What? Surely not… You mean the NLT would actually use translators from the ESV… is my worldview folding in on me?
I took a ‘fine tooth comb’ to both Translation Committee’s of the NLT and English Standard Version (ESV) and discovered that, get this, 19 of the 87 scholars (22%) who worked on the NLT also worked on the ESV.
Read the rest here:
The Similarities of the NLT and ESV Translation Committees | Kowalker.com.
It was the other way around, Joel…many of the translators of the NLT (1996) were chosen for the ESV (2001). At least one nameless soul who worked on both and is a staunch champion of the NLT was not silent about his disappointment with the ESV final product as little more than a barely modified RSV–he was hoping it would set the standard for a new literal translation and obviously think it lived up to the hype.
TC, but considering that the NLT was written before Adam… 🙂
I see the ESV – which is perhaps why I don't like it much – as little more than a commerical appeal to the conservatives by revising the RSV, which I like as well.
Agreed…if the ESV had updated the RSV into English like that actually spoken by folks today, I'd be much more of a fan, I suppose. That would, IMO, make it much more valuable than it is–despite the extraordinary hype–but that might also make it read like the NLT 😉
so very true!
The NLT team included Marianne Meye Thompson and Linda Belleville and the late Joyce Baldwin Caine. The ESV team has excluded women.
I didn't know that, but it does sorta make sense. The ESV was for conservatives (Calvinists) so why not start at the very beginning.
BHAHA…BHAHAHAHAHAHA…BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA