New American Standard Bible or New Testament TransLine by Michael Magill?
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
Which version is more literal?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 The Messiahist |
Which version is more literal? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 10 (05/01/2009 14:32:40) |
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד׃ וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶֽךָ
|
||
|
77 |
|||
|
Posts: 318 (05/01/2009 16:36:47) |
The Messiahist wrote: 77: I can't back up my choice with anything other than what my gut tells me: when in doubt, the NASB. In general, always trust a committee translation over that of an individual. In this specific instance, the NASB is the most literal translation generally available today outside of an interlinear. Edit: Now, having written that, I am going to get my hand on a copy of Magill's work, just to verify the accuracy of my gut....
"Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good
one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that
our mark."
Last Edited By: 77
05/01/2009 16:46:17.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
SAWBONES |
|||
|
Posts: 98 (05/01/2009 21:44:28) |
Reviewing the New Testament TransLine by Michael Magill on Amazon just now (I'd never heard of it before), it seems to be a study aid, rather like Kenneth
Wuest's Expanded Translation of the New Testament, not solely or primarily a translation.
It's quite "literal", in its maintaing of Greek word order, but I see it also expands some of the vocabulary, and that each facing page contains numerous footnotes and commentary. I'd consider that it wouldn't be particularly comparable to any of the standard English versions. Among those, the ASV of 1901 and the NASB are generally regarded as the "most literal", though beware of equating "most literal" with "most accurate"; they're not necessarily always the same thing. |
||
 gconan |
|||
|
Posts: 901 (05/02/2009 03:30:02) Registered User |
The Transline is a very good New Testament. You will find many a "literal" translation in the notes on the facing pages. Has far more Text critical
notes than all other committee versions put together.
Also their is a NASB and an updated NASB. |
||
|
77 |
|||
|
Posts: 322 (05/02/2009 05:34:59) |
Sawbones makes an excellent point, that bears repeating: literal and accurate need not be the same thing; if anything, they almost never are. The NASB is as
close to a word for word translation as one can generally find that is still intelligible. There are more literal translations, such as the long out of print
American Standard Version, but they frequently sacrifice accuracy for a slavish devotion to literalness.
Some people here could make an argument, if pressed, that the NIV is more accurate than the NASB. Not more literal, but more accurate. This is a matter of opinion, and taste. Do you prefer dynamic or formal equivelance? Which style gives you greater accuracy? No less an august group of men than the KJV translators acknowledged that a studying a variety of transaltions is profitbal for a man. If they could say that, who among us here could say different? So, to readdress your question: it should be an easy excercise to determine whether the NASB is more literal than the Transline (I strongly suspect it is), but it will have to remain a conjecture as to which is more accurate.
"Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good
one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that
our mark."
|
||
|
SAWBONES |
|||
|
Posts: 99 (05/02/2009 06:31:19) |
77 said: "...such as the long out of print American Standard Version..." Actually, its earlier printers (Thomas Nelson & Sons, Holman, others) have long since discontinued it after the copyright expired, but there is a current printing from Star Bible Publishers. http://star.remoteitnow.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=45 Unfortunately, the quality of both the printing and the binding from Star is merely mediocre. (I have one each of their best leather-bound edition and their standard hardcover edition.) In addition, the print is uniformly small and the leading (space between lines of print) is close, which together with the traditional double-column layout makes for a crowded, hard-to-read page format, but it was ever thus; I used to have a very nice edition with best-quality binding (goatskin leather cover, Smyth-sewn, overcasting of first and last signatures) from Holman decades ago, which had the very same page format, and currently have an antique Nelson edition, all essentially identical in page layout. Too bad that the best-quality Bible printings and bindings have traditionally always been mostly in KJV! The ASV of 1901 is now in the Public Domain, and is available gratis on the 'net for perusal or download at several locations, the best being http://asv1901.com |
||
|
77 |
|||
|
Posts: 323 (05/02/2009 07:34:17) |
Yes, Star Bible. Mediocre printing, and all those horrid pronunciation helps. Makes one wonder if they don't have a hieroglyphics text when they first
open their copy...
"Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good
one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that
our mark."
|
||
|
mko |
|||
|
Posts: 452 (05/02/2009 07:35:31) |
I tend to prefer the 1881-1885-1894 (Apoc.) ERV to the ASV, though they're pretty close.
"Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the
minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
|
||
|
AlFin |
|||
|
Posts: 96 (05/02/2009 10:30:03) |
77 wrote: That's one thing about having an electronic Bible such as the PC Study Bible, they often have the older versions. Mine includes the American Standard Version. Allen |
||
|
jchthys |
|||
|
Posts: 10 (05/03/2009 13:41:49) |
Yes, I think that often (not always) the KJV is more literal than the NASB (for example, "my bowels were moved for him" in the Song of Songs, or
"girding up the loins of your mind").
|
||
|
mko |
|||
|
Posts: 457 (05/03/2009 14:24:39) |
Even my own translations: I follow a rather Metzgerish philosophy of translation, but there's some unusual readings in my translation, mostly as a result
of literal renderings (in my case usually from Latin). Here's a couple oddball verses:
"his arm shall be dried dry, and his right eye shall be darkened to darkness" (Zech 11.17c) his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened KJV "and they will look upon him-rather, me-the one whom they ran through, and they will mourn for him, as they would mourn an only-begotten son" (Zech 12.10b) (note: the Latin, following the MT, reads "they will look upon me whom they pierced" here) and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son KJV In this case, the unusual rendering comes from a specific turn of phrase in the Vg: "et plangent eum planctu quasi super unigenitum", lit. "and they shall mourn him, as upon an only-begotten"
"Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the
minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
|
||
|
gconan |
|||
|
Posts: 905 (05/03/2009 15:32:14) Registered User |
What edition of the Vulgate do you recomend mko?
|
||
|
mko |
|||
|
Posts: 459 (05/03/2009 16:42:36) |
I have been using the Clementine as edited by Michael Tweedale (http://vulsearch.sf.net look around a bit, it's
there), except for Psalms and the New Testament, for which I do not use the Vulgate as a primary source.
For Psalms, the edition of the Vulgate on John Hurt's sites (I think it's a bootlegged Stuttgart?) has both the Gallican Psalter as the Clementine has, and the Juxta Hebraica. The latter is my primary source for Psalms. My primary source for the New Testament is the first edition of Erasmus. (I understand Latin much better than Hebrew or Greek, so a good translation into Latin is more useful to me.)
"Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the
minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
|
||
|
gconan |
|||
|
Posts: 906 (05/03/2009 17:02:03) Registered User |
Thanks! Ever look at Wycliffe or The Anglo-Saxon Gospels since they were translated from Latin? I have The Gospel of Mark and Luke in Old English with the
opposite page has an Old Latin/Vulgate text with northumbrian interlinear.
|
||
|
mko |
|||
|
Posts: 462 (05/03/2009 18:21:17) |
Not really. I can barely make out the Douay-Rheims, and do most of my comparative work on the Vulgate with the Challoner.
"Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the
minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
|
||
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
Quick Reply
|
|
