Sunday, January 12, 2003

On another topic, I spent much of this evening chasing after the details of the ESV, trying to decide whether to get that or the NRSV for Accordance. I still haven't reached a conclusion. Frankly, I am non-plussed by the NRSV's gender inclusiveness spiel (as I am by gender inclusive language in general.) However, I am concerned that the ESV may not have great intellectual integrity. Particularly, their desire to return the translation of Isaiah (9 I think) to "virgin" troubles me. I think Bible translations should preserve the ambiguity of the original text whenever it's coherent. "Young woman" is what the Hebrew word means - we should leave it up to the reader to make the connection back to the "virgin" in Matthew. Part of me is inclined just to use the RSV and save a lot of money and time, but I don't know if that will be academically credible. (The New Jerusalem Bible is still my favorite, if only because its the only reasonable translation not to play silly games with the word YHWH -- translating it consistently as "Yahweh" rather than "The LORD", as distinct from "the Lord" or "THE LORD" or whatever the conventions are.)

Oh yes .. I should probably mention that I am quite aware that the reason for the NIV's translational flops lies in its translational philosophy. However, I am troubled that the NIV has not done a better job of limiting theological bias in the translation process!

No comments: