ESV & Logos
Comments
-
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 -
If you know Greek and Hebrew, the NIV/TVIV is a better translation. The figures of speech come across better. The ESV is a little too literal for me, but still a good translation. But fear not TNIV haters. Due to the fact that the TNIV translators realized they didn't do as good of a job as they would have liked, the TNIV will be redone in the next few years.
0 -
Bryan Brodess 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?"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..
There is no such thing as translating every Greek word with the same English word. When (some)translators translate, they are trying to find the word or thought that is as close as possible to the Greek or Hebrew word, but it can never be an exact science.
0 -
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 -
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.
0 -
Alex Scott said:
What's this??? An Italian Aussie?
It is an Italian saying - doesn't translate well (that I can remember).
I lived 5 years in Italy - I speak Italian here in Australia every day....
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
It is an Italian saying - doesn't translate well (that I can remember).
Traduttore, traditore = "translator, traitor"
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
Traduttore, traditore = "translator, traitor"
I know but it loses the alliteration...
I prefer the verbal form (though not as traditional) - tradurre e' tradire...
0 -
Damian McGrath said:R. Mansfield said:
Traduttore, traditore = "translator, traitor"
I know but it loses the alliteration...
True. Therefore, I recommend that if we come across it when translating the Bible, we should simply transliterate it [:)]
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
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.
Bob Pritchett said: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).
0 -
MarkStevens said:
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.
MarkStevens said: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-|]
0 -
JeremyEllis said:
There is no such thing as translating every Greek word with the same English word.
Unfortunately there is. I have reviewed either it or the Hebrew equivalent on Amazon. I refuse to identify the translation or the author. Suffice it to say that the author was of the young earth persuasion and believed that there had not been enough time for either Hebrew or Greek to have changed much - therefore, things like the etymology fallacy did not apply. If I recall correct, the Jehovah's Witness's translation has a similar philosophy.
To me, the simplest way to describe why I have such a low regard for such translations is that they assume that the two language divide the world in exactly the same way. They don't. For example, the word in Sanskrit for "black" includes both what we think of as black and dark blue. Their word for "blue" excludes what we think of as dark blue ... because they put it under "black". A number of linguistic anthropologist in the 70's were studying such things as the different ways different languages/cultures divided the spectrum ... or even different groups of people with a culture. Birds, plants, seasons, ... you name it, different languages divide it different ways.
Another concrete example:until about 1970 billion meant something different in the UK than in America - check out long (English & European) and short (American scales). If there is this kind of variation in concrete terms, imagine what there is in abstract terms.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
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? YesDebate over IMO
Never Deprive Anyone of Hope.. It Might Be ALL They Have
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.
I searched for Witherington's critique of it, a post on his blog called "The Problem with the ESV" which several bloggers cited and responded to. However the original post has been removed from Witherington's blog and he apparently recanted most of it and apologized in the comments section before deleting the post entirely. This I learned here.
0 -
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.
I keep getting lost in some of these discussions - I did not know the relationship between the ESV and the RSV - a tidbit worth knowing. But the NRSV re: Isaiah confuses me. As a Catholic I was taught that the Hebrew read "young woman" and the LXX read "virgin" ... anyone out there who can really read Hebrew and Greek well enough to explain this to me? Thanks.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
As a Catholic I was taught that the Hebrew read "young woman" and the LXX read "virgin" ... anyone out there who can really read Hebrew and Greek well enough to explain this to me?
This is correct.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
As a Catholic I was taught that the Hebrew read "young woman" and the LXX read "virgin"
The Hebrew reads almah and the LXX reads parthenos. The former usually refers to a young girl, the latter unequivocally means virgin.
0 -
Alex Scott said: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.you just contradicted yourself. ESV did interpret in the other passages "self" which I think any honest person can understand what Paul was trying to say whether it is translated man or self. Yet in the passage above, The ESV interpreted it to be "man or men" would would be proper.
