Last week I promised in a few comments to address my reason(s) for switching from the NASB95. For a few years the NASB95 was my reading, studying, teaching, and preaching Bible. But I had to let it go for five reasons:
1. Too Wooden. The NASB95 was too wooden at times. Sometimes when I’m done preaching, this particular brother would walk up to me and comment on how awkward some of my readings from the NASB95 were.
And at our small group Bible study everyone else would have the NIV, but I would be the only one with the NASB95. Sometimes someone would even volunteer to read from the NIV for clarity on certain texts.
2. Too Inconsistent. I thought that the NASB95 was too inconsistent at times. For example in Matthew’s Gospel narrative, the NASB renders porneia three different ways (5:32; 19:9; 15:19). Now this may not be a big deal for some, but it was for me.
3. The Italicized Words. The NASB95 has these italicized words to indicate that they were added by the translators. At first I thought it was a good idea, but then I thought it was a bad idea for two reasons: (1) when I’m reading some book, italicized words are for emphasis. And (2) I don’t believe supplying italicized words is necessary at all. I have a different philosophy about translation: we need to move from forms to their function. One person may use three words to capture the sense of one Greek word, while another may use six words to capture the sense of that same Greek word, and both may be correct in doing so (just my take
).
4. Brethren. I defended this word for sometime, but I had to give it up. It may work in some circles, but for a 32-year old, I thought it was too archaic.
5. Another Bible. For some literal is tantamount to accuracy. I thought like that before, but I found it quite misleading. In fact, at times literal could be downright inaccurate. In the end, I found the TNIV to be a better Bible.
Now I’m no translator or linguist, but these are my five reasons for switching from the NASB95 to the TNIV. Besides, there’s no perfect translation, and you might be well at home with the NASB95.
What’s with the italicized words anyway? It was years before I knew they weren’t for emphasis, but if they were for emphasis they were very odd words to emphasize. I’ll check my translations against an NASB sometimes, but I’m really glad that I don’t use it as my main Bible anymore.
TC, do you have a sponsor to help you stay away from the NASB?
Good post.
I must admit, I have (until the past week or so) hated the term “wooden” when used to describe the NASB. The more I read the TNIV, NLT, REB, etc. the more ackward the NASB, ESV, and even the NRSV appear. I can see how “wooden” could apply.
Italics are silly in a translation.
Brethren really annoys me these days. It should be put to rest.
I have a NASB95, but I use it mainly for comparing when there’s an issue, like you recently posted about with 1 Cor 1:21.
I actually have never read the 1995 Update of the NASB (I’m still on the 1970s edition of the NASB – now that is wooden right there). Might not at all, if it’s that bad.
I love “brethren,” but, then again, I am a lawyer, so perhaps my fondness for the term stems from that, and it is one reason I primarily read my NASB. If everyone is going to insist on the term wooden, then it is at least a finely carved piece of mahogany furniture and not a pine box.
petermlopez,
I was thinking more of a nice cherry but mahogany works fine.
Cherry, mahogany, whatever… But, definitely a dark wood, heavily-varnished, perhaps with a cigar smoke tinge.
Ranger, I still read from the NASB but for comparative reasons. Those italicized words can be quite annoying at times.
Stan, what other word do you propose than “wooden”? What do you think about the subscripted in the HCSB? I have a problem with that too because of my translation philosophy.
Yeah, “Brethren” might work for a lawyer like Peter M.
Bryon, what about a newer version like the HCSB on 1 Cor 1:21?
Douglas, you’re way back there. Actually I know of some people who prefer the 1977 NAS.
Peter M, I can see the appeal of the term “brethren” as a lawyer. What if you were a medical doctor? Well, Stan might be proposing a different term than “wooden.”
Biblish (sp?)
I lost interest in the HCSB when reading in the introduction about The Gender Language Policy in Bible Translation which is available at their website.
Stan, Lifeway is behind the HCSB. I really didn’t expect any different when you think about it.
For some reason I like the idea of noting the words added by translators. If it’s a more literal translation it would seem to fit with this idea. Of course italics is a terrible idea as far as how to do this.
If I could go a little off topic–could I ask you and others what would be the advantages of the ESV over the NASB?
I found this interesting:
Matthew 7:1 ESV
“Judge not, that you be not judged.
Matthew 7:1 NASB
“Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
I’m going to ask more questions on my blog very soon about a Bible for studying, for reading, writing notes etc.
Jeff
I should elaborate on the Scripture comparison. I wasn’t implying anything by the content (!) I was just comparing the language of the translations. It’s interesting that the older translation (NASB) sounds more modern the newer translation.
Jeff
Jeff, the NASB is not really word-for-word, so it takes liberty at times.
I believe R. Mansfield has ranked the NASB above the ESV. I’m not too sure about that. Of course there are places where the NASB reads better than the ESV, but overall, I think the ESV is more readable.
Jeff, I prefer the NASB to the ESV. It reads better to me. Perhaps it’s my bias against the ESV but I really don’t like reading it.
Stan, I know that the ESV can rub the wrong with, but overall, I think it reads better than the NASB. Well, just me.
Stan,
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease give the ESV a chance. It’s all over my paper – just warning ya…
TC and Douglas,
Together you guys have convinced me to make an effort to separate the ESV from some of the more rabid supporters of it.
Douglas, I’ll give you a fair read and will not even notice the ESV.
I’ll keep my TNIV (and NLT, REB and possibly even the NASB) close by in case things get serious.
Stan, I don’t have to be pro-ESV to be objective about it.
TC and Douglas,
Together you guys have convinced me to make an effort to separate the ESV from some of the more rabid supporters of it.
This is what I had been saying for quite some time but then I decided to guard my steps lest I might be shown to be haughty among the brothers.
Other than readability I’d like to hear any other comments on why ESV would be an improvement on the NASB.
I’m not a preacher or a teacher so I don’t read it aloud (or asoft) and never thought it really sounded “wooden”.
Jeff
Jeff, no italics in the ESV.
If had not got caught up some of the ESV hype, I’d probably still be in the NASB95….
Brian, I bit of confession is good for the soul.
Stan,
I know you would – you’re not like some folks who woudl like to burn my ESV
Douglas,
I thought it was only the TNIV that was subject to burning by certain parties.
I have a lot to learn.
Douglas, Stan may have burnt a few copies of the ESV already.
Seriously though, I haven’t heard of a burning of either the ESV or the TNIV. What about you guys?
TC, to be honest I’ve thought about it a couple of times when reading some of the rabid anti-TNIV propaganda.
I’m doing better now and seriously doubt I will ever burn an ESV or any other Bible.
Like you said earlier, confession is good for the soul.
Stan, yes, confession is good for the soul. Did you get a chance to watch that KJVO fanatic rant against the NASB on Bryon S. Blog?
I had seen that idiot (and heretic) on Douglas K. Adu-Boahen’s site.
I have a feeling he wouldn’t do that in my presence.
Ok, I don’t think so either.
TC, sorry. The redneck comes to the surface in a more aggressive fashion at times.
Those gamma rays!
I hear you, man. Well, there are certain things that just push the wrong buttons. For me it’s anti-TNIVism and pro-ESVism, but that’s on the translation circuit.
I think I know what yours is!