Comments on: Analysis of the ESV http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/ A biblioblog Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:20:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Random Readings 14-05-2007 « Random Bloggings http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-18174 Random Readings 14-05-2007 « Random Bloggings Tue, 15 May 2007 01:48:18 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-18174 [...] At this point I think I should point out that I quite like the ESV. It’s actually my translation of choice. I think they have balls (they are the only translation I know of, aside from the JPS, that was brave enough to put a period in Daniel 9.25 where there is an atnach. I say brave because such a choice of punctuation pretty much destroys the whole “69 weeks of Daniel, and then the 70th week is the tribulation” argument that is so often recited in the circles I walk. In addition they were willing to go with the reading of the LXX and DSS over the MT in some places - and in some instances that decision has brought up some interesting theological issues (the nations being divided according to the number of the sons of god, as opposed to the sons of Israel in Deuteronomy 32.8 is one such example). I also noticed, in my completely unscientific survey that they capitalize son and messiah less than the NASB. I’ve been told it is quite similar to the NRSV, and that seems to be an opinion that has some support. [...] […] At this point I think I should point out that I quite like the ESV. It’s actually my translation of choice. I think they have balls (they are the only translation I know of, aside from the JPS, that was brave enough to put a period in Daniel 9.25 where there is an atnach. I say brave because such a choice of punctuation pretty much destroys the whole “69 weeks of Daniel, and then the 70th week is the tribulation” argument that is so often recited in the circles I walk. In addition they were willing to go with the reading of the LXX and DSS over the MT in some places - and in some instances that decision has brought up some interesting theological issues (the nations being divided according to the number of the sons of god, as opposed to the sons of Israel in Deuteronomy 32.8 is one such example). I also noticed, in my completely unscientific survey that they capitalize son and messiah less than the NASB. I’ve been told it is quite similar to the NRSV, and that seems to be an opinion that has some support. […]

]]> By: Kevin A. Wilson http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17492 Kevin A. Wilson Tue, 08 May 2007 15:31:24 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17492 Steve, According to the preface to the ESV, it is based primarily on the MT. In some cases, they did resort to other textual witnesses, and these are indicates in footnotes. I haven't studied the ESV enough to know how often they used these other versions. Steve,

According to the preface to the ESV, it is based primarily on the MT. In some cases, they did resort to other textual witnesses, and these are indicates in footnotes. I haven’t studied the ESV enough to know how often they used these other versions.

]]> By: Stephen L. Cook http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17487 Stephen L. Cook Tue, 08 May 2007 15:01:03 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17487 Kevin, This is really interesting. I was under the impression that the ESV would be close to translations such as the NJPS and the NASB in that it would base itself first and foremost on the Hebrew MT text. From the above, I gather that it basis itself on a reconstructed eclectic text (mix of LXX, DSS, etc.), much as the NRSV does. Can you (or any of your readers) confirm this? ---Stephen Cook Kevin, This is really interesting. I was under the impression that the ESV would be close to translations such as the NJPS and the NASB in that it would base itself first and foremost on the Hebrew MT text. From the above, I gather that it basis itself on a reconstructed eclectic text (mix of LXX, DSS, etc.), much as the NRSV does. Can you (or any of your readers) confirm this? —Stephen Cook

]]> By: Blue Cord » Even More on the ESV http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17481 Blue Cord » Even More on the ESV Tue, 08 May 2007 13:58:14 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17481 [...] is any important one to many people, given how many comments I have gotten on my two post on the Analysis of the ESV and More on the [...] […] is any important one to many people, given how many comments I have gotten on my two post on the Analysis of the ESV and More on the […]

]]> By: Blue Cord » More on the ESV http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17287 Blue Cord » More on the ESV Mon, 07 May 2007 01:39:05 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17287 [...] Kirk posted a comment on my ESV post, and I thought I would take a second to address some of his [...] […] Kirk posted a comment on my ESV post, and I thought I would take a second to address some of his […]

