in the NASB is more literal than "people" in the NRSV for bene.
One vs. one creates another tie. |
I'd like to point out the KJV uses "children of Israel" here. Gee, even the ESV uses "people of Israel" here. The problem is that bnei-yisrael is a single semantic unit and it everywhere means Israelites. (Semantic units are mistranslated if broken up -- one does not gain insight into "left bank" by translating "left" and "bank".) Indeed, the Rabbinic writings interpreted the commandment to live in a sukah) as binding on women. Now, one of the most silly aspects of the NASB95 is how it translates everywhere in Exodus 1, for example, bnei-yisrael as "sons of Israel" rather than Israelites. Strangely, though, the NASB95 translates yeled as "child" (twice) and in this case, yeled definitely meant a male, since it was Moses. [Perhaps this is an Evangelical choice, to echo a more famous phrase beginning "son of."]
Other differences: The NRSV, as you note, translates the initial vav. But it adds an unnecessary "it" after "found". Neither version literally translates the "by the hand of Moses" -- which is particularly odd since the NASB95 went out of its way to translate "sons of Israel" in the same verse. Neither version shows particular fidelity to the text, and I'm calling this a tie. |
1 Chron 6:24 |
Larry, we'll blame your randomizer for this verse. Tie. | Tie. |
Cumulative Scores: |
Torah: 1 (NRSV) - 6 (NASB95) - 3 (tie) |
Torah: 2 (NRSV) - 4 (NASB95) - 4 (tie) |
To read more click the following links:
NASB vs. NRSV
NASB vs. NRSV Round 1: Torah
NASB vs. NRSV Round 2: Nevi'im
Comments where these discussions are taking place