/lit/ - Literature

The ASV which is related to the English Revised Version, was an improvement over the KJV, retaining the same archaic grammar while modernizing some outdated terminology, refining some renderings, and translating from older Alexandrian manuscripts that had then been more recently discovered. That being said, it can be cumbersome to read. Multiple popular translations have been made afterwards which are descended from it which are the JPS Tanakh, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, and WEB.

From the more contemporary translations, the RSVs and ESVs are the most overall accurate and reliable IMO and as conventionalized as much as it should be allowed for a work of that nature since I think most people would probably be averse to the idea of some other prominent literary work in one's main language like a Tolkien novel getting too dumbed down and simplified.

>>14970262
On the OSB
http://archive.is/oBNvU

Those interested in translations from the Septuagint should also consider the LXX2012 which was just an update of the classic Brenton translation. It would be nice if public domain works were given as much attention as more commercially popular translations.

>>14971385
The heterodox Wycliffe Bible actually has some of the most literal renderings of the Vulgate I probably ever saw. Haven't really looked much through the original 1582–1610 publication of the Douay-Rheims.

>>14608392
Should probably use something publicly available as many people might not be willing to invest in commercial editions atm.

As an avid enthusiast of biblical translation, my pick for small portions and individual verses is the ASV and the ESV or RSV-2CE for more extensive reading because of their literalness while being sufficiently simple to read. The reason why I'd hold the Catholic edition of the RSV in regard is partly because changes introduced by it were incorporated into subsequent revisions of the standard RSV, but also simply because of its translation quality. I also see little difference between it and the ESV. I find just about all other contemporary translations to be more sanitized and simplified in comparison. Some of the oft-mentioned 'poeticness' or flowery language of older translations is sometimes the very eloquence of the source texts' languages themselves. The ASV on the other hand was largely a revision of the KJV to incorporate Alexandrian texts in the NT, and is a source to which multiple translations are traceable to such as the JPS Tanakh of 1917, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, and the WEB. To finalize it's appropriate to judge a translation by the actual quality of it as opposed to its provenance or the number of books or verses it may contain.

Here are some official uploads of the RSV-2CE and ESV.

>RSV-2CE
https://www.catholicstudybible.org/WebBibleTAL/WebPlayer.aspx?bbNum=01001&bVerse=1&F=cbBookPickResult
>ESV
https://www.esv.org/Genesis+1/

>Changes in the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-ce.html

>>14608392
Should probably use something publicly available as many people might not be willing to invest in commercial editions atm.

As an avid enthusiast of biblical translation, my pick for small portions and individual verses is the ASV and the ESV or RSV-2CE for more extensive reading because of their literalness while being sufficiently simple to read. The reason why I'd hold the Catholic edition of the RSV in regard is partly because changes introduced by it were incorporated into subsequent revisions of the standard RSV, but also simply because of its translation quality. I also see little difference between it and the ESV. I find just about all other contemporary translations to be more sanitized and simplified in comparison. Some of the oft-mentioned 'poeticness' or flowery language of older translations is sometimes the very eloquence of the source texts' languages themselves. The ASV on the other hand was largely a revision of the KJV to incorporate Alexandrian texts in the NT, and is a source to which many multiple translations are traceable to such as the JPS Tanakh of 1917, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, and the WEB. To finalize it's appropriate to judge a translation by the actual quality of it as opposed to its provenance or the number of books or verses it may contain.

Here are some official uploads of the RSV-2CE and ESV.

>RSV-2CE https://www.catholicstudybible.org/WebBibleTAL/WebPlayer.aspx?bbNum=01001&bVerse=1&F=cbBookPickResult
>ESV
https://www.esv.org/Genesis+1/

>Changes in the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-ce.html

>>13980029
Examples of problems with gender neutrality

>Ezekiel 2:1- 'mortal' instead of 'son of man'
It says "son of man" though, ben-’ā·ḏām (בֶּן־אָדָם֙), and this is repeated in the Greek of the NT, υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (huiós toû anthrṓpou), and this was also the interpretation of all the main ancient translations.

>Hosea 1:10- 'children of the living God' instead of 'sons of the living God'

>Mark 1:17- 'fish for people' instead of 'fishers of men'
Greek actually has two words for 'people/folk' already, λᾱός (lāós) and δῆμος (dêmos), from where words such as 'democracy' are derived.

>Romans 1:13- 'brothers and sisters' instead of 'brothers' or 'brethren'
Could have used sibs/siblings if they wanted to be neutral. The fact is though that a feminine form of the word is used for 'sister', ἀδελφή (adelphḗ), and a feminine gendered word is used for 'brotherhood', ᾰδελφότης (adelphótēs), similar to Latin fraternitas and germanitas and its derivatives. The English word was also feminine in Old English apparently.

Here's an article criticizing the application of gender neutralism to translations of Coptic texts as well.
http://gospel-thomas.net/noman.htm

At this point it seems most of the people defending gender neutralism and the NRSV on here are probably either 1) shills from their publishing house, 2) militant feminists wanting to dissolve biblical heritage, or 3) NRSV owners with buyer's remorse.

>>13264487
If you actually analyse the text word by word with something like an interlinear, you can see how meticulous translators from the past were. Translators on more modern projects have had much of their work already done for them and still often managed to fall short. The screencap serves to highlight the way in which some translations may lose certain beneficial features.

I like the ASV for being the culminating effort of updates and revisions to the tradition which began with Tyndale before they stopped using archaic grammar in translations.

Different translations have their individual perks rendering some things better than another translation might. Young's Literal Translation is apparently the main one to try rendering everything in the OT in the perfect and imperfect tense as biblical Hebrew does. Not that it means it should be a primary translation to rely on.

There's also the complex topic of all the different textual witnesses. Without having to become a textual expert, the best one might be able to do is grab a reliable translation or two and more closely examine individual portions of interest separately.