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17237 Peter Kirk Sat, 05 May 2007 16:24:28 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17237 I was surprised that you claimed a large difference between ESV and NIV and that that was because of a fundamentally different translation philosophy. In fact I am surprised how close they are, considering that NIV is a new translation, and ESV is an adaptation of ESV which is itself an adaptation of ASV - yet ESV is closer to NIV than to ASV! In fact it is very misleading to claim that NIV uses a a phrase by phrase approach or a ‘dynamic’ approach. In fact the approach of NIV is only rather slightly different from that of ESV and NRSV, with the translation departing from the literal only where the translators consider that necessary. The difference is that the NIV translators depart from the literal a bit more than the ESV translators - but in fact not a lot more. For a real phrase by phrase or ‘dynamic’ translation, see NLT, TEV/GNT or CEV. 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 - and that the three of them would be more widely spread than any of the more literal group. I was surprised that you claimed a large difference between ESV and NIV and that that was because of a fundamentally different translation philosophy. In fact I am surprised how close they are, considering that NIV is a new translation, and ESV is an adaptation of ESV which is itself an adaptation of ASV - yet ESV is closer to NIV than to ASV!

In fact it is very misleading to claim that NIV uses a a phrase by phrase approach or a ‘dynamic’ approach. In fact the approach of NIV is only rather slightly different from that of ESV and NRSV, with the translation departing from the literal only where the translators consider that necessary. The difference is that the NIV translators depart from the literal a bit more than the ESV translators - but in fact not a lot more. For a real phrase by phrase or ‘dynamic’ translation, see NLT, TEV/GNT or CEV. 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 - and that the three of them would be more widely spread than any of the more literal group.

]]> By: Ketuvim: the Writings of James R. Getz Jr. On Translations and Teaching « http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17233 Ketuvim: the Writings of James R. Getz Jr. On Translations and Teaching « Sat, 05 May 2007 15:08:08 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17233 [...] my thoughts on Bible translations this past week. The first was Kevin A. Wilson’s post Analysis of the ESV and the subsequent comment by Patrick George McCullough on that post. According to Wilson’s [...] […] my thoughts on Bible translations this past week. The first was Kevin A. Wilson’s post Analysis of the ESV and the subsequent comment by Patrick George McCullough on that post. According to Wilson’s […]

]]> By: Pat McCullough http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17136 Pat McCullough Thu, 03 May 2007 16:33:39 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17136 Thanks for the posts on this, Kevin. I'm not a big fan of the inerrancy position or the conviction about gender inclusive language ("gender neutral" as the complementarians like to say), but I do appreciate the ESV. I've been doing more translation of the Greek NT than usual lately, and I've been checking it up against the NRSV and the ESV at grammatically confusing points. Going word by word, I have found the ESV generally to be truer to the text in many areas... I've been doing a lot of non-controversial narrative translation. But if I had a theologically and linguistically untrained Christian friend looking for one primary translation, I don't think I'd recommend it. I'd probably say the NRSV or maybe even the TNIV, which I think is much better than the NIV, even if it still has some of the same theological biases. Just my two cents. Thanks for the posts on this, Kevin. I’m not a big fan of the inerrancy position or the conviction about gender inclusive language (”gender neutral” as the complementarians like to say), but I do appreciate the ESV. I’ve been doing more translation of the Greek NT than usual lately, and I’ve been checking it up against the NRSV and the ESV at grammatically confusing points. Going word by word, I have found the ESV generally to be truer to the text in many areas… I’ve been doing a lot of non-controversial narrative translation.

But if I had a theologically and linguistically untrained Christian friend looking for one primary translation, I don’t think I’d recommend it. I’d probably say the NRSV or maybe even the TNIV, which I think is much better than the NIV, even if it still has some of the same theological biases. Just my two cents.

]]> By: Jim Getz http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17135 Jim Getz Thu, 03 May 2007 16:19:15 +0000 http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/analysis-of-the-esv/#comment-17135 I haven't been that impressed with the ESV. I have a little list in my head of places where different translations are apt to fudge the text to fit their theology. The ESV make the usual evangelical mistranslations at Ps.2:12; 22:16; and Isa 8:14. At least they don't go as far as the NIV in mistranslating Dan 9:25 (and making it into "the Messiah," rather than "an anointed one"). The text seems to be inerrant, unless it goes against their theology. ;-) I haven’t been that impressed with the ESV.

I have a little list in my head of places where different translations are apt to fudge the text to fit their theology. The ESV make the usual evangelical mistranslations at Ps.2:12; 22:16; and Isa 8:14. At least they don’t go as far as the NIV in mistranslating Dan 9:25 (and making it into “the Messiah,” rather than “an anointed one”).

The text seems to be inerrant, unless it goes against their theology. ;-)

]]>