ESV & Logos
Comments
-
Damian McGrath said:Russ Quinn said:
Rendering adelphos as "believers" instead of "brothers" skews search results on many levels.
Russ, I really don't understand this... Why would you search on the English text and not on the Greek itself?
I wouldn't. But isn't that the point of building Bible software around reverse interlinears?
0 -
"I know not everyone knows Greek but is there any bible which translates
every instance of every Greek word with the same English word?"I think this says it all. My previous version yuo could only do a KJV interliniar. So I am happy as heck we can use other versions now!! Your right.. No version is perfect..
0 -
By the way, both BDAG (second definition) and Louw & Nida (11.23) allow for believers as a translation of ἀδελφοί in certain contexts. I imagine Acts 15:36 would certainly fit these criteria. Really, this is a good example of why translations shouldn't be slaves to one word = one meaning.
0 -
R. Mansfield said:Richard DeRuiter said:Russ Quinn said:
The NRSV was theologically controversial for reasons beyond gender inclusiveness. Most famously it replaced "virgin" with "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. This is something that went beyond the other gender inclusive translations. TNIV and NLT both use "virgin".
Actually, the 1971 RSV has 'young woman' too, which is, as a matter of fact, a more precise translation of the original language behind the text in Isaiah.
The NET Bible, which is also a VERY conservative translation also translates עַלְמָה as "young woman." This is really a non-issue because that's what the Hebrew text says (and I write that fully believing in a virgin birth). The LXX used the very specific word παρθένος meaning virgin, and this is what was quoted in the NT.
Thanks for the corrections, Richard and Rick.
Sorry for being sloppy and not giving full explanations.
My point really was more on the controversy surrounding those translations that explain why Logos would promote the ESV over the NRSV.
Primarily two reasons:
- The NRSV as a reverse interlinear would not produce accurate results in several instances.
- From a marketing perspective, the NRSV (and RSV) would not be as widely received by Logos's intended customers because of some of those controversies.
0 -
Russ Quinn said:
The NIV as a reverse interlinear would render accurate search results in the passages cited above whereas the TNIV (or NLT or NRSV) would not.
That depends on how you search. I have the NRSV open right now looking at Acts 15:36. I see the footnote in v.36 suggesting the literal. Looking down at the rev int data I see the greek word adelphous there. If I right click on the surface text of the NRSV I'm presented with the option to search the lemma of adelphous. I can then accurately search the NRSV for all occurrences of that word. By selecting "Aligned" to display my search results I can then see all the different ways adelphos is translated by the NRSV.
I can do the same thing with the ESV and see that twice it translates it as 'man' (Mk 12:19, Lk 20:28).
The NASB sometimes translates it 'brother' and sometimes 'brethren' (as does the NKJV, and the KJV).
It's true that if you search from the English text, you'll get different results than if you search from the Greek text. But few would, and none should, expect any reliable accuracy in searching from the English text.
With the rev int tools so readily available, one doesn't have to know Greek to be able to do original language searches and see the results in English, in a way that makes sense. (Which is really, really, cool. And really potentially dangerous, since it opens the door to all sorts of common translation errors.)
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Russ Quinn said:
- The NRSV as a reverse interlinear would not produce accurate results in several instances.
- From a marketing perspective, the NRSV (and RSV) would not be as widely received by Logos's intended customers because of some of those controversies.
I guess my main issue is with your use of the word accurate above. It's not really that the ESV is going to give more accurate results, but rather it's going to provide a greater number of results on the basis of word-for-word concordance than some translations. But if this is the goal, why not use the NASB which I imagine would gain even greater word-for-word concordance?
I don't personally use reverse interlinears, but it would seem to me that once the underlying Greek or Hebrew word was discovered, it would be better to run a search on the original language word in the reverse interlinear (I assume this can be done) to find the full number of results--regardless of how many English words there were.
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
I know not everyone knows Greek but is there any bible which translates every instance of every Greek word with the same English word?
Not arguing for or against perfection of any translation . . . just trying to explain some rationale for why the ESV is preferred over NRSV as a reverse interlinear in Logos.
Not being able to directly translate every single word is a categorically different issue than rendering adelphos as "believer" for the sake of gender inclusiveness.
Again, I'm not arguing the merits or problems with gender inclusiveness in these posts just observing the way the texts work in Logos.
If one wanted to be gender inclusive and produce accurate results in these verses, it would have been better for the NRSV and TNIV to have add "and sisters" (I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of that solution for the sake of this argument).
That way searching the NRSV text for "brother" in Logos would return accurate results.
0 -
What he (Richard D) said :-)
(I corrected the above).
0 -
Based on BDAG and Louw & Nida, I'm not convinced that the NRSV & TNIV translators were necessarily trying to be gender inclusive in Acts 15:36. However, based upon the translation philosophy of both, they may have been more open to using believers (which may be the exact intended meaning here) than other translation committees.
0 -
Russ Quinn said:
Not arguing for or against perfection of any translation
I have no bun in the fight re ESV, gender inclusiveness, etc.....
Russ Quinn said:Not being able to directly translate every single word is a categorically different issue than rendering adelphos as "believer" for the sake of gender inclusiveness.
But, Russ, my question was directly related to skewed results when searching for the word "brother" - not to an issue related to accuracy of translation or gender inclusiveness.
Surely, all a search on an English bible for the word "brother" produces is how many times the translation features the word "brother". It does not tell us any more. And, I don't know why anyone would want to know how many times a translation uses the word "brother" or "bread" or "house" or whatever.
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
By the way, both BDAG (second definition) and Louw & Nida (11.23) allow for believers as a translation of ἀδελφοί in certain contexts. I imagine Acts 15:36 would certainly fit these criteria. Really, this is a good example of why translations shouldn't be slaves to one word = one meaning.
There is no doubt that the context of the verse supports that as the intended meaning in Acts 15:36.
Again, not meaning here to argue for or against the value of any particular translation.
I'm merely offering some rationale for Logos's emphasis on the ESV as its primary reverse interlinear.
0 -
Understand, Russ. And I hope you just view my responses as part of a discussion and not adversarial.
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
Understand, Russ. And I hope you just view my responses as part of a discussion and not adversarial.
Ditto
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Hi folks.
MarkStevens said:What is with Logos and the ESV? Every video it is used as the preferred Bible translation (not to mention I still cant remove it in the exegetical guide). Is there a reason why it is always used?
You can consider this a non-official response, but it is really less nefarious and less theologically-motivated than some seem to think.
In the LDLS3 world, the ESV was the only English reverse interlinear with OT and NT content reverse-interlinearized. So our examples necessarily used the ESV since that would be applicable to OT and NT study.
This carries over since we're used to talking about the ESV with this feature, and since most of our users (our upgrading users) are used to using the ESV with reverse interlinears. And we do know that a fair portion of our existing users are familiar with the ESV and use it as one of their top, say, 3 English Bibles.
I'd imagine as Logos 4 matures and folks become more comfortable, the version used may depend on preference of whomever makes the video.
[let the translation philosophy discussion continue now ... ]
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
But few would, and none should, expect any reliable accuracy in searching from the English text.
I expect great accuracy in searching the English text.... I just don't expect it to tell me how many times a particular Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word is used....
Richard DeRuiter said:With the rev int tools so readily available, one doesn't have to know Greek to be able to do original language searches and see the results in English, in a way that makes sense. (Which is really, really, cool. And really potentially dangerous, since it opens the door to all sorts of common translation errors.)
This is both the beauty and the "danger" of Logos.....
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
It's true that if you search from the English text, you'll get different results than if you search from the Greek text. But few would, and none should, expect any reliable accuracy in searching from the English text.
You are right, Richard, that one cannot expect complete accuracy from an English text.
I am merely trying to offer a justification for the preference of the ESV as a reverse interlinear.
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
I guess my main issue is with your use of the word accurate above. It's not really that the ESV is going to give more accurate results, but rather it's going to provide a greater number of results on the basis of word-for-word concordance than some translations. But if this is the goal, why not use the NASB which I imagine would gain even greater word-for-word concordance?
I don't personally use reverse interlinears, but it would seem to me that once the underlying Greek or Hebrew word was discovered, it would be better to run a search on the original language word in the reverse interlinear (I assume this can be done) to find the full number of results--regardless of how many English words there were.
Rick,
You said it much better than I have thus far. I am glad to drop my use of "accurate" for your "greater number of results on the basis of word-for-word concordance than some translation."
I suspect the preference of ESV over NASB has to do with marketing considerations in light of the fairly restrictive licensing policies of the Lockman Foundation. I'm not sure of all the details but my impression is that the ESV is simply expected to be more widely distributed than the NASB.
I would not use reverse interlinears for my personal research either but a central design goal of Logos seems to be to provide easy access to the original languages through reverse interlinears. I'll leave the merits of that up to others to debate.
0 -
Rick Brannan said:
[let the translation philosophy discussion continue now ... ]
No! Please, no!
Let it end now.
Please.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:R. Mansfield said:
Understand, Russ. And I hope you just view my responses as part of a discussion and not adversarial.
Ditto
Rick,
I have never sensed an adversarial bone in your body, my friend (or you either Richard).
I was sincere when I said I defer to you.
Philosophy of translation is not my area of expertise.
I appreciate the interaction and sharpening.
0 -
Rick Brannan said:
You can consider this a non-official response, but it is really less nefarious and less theologically-motivated than some seem to thin
Many thanks for the response Rick. Can you please tell though if we will ever be able to use the NRSV or TNIV as the preferred interlinear alongside NA27 in the exegetical guide?
0 -
MarkStevens said:Bryan Brodess said:
What is wrong with the ESV? I have not studied it much, I was planning on starting to use it in my study'
Where do I begin?!?! If you are interested Ben Witherington has some posts on his concerns (not that I agree with them all). You could also try Mounce's website for a counter argument.
It sounds like the argument regarding the "flaws" in ESV are more of a political nature, than a theological one. More accurately, it is an argument between traditionalists and revisionists.
Several church bodies have adopted ESV as their standard, citing the high regard for accuracy in translation, going back to the originating languages.
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (hereafter LCMS) is one, who adopted it. I believe that ELCA adopted it too, although they have different narrative comments in their version. The statement regarding NRSV from the LCMS website says:
The NRSV, published in 1989 by the National Council of Churches, is an improvement over the RSV in that
it updates the archaic language addressed to God (as in the Psalms). However, it perpetuates the worst aspects of
the RSV: faulty Christology and inaccurate translations of passages about the fulfillment of prophecy (examples
26, 27, 30). It adds a few new problems that were not present in the RSV, such as changing many masculine singular
forms into generic plural forms for the sake of inclusive language (examples 3, 4, 5, 6; see also 28). Its rendering
of some verses raises questions about other important doctrinal issues, such as the inerrancy of Scripture
(example 35) and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (examples 9, 10, 11, 12).So it appears that the two issues which are prominent in the discussion are: inerrancy of Scripture, and gender neutralizing the Word. Of course, ESV is very specific in other areas, such as inclusion of homosexuality in the definitions of such places as 1 Corinthians 6:9 but contrasting to NRSV, the impact appears to be lessened.
We all have our favorite translations: NIV, NASB, ESV. It would be impossible for Logos to deliver the software "tailor-made", having all my desired defaults in the order I want them. They are making a good effort at getting the info out there, so we can all figure out how to change the "feel" of the product to suit ourselves.
0 -
Jon Rumble said:MarkStevens said:
Well the ESV might be a word for word translation but in my opinion it isn't very accurate! Why not use the NRSV? It is the premier word for word translation.
Really? I thought the ESV was the spiritual successor to the NRSV... Why do you think its inaccurate?
I know someone who was on the translation committee for the NIV, and his family used to joke that it was the Never Inaccurate Version.
0 -
"We all have our favorite translations: NIV, NASB, ESV. It would be
impossible for Logos to deliver the software "tailor-made", having all
my desired defaults in the order I want them. They are making a good
effort at getting the info out there, so we can all figure out how to
change the "feel" of the product to suit ourselves."I agree wholeheartedly!!
0 -
For years, one of my greatest desires has been to find a good, accurate literal translation. Every time a new one comes out, I find myself disappointed yet again.
While I prefer the NASB myself, it, like every other translation, is tainted with the theological biases of the translators. One of the first things I do now when a new 'literal' version comes out is to check a small number of passages which are commonly mistranslated, such as Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians 3:9-10. Any translation that purports to be literal and yet translates anthropos as 'nature' or 'self' loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned. Even the translators of the NASB must have seen the inappropriateness of Colossians 3 translation when they realized that no self was so confused that it saw itself as being Greek or Jew etc. and so they twisted the translation of verse 11 by inserting a word (and concept) that isn't there, "a renewal in which". ESV is much the same, and the NRSV compounds the error in Ephesians 4 by saying "your" old self when there is no "your" there at all.
I then thought the only way to get a good literal translation was to do it myself whereupon I soon discovered that no matter how hard I tried, it was virtually impossible to keep my own biases out of the equation, coupled with the impossibility of finding a single word in English that accurately translated a Greek or Hebrew word fully, without implying some meaning in English that wasn't there in the original.
All of which convinced me that the only way to get the true meaning of the scriptures, for me at least, was to get back to the Greek and Hebrew - a lot more work, and for those who have followed the same path, with its own set of difficulties in arriving at the correct meaning. Translation is truly a formidable task.
Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
I have no bun in the fight
Therein lies perhaps, your problem. You are fighting with your buns???
0 -
Alex Scott said:
All of which convinced me that the only way to get the true meaning of the scriptures, for me at least, was to get back to the Greek and Hebrew
There is another way. Just give me a call and I'll tell you what the translation is supposed to be.
0 -
Alex Scott said:
One of the first things I do now when a new 'literal' version comes out is to check a small number of passages which are commonly mistranslated, such as Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians 3:9-10. Any translation that purports to be literal and yet translates anthropos as 'nature' or 'self' loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned.
How would you translate ἄνθρωπος in these passages, Alex? These passages are covered in the fifth entry under ἄνθρωπος in BDAG.
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
How would you translate ἄνθρωπος in these passages, Alex?
By its literal meaning, 'man'. To give it some other meaning is not translation but interpretation. Now you may give it some other interpretation such as "a being in conflict at a transcendent level" but as soon as you do that you have narrowed down the various interpretations of the statement to a single one, and in so doing you totally miss the possibility of the corporate aspect of the new man as defined in Ephesians 2:15.
Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.
0 -
Alex Scott said:
By its literal meaning, 'man'.
But therein lies the rub, surely? What is the "literal meaning" of a word? Can the "literal meaning" of a Greek word be an english word?
Alex Scott said:not translation but interpretation
Traduttore, traditore!
0 -
Just to provide a bit more clarity on my last post. Anthropos is I think universally accepted as a man or human person. Obviously in the context, it is not intended to be taken literally, but figuratively. No one is suggesting that the believer puts off one human body and replaces it with another, ,so it must be figurative. How one interprets it figuratively will vary with the individual and context.
But this merely points out the impossibility of accurate, literal translation. No matter what language you choose to translate, the word you choose must almost inevitably carry less meaning than the original, and at the same time more meaning than the original intended. You see the same problem in the John 3 passage - is it born again, or born from above? The translator into English must choose the meaning - the Greek didn't have to make that choice, he knew already that the word had more than one meaning and his choice was merely one of interpretation, not translation. In other words, the reader of Greek has that choice whenever he reads the passage - once the translation into English is made, the choice is automatically taken away from the English only reader.
Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.
0
