International Standard Version

[mmortal03]

Thought I would ask what anybody on the board thinks about the International Standard Version, a very far along work in progress. It is a conservative Protestant translation. Based on their translation principles, it seems fair to give it a look. It is a totally new work translated directly from the original languages, unlike the KJV, ESV, RSV, and NASB. I don’t know where it fits in with those in terms of style or literalness. It is considered more accurate than the NIV, but being just as readable. It is described by conservative Protestants as fulfilling its both “literal and idiomatic” description. Could chiefly Protestant idioms have crept in? I don’t know. Gender-inclusive language is supposed to be absent. One reviewer had this to say:

International Standard Version: A new mediating translation (the Old Testament is not yet complete) that is exceptionally accurate and possesses the most flowing, natural English of any mediating translation. More than any other translation, it captures the nuances of the underlying manuscripts. The translation notes indicate the literal rendering when an academic paraphrase has been employed. While the ISV does not always follow the beautiful KJV renderings (that the NKJV, ESV and NIV rely upon so heavily), the translation nevertheless possesses a beauty and cadence that will make it easy to remember and memorize. I believe it is the only translation that has the potential (if the Old Testament is as uniformly exceptional as the New Testament), with adequate promotion, to surpass the NIV as a standard translation.

Download it: isv.org/downloads/index.htm

Translation Principles: isv.org/principles.htm

 

[lak611]

I’m not familiar with the ISV. I was a bit confused by your post, however, when you mentioned it is completely new, unlike the RSV. I thought the RSV was a new translation, not just an update of the KJV.

 

[SyCarl]

I’m not familiar with the ISV. I was a bit confused by your post, however, when you mentioned it is completely new, unlike the RSV. I thought the RSV was a new translation, not just an update of the KJV.

The RSV, ESV, and the NASB new translations which claim to be based the translation principles of the KJV. They are made from the original languages and don’t even use the same textual basis as the KJV. For example, for the New Testament the KJV used the Textus Receptus while the NASB used Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece.

 

[Epistemes]

Just previewing sections of the NT, I’ve really got to say that I’m none too impressed by the translation. It seems clunky and quite dynamic, especially in places where it need not be! For instance, I’m trying to figure out Luke 1:30, “Stop being afraid…” which suggests more fear than what διεταραχθη means and what Mary experiences.

And while I’m glad the translator’s captured the “sexual immorality” in 1 Corinthians 6:18 which a number of translations have failed to do, the translation of φευγετε as “keep running away” is rather odd, to say the least, and renders Paul’s command to actually “flee fornication” (NRSV) less succinct and powerful.

Of course, I’ve only highlighted a couple of idiosyncratic renderings, which by no means speaks of the whole translation. Then again, maybe I’m giving too much benefit of the doubt…

 

[lak611]

The RSV, ESV, and the NASB new translations which claim to be based the translation principles of the KJV. They are made from the original languages and don’t even use the same textual basis as the KJV. For example, for the New Testament the KJV used the Textus Receptus while the NASB used Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece.

I knew that only the KJV used the Textus Receptus. That is why I questioned the OP saying that the ISV was brand new, whereas the RSV, ESV, and NASB were not.

 

[mmortal03]

I’m not familiar with the ISV. I was a bit confused by your post, however, when you mentioned it is completely new, unlike the RSV. I thought the RSV was a new translation, not just an update of the KJV.

Here you go (Wikipedia):

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is an English translation of the Bible published in the mid-20th century. It traces its history all the way back to William Tyndale’s New Testament translation of 1525 and the King James Version of 1611. The RSV is a comprehensive revision of the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Version (RV) of 1881-85, and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, with the ASV being the primary basis for the revision.

 

[lak611]

Here you go (Wikipedia):

But the RSV cannot be considered just a revision of the KJV, since the same manuscripts were not used as the basis of the translation.

 

[mmortal03]

But the RSV cannot be considered just a revision of the KJV, since the same manuscripts were not used as the basis of the translation.

Well, it depends on what you define as a revision. Bible translations have often been revised with corrections based on information from new manuscripts. Note that the RSV is obviously titled the “Revised Standard Version”.

I think you are applying the word “revision” here to only narrowly mean the “re-editing or correction of typos”-type of revision. That would often just be a second edition or a new printing, not a revision. Revisions are usually a bit more intensive, and they generally integrate new information, not just play around with what the old had.

Edit: Also, in a different sense, the RSV is technically not a revision of the KJV, but of the ASV.

 

[mmortal03]

Check out page 1861 (Word document page 1887).

 

[mmortal03]

Page 1837:

The Value of a Talent as a Monetary Unit
The Parable of the Talents Illustrated in U.S. Dollars
If… 1 day’s wages = 1 drachma 1
and 1 shekel = 4 drachma
and 1 mina = 60 shekels
and 1 talent = 60 mina
then 1 talent = 14,400 drachma 2
and 1 talent = 14,400 days’ wages.
If 1 year = 250 days of work 3
then 14,400 days = 57.6 years of work.
If 1 year’s wages = $62,228 4
then 1 talent = $3,584,332.80 5
and 10,000 talents = $35,843,328,000.00
1One drachma was equal to one Greek denarius. 260 mina x 60 shekels x 4 drachma = 14,400 drachma. 3Assumes 52 weeks per year, with five work days per week, less two weeks vacation. 4Median income for 4-person family, US Census data FY2003. 5$62,228 per year x 57.6 years.

They are placing a value on a talent (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents) in today’s terms, but it seems to be off by a bit of what a comparable non-university but skilled worker would make in today’s terms. Their choice of a year’s wages being $62,228 is well off what the average non-university educated but skilled worker makes today in a year, and it places their average pay per day and the value of a drachma to be $248.912! I would say 35,000 dollars a year is more in line with a non-university but trained skilled worker of today (and using that as a comparison is probably pushing it, anyway) which places the talent at about $2,000,000, and the drachma at $140. Many people were paid half a drachma a day, then, but it still seems high.

Probably a more accurate an estimate is here:

Value of the ancient drachma
Tetradrachma from Athens about 490 BC.
Tetradrachma from Athens about 490 BC.

It is generally considered very hard or even meaningless to come up with comparative exchange rates with modern currency due to the fact that the range of products produced economies of centuries gone by were very different from today, which makes Purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations very difficult. However, some historians and economists have estimated that in the 5th century BC a drachma had a rough value of 25 U.S. dollars (in the year 1990), whereas classical historians regularly say that in the heydays of ancient Greek (the fifth and fourth centuries) the daily wage for a skilled worker or a hoplite[2] was one drachma, and for a juror half a drachma. Xenophon claimed (in “On Revenues”) that half a drachma was the minimum required to provide a comfortable subsistence.

As a rule of thumb, a modern person might think of one drachma as the rough equivalent of a skilled workers’ daily pay in the place where they live (which could be as low as $1 USD, or as high as $100 USD, depending on the country). Thus, the idea of a ‘handful of money’ as used today and by the ancients (see above for etymology of ‘drachma’) pretty neatly coincide. Perhaps the most appropriate comparison is that with modern-day Athens, where a skilled worker without a university degree earns approximately 40 euro per day, net of taxes.

That makes a talent worth around 600,000 dollars.

So why does the ISV care so much about placing a monetary value on the talents from the Parable of the Talents, anyway?

 

[Epistemes]

So why does the ISV care so much about placing a monetary value on the talents from the Parable of the Talents, anyway?

Maybe it’s just me, but this Bible really does seem as if its target audience is a very mainstream one, appealling to the kind of person who doesn’t particularily care for accurate renderings from the original languages…and especially one who wouldn’t know a thing about average daily wages in the 1st century AD.

That doesn’t explain why the ISV cares to make known this little tidbit of info, but then again, in a way, it does; otherwise, your average person might miscontrue the monetary talent for the skillful talent.

 

[mmortal03]

Maybe it’s just me, but this Bible really does seem as if its target audience is a very mainstream one, appealling to the kind of person who doesn’t particularily care for accurate renderings from the original languages…and especially one who wouldn’t know a thing about average daily wages in the 1st century AD.

That doesn’t explain why the ISV cares to make known this little tidbit of info, but then again, in a way, it does; otherwise, your average person might miscontrue the monetary talent for the skillful talent.

See, but I didn’t read that the talent WAS a monetary unit at all; they are just trying to show the relative worth of an ability. I get the idea that you are putting forward, but is that even an accurate or standard interpretation of that parable, that it was a type of currency?

 

[Epistemes]

See, but I didn’t read that the talent WAS a monetary unit at all; they are just trying to show the relative worth of an ability. I get the idea that you are putting forward, but is that even an accurate or standard interpretation of that parable, that it was a type of currency?

Instead of copying and pasting Greek definitions and comparing that with how Jerome rendered the word in Latin, I’ll just copy and paste this:

Old English talente, from Latin talenta, pl of *talentum *sum of money, from Greek *talanton *unit of money or weight; in Medieval Latin the sense was extended to ability through the influence of the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30)