![]() ![]() While I like the new ESV translation, and while no translation is perfect, I think it is wise to stick with the NKJV for serious study. In a few cases, only one or two out of 2,000 (if you are in the book of John, for ex.) or so for a particular verse will translate it in a way that the ESV accepts as "best" (the reader in uninformed). The ESV can be a little deceiving in the footnotes when it says things like "the best manuscripts" or "the most reliable manuscripts" have a word a certain way. In the footnotes you will have M for majority text (the Byzantine - 5000+ manuscripts) and the NU text (Alexandrian - around 50 manuscripts). ![]() The NKJV also does a much better job with informing the readers of variants. The NJKV is more literal and based on a more reliable text type (not quite completely Byzantine, but mostly), and personally, I think it is more poetic. I like the ESV fresh translations of texts, because they really bring out the Greek in many places where older translations have not ( though they are not entirely consistent on this). The NKJV follows the KJV, the ESV the RSV. In the end, really it comes down to whether you prefer the tradition of the KJV or the RSV. I much prefer this over endless footnotes. I personal like the idea of putting supplied words in italics, that way you get to see for the most part what is literal and what words are given to supply the sense. You have to wonder whether there isn t some contemporary cultural influence here. In some cases the ESV has made a radical departure from the KJV/NKJV/NASB. You have to wonder what else gets dropped, maybe something more important. Probably just wanting to tidy up the script here. In the OT, the ESV drops things like, "Now it came to pass" - Ruth 1:1 etc, numerous times. Probably is a reflection of how they view slavery. They correct themselves over 200 times on this very word. For instance, in the NT, the ESV renders the word for slave or bond-servant as servant. I myself stuck with the NKJV because of the NT textual issue - I don't believe the church ever lost the true text, and don't believe the critical text is somehow the recovered text.Īlso, in quite a number of places, the ESV is less literal than they would have you believe. We were not told why the change was necessary, so I personally stayed with the NKJV. Our church went from NKJV to ESV last year. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |