ESV & Logos
Comments
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?
( I mean this with a fair amount of jest, but I am also curious as to why it is always used).
I don't get it either. I find the ESV to be very, very close to the NRSV much of the time (except for the gender inclusive aspect, of course).
But I think there are at least two reasons Logos uses the ESV reverse interlinear in its videos: First the ESV was one of the first modern translations from which Logos created a reverse interlinear. Second, the ESV is being heavily promoted in the US as a successor to the RSV for groups who do not like the gender-inclusiveness of the NRSV, nor the dynamic equivalence philosophy of the NIV.
In L3 I had the NRSV as my preferred reverse interlinear. I don't know how to change this setting in Logos4, and don't believe it's possible at this time.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
Hi folks.
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 print
[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)
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?
The "official" answer:
When we do something new, creative, and tightly linked to the underlying Greek and Hebrew (Reverse Interlinear, HDNT, etc.) we need to use a text that:
A) is reasonably literal.
is licensed agreeably.
"Agreeably" includes cost, restrictions, and rapid "time between our asking and their saying yes."
When we started these projects we did not have our new relationship with Zondervan, (and felt the NIV's "dynamic" translation would be harder to align), and the NRSV is owned by an organization that we didn't have as close a connection to. Both are more expensive to license and have come with more conditions on use.
And once we did the first with the ESV, it made sense to do the second, etc. Sometimes it's the little things that make a difference -- like being the first publisher to say "Sure, go ahead" instead of "I'll check with the committee, and we may want to collect a separate royalty." :-)
The good news is, most of our data work is on the Greek and Hebrew, so we can eventually offer almost every database on any text we can reverse interlinearize, and the NIV and NRSV (among others) are on that list.
The "official" answer:
Thank you Bob. Back in the late 1960's when I began this thread about the ESV and Logos I would never have imagined so much comment on translation philosophy so I appreciate you answering the question.
Sometimes it's the little things that make a difference -- like being the first publisher to say "Sure, go ahead" instead of "I'll check with the committee, and we may want to collect a separate royalty." :-)
So I was right about a certain publisher! ;-)
TO ALL THE OTHERS WHO HAVE FILLED CLOGGED MY INBOX WITH REPLIES. Maybe I need to give the ESV another chance. Maybe it isn't so bad. You know what they say...99% of ESV users give the rest a bad name! (PLEASE this is a joke - meant in humour).
Maybe I need to give the ESV another chance. Maybe it isn't so bad. You know what they say...99% of ESV users give the rest a bad name! (PLEASE this is a joke - meant in humour).
I haven't used the ESV enough to become familiar with it. But I know that one of my professors, J.I. Packer, was the General Editor of it, so it goes up in my esteem already. My understanding was always that ESV was a more conservative translation than some of the other contemporary ones, and I wasn't thinking that the ones I've been using most often (NIV/TNIV for personal study and NRSV at church) were too "liberal" for me, so I didn't need to switch.
I really like the ESV Study Bible and am kind of jealous that my preffered translations have not invested in this sort of study bible.
I'm glad to see that ESV Study Bible Notes is (are?) in pre-pub and I've ordered it. Here is J.I. Packer talking about it (and a bit about the ESV in general). He's so funny: "There are 1.1 million words in the Study Bible, and I don't know who else has read them all, but I know that I have." [8-|]
one of my professors, J.I. Packer
Rosie,
What a privilege to have the opportunity to study with Dr. Packer!
I would have to rank his Knowing God as one of the most important books for my theological formation written by a living author.
I treasure my physical copy that he autographed when I was a student at Beeson Divinity School a number of years ago.
If you want to compare, you have to compare against the source, greek/hebrew, which most of us lay-folk dont have.
Any Translation can be flawed, due to human Interaction, but thats why God left us the Holy Spirit, to lead us into all truth.
The Holy Spirt and the Word combined work like a well greased wheel, no creaks and groans, as he leads us homeward
Simple question:
any hererital translation in it? No (not that I have found)
will God use it to save souls? Yes
Debate over IMO
Never Deprive Anyone of Hope.. It Might Be ALL They Have
still cant remove it in the exegetical guide
Okay, back to my original post. When I have NA27 prioritised above NRSV or ESV for that matter it uses NA27 as the Greek text in the EG however, it automatically has the ESV as the english translation even when it is prioritised lower.
What I did discover is that the NRSV rev int. in the EG is not the same as the old rev int. It follows the NA27, therefore the problem is pretty much solved...
For the rest of you who are now embroiled in a translation war, I am truly sorry. [H]
I was a die hard NASB fan because I wanted a "word for word" translation bible instead of a phrase translation or "thought for thought" translation. When I did a google search on the ESV, I learned that the translation team started with the RSV as a spring board for the ESV but the main object was to go back to the latest discoveries of the oldest greek and hebrew transcripts to make a more accurate translation of God's Word. Of course, the ESV is not totally accurate...but none of the translations are totally accurate. I personally love the ESB, but having that reverse interlinear is the best part to me, being able to see the greek or the hebrew word used and also being able to read every where that one greek/hebrew word is used throughout the Word.
I'm not learned enough on L4 yet to set a different bible as a default bible in the exegetical guide. I pray someone can show you how to set your favorite bible as the default real soon.
I'll have an (uninformed) guess, Mark.
For serious Bible study related to the original languages, you want a translation that's quite literal, word-for-word rather than the dynamic-equivalence approach of The Message (or even NIV.) Like the old ASV or NASB, the ESV fits that style, and so seems a fairly natural choice for working with inter-linears etc.
It also makes sense to me to provide some consistency in the examples, and it's in all the base packages. (Just my 2c.)
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.
The naughty part of me does wonder if it has anything to do with making a point to Zondervan.....[:P]
Really? I thought the ESV was the spiritual successor to the NRSV... Why do you think its inaccurate?
There is absolutely no relationship between the two! The two have completely different translation committees.
Jon I would love to discuss what I don't like (and it is personal - I have no problem for the most part with the translation) but here is the place and it causes the kind of divisions between Christians not seen since the Calvinist/Arminianism debate in seminary! [;)] My personal preference is for gender inclusive so i would like to be able to choose that option in my exegetical guide.
Which part of the exegetical guide keeps using the ESV for you?
I use NA27 as my preferred NT text in the exegetical guide, It automatically chooses the ESV as the interlinear...much to my annoyance! Apparently this can't be changed. I actually despise the translation but tell very few people (so please keep it to yourself). Actually that is unfair, I despise all of the ESV users who criticise and spread falsities about the TNIV which leaves me with a negative feeling toward the ESV...actually it is quite painful and I don't like to talk about it! [;)]
I just prioritized the NRSV to the top of the list (typically its the NKJV...did I just make you spew :-)) and then ran an exegetical guide. It used the NRSV.
What is wrong with the ESV? I have not studied it much, I was planning on starting to use it in my study's.
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.
Begin somewhere because so far I have simply seen character defamation of the ESV and no arguments
Jacob Hantla
Pastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church
gbcaz.org
And so it begins...
Jacob I suggest you READ my posts and then come back an apologise. I have not defamed the ESV I have shared my frustration at some supporters the ESV who criticise the TNIV - And, I said it in jest. I have no problem with the ESV and people who want to read it. Personally I don't like it. But hey, I dont like the KJV or the NIV or the Good News either! Futhermore, I said that I did not want to discuss translation philiosophy for thsi very reason.
Thanks for nothing and getting me worked up, I appreciate it a lot! No, honestly, I really I like this sort of thing so please keep it coming. I love being accused of character defamation...AND IF YOU ARE WONDERING I AM BEING SARCASTIC!
Upon re-reading my statement asking you to elaborate, I see that it does indeed sound very adversarial. That was not my intent. Please forgive me. I simply wanted to ask you to give example reasons for your dislike of the ESV. I see that you state you don't think its accurate, you like gender inclusiveness, you don't like ESVers who rag on TNIV, and you direct us to Ben Witherington. I was wanting some examples of what you view is incorrect.
Again, please forgive me for my terseness and unintenional adversarial language in asking for you to elaborate upon your answer to "what's wrong with the ESV."
Jacob Hantla
Pastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church
gbcaz.org
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.