NASB vs. NRSV Round 4: Gospels and Acts
| Reference | Larry's Evaluation | Rick's Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
Matt 13:37 |
The NASB95 alone translated "de." (Isn't it inconsistent for it to translate "de" but not translate initial vav's in the Hebrew?). Neither version full translates apokritheis eipen. The translation of the KJV is more literal here "He answered and said ...." although it immediately deviates after then because of its use of the TR. Nonetheless, I regard apokritheis as the more important term here, especially as it connects the explanation of the parable to the question of the disciples in the previous verse. So the NASB95 gets the nod for translating "de" but the NRSV has a better translation of "apokritheis eipen" -- tie. |
This is a close call. You're right about the deficiencies of both in regard to apokritheis eipen, but both translations made a good call by stripping down what amounts to a redundancy in English. I want to call it a tie as well, but in my opinion, the NASB's translation of de makes it (ever so) slightly more literal than the NRSV. So I'm giving it to the NASB, but BARELY. |
Matt 21:27 |
Well, here the NASB95 translates both words apokrithentes and eipan, so it is more literal, and translates kai consistently in the verse. | Agreed: NASB. |
Matt 23:33 |
The NASB95 (in a footnote) captures the subjunctive in phygete and also finds two one word translations of kriseos. It is more literal. | I agree with your analysis and would add that "sentence of hell" better captures the genitive construction of kriseos tes geennes. NASB wins here. |
Mark 8:16 |
Translating deilogizonto as "said" does not do it justice. On the other hand, why does the NASB95 add the completely unhelpful "began". The NRSV makes this a direct quote, although tries to make up for its previous mistranslation of deilogizonto by inserting, out of thin air, "It is because" and changes echousin to first person plural. There is no contest here. The NASB95 is far more literal. | I agree with the unnecessary additions of the NASB. But like you, overall, I see the NASB as more literal here. |
Luke 8:32 |
Both versions are commendably literal in translating this verse. The NRSV moves up hillside here, but the change is minor. The NASB95 translates "there" twice here, one appears to be from "ekei" but I cannot find from whence it obtained the second "there". I'm calling this one for the NRSV. | I believe the second use of "there" in the NASB is the actual translation of ekei. The first is merely part of the translation into good English. However, the NRSV found a way to keep this literal without it, so I, too, give the nod to the NRSV, but it's a very slight nod. |
Luke 18:29 |
Other than capitalization (not an issue in original manuscript Greek) and "say to" versus "tell", these are identical. Tie. |
Agreed. Tie. |
Luke 21:7 |
There is no attempt here to represent the de, but the NASB95 does separately translate the Eperotesan & legontes, pote & oun and more accurately translates the single word (out of context) hotan. On the other hand, it adds an interpolated "things." I give a slight nod to the NASB95. | I agree that the NASB is more literal, but I feel it is a good bit more literal than a simple slight nod. Regardless, NASB gets this verse. |
John 3:28 |
If one includes alternatives, the NRSV and NASB95 are essentially the same here -- it is a tie. I'm not sure why the NRSV and NASB95 put in the footnotes they did given the later use in John 4:25. (Off topic: did other viewers notice how horrible the Aramaic pronunciation was in Gibson's Passion of the Christ? For example, the High Priest pronounces "messiah", repeatedly, in mixed up Hebrew and Aramaic: meshiaha.) | I agree to the tie. I agree that "having gone before" would be a more literal translation than either option in the NASB or NRSV. As to the off-topic question, I didn't notice. However I remember when I saw the movie wondering how mangled the pronunciations were in general with so many non-Aramaic speaking actors. After viewing it at the theater, I've never gone back to watch it on DVD. And I'm not sure I ever will. It's a difficult movie to watch. |
Acts 20:13 |
Here the NASB95 translates the "de", so I don't understand its translation philosophy for Greek -- it appears inconsistent to me. There is a substantial difference in the translation of proelthontes. Since this is an aorist participle, wouldn't the literal translation be "having gone before"? Perhaps the translations intend to capture this by using "ahead", but that seems an inadequate to me. I can't make up my mind which of the verb forms used "going" or "went" is close to "having gone before" -- neither seems particularly accurate to me.
In this case, I'd call it for the NASB95 [purely on the basis of having translated the "de"], but neither is as literal as the KJV. |
Agreed. The NASB is more literal. |
Acts 28:23 |
Taxamenoi is another aorist participle, so I would translate it "Having set in order." The NASB95 translates ekitheto diamartyromenos as "explaining [to them] by solemnly testifying" while the NRSV opts for "explained the matter" Of course the middle voice doesn't exist in English, so an exact translation is impossible; the NASB95 captures the notion of testifying and adds "solemnly" (which does not capture the clear sense of thoroughness that context demands here, but which is literal enough.) So I call this for the NASB95. |
Another agreement for the NASB. |
Additional Comments: |
A blow-out for the NASB95
I'd like to make some additional comments here. The NASB95 has a decidedly different character in translating the Greek Scriptures than the Hebrew Scriptures; it hews much closer to the text and shows greater care in translation. At the same time, it is neither as literal as the KJV was to the Textus Receptus and certainly is not as elegant as the KJV. The NRSV also changed character in the Greek Scriptures -- it almost adopted an "easy reading" character I identify more closely with the NIV. What accounts for this difference? I have some preliminary speculation. For the NRSV, perhaps because the Gospels and Acts is more straightforward than the more alien, ancient, and ambiguous language of the Hebrew Scriptures, the translators felt more comfortable putting the Scriptures in plainer language -- they didn't think they would go astray so easily. For the NASB95, given that the Greek Scriptures are more important to their audience than the Hebrew Scriptures, I simply think they devoted more time to them. I must say that in reading these verses, I am more impressed than ever with the achievement of the KJV (and Tyndale), which manages to present both Hebraized English and relatively literal Greek while maintaining a consistent tone (perhaps too consistent, since the original differs so greatly in tone) and also maintaining elegance and also using (for its period) simplified English. |
Larry, in regard to your final thoughts on this section, I think we are in agreement that both translation committees seemed to have taken more care in their translations of the New Testament. This might explain my earlier comment that analyzing these verses seemed easier than the previous ones in the OT, and I don't think it was simply the fact that my Greek is (much) better than my Hebrew. The difference in character between the testaments in these translations may just be another instance of a long standing tradition of slighting the Old Testament. At some point, it might be interesting to do a similar analysis, although obviously not on literalness, with a translation like the NLT. I know that one of my former OT committee members, Daniel I. Block, was very influential in the translation of the NLT OT, and much of the changes between the NLT1 and NLT2 I woul guess came at his insistence.
Regarding the nature of the NRSV NT that you mentioned, I had always thought of the NRSV as being a bit more in flavor like the NIV, and these verses certainly seem to demonstrate. I can only guess that my experience with the NRSV (primarily in my M.Div years) was rooted more in the NT than the Old (see, there's that bias again). |
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
NASB vs. NRSV Round 2: Nevi'im
NASB vs. NRSV Round 3: Kethuvim
Comments where these discussions are taking place