Peter Kirk posted a comment on my ESV post, and I thought I would take a second to address some of his points.

Kirk was surprised that I claimed such a large difference between the NIV and the ESV. He says:

I am surprised how close [the NIV and ESV] are, considering that NIV is a new translation, and ESV is an adaptation of [RSV]1 which is itself an adaptation of ASV - yet ESV is closer to NIV than to ASV!

It seems to me that similarities between the two are the result in the attempt to do similar things. The NIV attempted to be a new translation, while the ESV was an update of an update. These approaches are both going to lead to more modern language in the translations, which will naturally make them sound somewhat alike. Also, the ESV and NIV are both intentionally evangelical translations, which will lead to even more similarities. I was actually surprised that the ESV was closer to the NRSV.

The similarities do not, however, stem from the translational theory employed. The NIV and ESV are both very clear about their approach. The ESV even makes a point of not following the same translational theory as the NIV. They were are also polemical about not wanting to be like the NRSV, which is why I found it humorous that they came out closest to the NRSV.

Kirk goes on to say:

In fact it is very misleading to claim that NIV uses a a phrase by phrase approach or a ‘dynamic’ approach. . . For a real phrase by phrase or ‘dynamic’ translation, see NLT, TEV/GNT or CEV.

This is the claim that is made by the NIV itself and most scholars would place the NIV into the category of dynamic. Tne New Living Translation is not a dynamic translation but a paraphrase of the KJV,2 while the Good News Bible is much looser than a dynamic translation.

When I refer to the ESV NIV as a dynamic translation, I am in no way using that in a pejorative sense. When my students ask what Bible translation they should use, I usually tell them that their main one should be a more formal equivalence translation (such as the NSRV), while their secondary Bible should be a dynamic equivalence translation (such as the NIV).

Kirk adds:

In fact it would be interesting to see your graph redone with those translations added. I suspect that you would find NIV much nearer to ESV than to any of them.

I have no doubt that you are right, although I can’t redo the graph to include those translations. I don’t have any of them on Logos.

Keep in mind that the graph is a relative one. Distances indicate only the differences in translations. The greater the distance, the greater the differences. Direction on the graph is meaningless. If we add looser translations such as the ones suggested above, the graph will have to reshape itself to take those into account. This will automatically move the ESV and NIV closer to each other, although the ESB would still be closer to the NRSV than it would to the NIV.


  1. Kirk accidentally wrote “ESV”. [back]
  2. In the original version of this post, I confused the New Living Translation, which is a translation, with the Living Bible, a paraphrase. Many thanks to Rick Mansfield for pointing out the mistake. [back]
Permalink