I think this is the just of the conversation here. Yes, I learned "old man" to mean old sin nature, or old self, But we do not speak this way today. Old Self would be a better interpretation today.
0 -
Damian McGrath said: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?Here we go. I do not even think it is so much the word that should be questioned. Unless of course we are talking transliterations like baptism, The problem is how the word is written, what tense, what person, other things that can not be found in the "word" tranlation.
Big example would be in acts 2 when Peter tells us to repent and be baptised, where repent is second person, and baptize is third person. Major difference in translation if this is known.. which can not be found in any version I know of.
This is what I am interested in. being able to interpret that word as written, not just the base word translation, as a "word for word" will give you..
0 -
JeremyEllis said:Bryan Brodess 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?"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..There is no such thing as translating every Greek word with the same
English word. When (some)translators translate, they are trying to find
the word or thought that is as close as possible to the Greek or Hebrew
word, but it can never be an exact science.Yes, I agree. which is why people will interpret under there own "bias" Huge example is 1 Peter 3: 21, where in the NIV the words "It saves you" are added to the text. And the translation "dirt body" replacing "filth flesh" which Paul spoke of as a figure of speach for sin which proced from the "old man" When someone tried to use this to prove thazt water baptism was essential to recieve eternal life I was floored!! And thus hated the NIV.. I see now however that the ESV has also tranlated dirt and body.. but leaves out" it saves you" which is not found in the origional text..
which is whay I also said. I do not think there is a pure translation. all of them have errors,,
0 -
If anyone is interested here is a fairly harsh but interesting article on the ESV by Mark Strauss (of the TNIV committee). He and Mounce have had quite a discussion about the ESV and the TNIV over the past few years.
I find some of his examples to be picky (and he kind of admits this) and other things he points out are quite concerning HOWEVER, it would be interesting to see the same kind of the critique of exegetical concerns relating to the TNIV.
I still contend the NRSV is the premier literal/word for word translation. As uncomfortable as it may make some folks because it is the product of liberal scholarship I would argue that has led to a better overall translation...just my thoughts.
0 -
Hey mark. That helps,, Alot of "oops" there.
Then again.. even the NRSV has "oops"
NKJV : 1 John 3:6
Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
NRSV 1 john 3: 6
No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.Since we all continue to sin, even after we are saved, I guess none of us Know Christ.. or have ever seen him.
Thus my point. All versions have errors.. which is why I truely believe we have so many different beliefs,,
it would be easy for someone to read the above passages in the NKJ or NRS and believe that once a person is saved he could never sin again.. The esv says
No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
which is a better translation. But still could be confused and misinterpreted by many to mean if you are saved you could in no way possible sin again,, because of you do, you can't know God, thus can't be saved,, which is not what John was trying to say..
0 -
MarkStevens said:
it would be interesting to see the same kind of the critique of exegetical concerns relating to the TNIV.
Mark,
Here is a link to the transcript of a live debate between Mark Strauss and Wayne Grudem on the particulars of the TNIV.
http://www.salemthesoldier.us/TNIV_concordia_debate.html
And here is a link to an article by Grudem highlighting some of his concerns.
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/A-Brief-Summary-of-Concerns-About-the-TNIV
One of the most complete critical reviews of gender neutral translations in general is the book The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy by Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress. A pdf is available as a free download here:
It is important to remember that there are good, godly, careful scholars who love God, His Word, and people on both sides of this debate.
It is also important to remember that every translation has strengths and weaknesses but the strengths of all of them outweigh the weaknesses of any of them because they all clearly teach that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-4).
0 -
I agree with you. It is unfair to regard the NIV and NLT as the same style translation.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
All versions have errors.. which is why I truely believe we have so many different beliefs
I think it is more fair to say "all versions make some choices that I don't agree with". And I would "blame" the multiplicity of beliefs on individuals accepting the teachings of ... (parent, Sunday School teacher, pastor, friend, spouse ...) without recognition that they have uncritically accepted the teaching authority of person.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith 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.
I keep getting lost in some of these discussions - I did not know the relationship between the ESV and the RSV - a tidbit worth knowing. But the NRSV re: Isaiah confuses me. As a Catholic I was taught that the Hebrew read "young woman" and the LXX read "virgin" ... anyone out there who can really read Hebrew and Greek well enough to explain this to me? Thanks.
Michael Heiser just posted a blog entry that explains some of the issues related to this question.
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/12/the-almah-of-isaiah-714/
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
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.
0 -
Russ Quinn said:
Michael Heiser just posted a blog entry that explains some of the issues related to this question.
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/12/the-almah-of-isaiah-714/
Thankyou. This is a good article. I've run into this blog before and thought highly of it, but I don't look at it regularly.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Russ Quinn said:
Here is a link to the transcript of a live debate between Mark Strauss and Wayne Grudem on the particulars of the TNIV.
http://www.salemthesoldier.us/TNIV_concordia_debate.html
And here is a link to an article by Grudem highlighting some of his concerns.
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/A-Brief-Summary-of-Concerns-About-the-TNIV
One of the most complete critical reviews of gender neutral translations in general is the book The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy by Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress. A pdf is available as a free download here:
It is important to remember that there are good, godly, careful scholars who love God, His Word, and people on both sides of this debate.
It is also important to remember that every translation has strengths and weaknesses but the strengths of all of them outweigh the weaknesses of any of them because they all clearly teach that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-4).
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion and the links. I am with Grudem on this one.
Every blessings.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
I would add that complemetarians like Douglas Moo (the head of the TNIV translation committee) and D.A. Carson stand by the translation of the TNIV. The lines between those who are complementarian and favor the ESV and egalitarian and favor the TNIV are not hard lines.
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
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.
Damian,
I just noticed I failed to respond to you on this. I'm sorry I got lost in the heat of the earlier exchange.
The value of searching a more literal translation in L4 is not in finding out the number of occurrences as much as in finding the verses where the underlying Greek words occur. A search for "brother" in the ESV will return all the occurrences of adelphos and a search for "believer" will return all the occurrences of some form of pisteuo. A search for "brother" in the NRSV will lack some occurrences of adelphos and a search for "believer" will include some occurrences of adelphos in addition to occurrences of pisteuo.
All I really mean to be emphasizing is that these differences make the ESV a different tool than the NRSV even though both are considered "literal" translations. Whether or not one prefers either translation over the other is a subjective decision, but that the search results will be different is an objective observation.
The merits of this type of search I leave to another discussion although I agree that there are advantages and disadvantages that could be noted.
0 -
Russ Quinn said:Rosie Perera said:
one of my professors, J.I. Packer
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.
Ditto for me. Dr. Packer is a real gem! In all the debates where Christians take sides, he is a mediating and reconciling voice. Even when he disagrees strongly with a fellow believer on a particular theological issue, he is such a humble man and a gentle spirit that he does what few others of his stature could do and lends his support to the person in love. He is one of the few great Christian leaders of the 20th (and 21st) century who have been able to penetrate walls of division and bring healing between warring parties. He is still teaching at Regent College at 83! What a guy. I don't agree with him on all his theological viewpoints, but I certainly respect him and his integrity in how he holds them and communicates them to others.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Ditto for me. Dr. Packer is a real gem! In all the debates where Christians take sides, he is a mediating and reconciling voice. Even when he disagrees strongly with a fellow believer on a particular theological issue, he is such a humble man and a gentle spirit that he does what few others of his stature could do and lends his support to the person in love. He is one of the few great Christian leaders of the 20th (and 21st) century who have been able to penetrate walls of division and bring healing between warring parties.
Packer fans may find interesting that his reputation is recognized in the secular world. See Time Magazine blurb http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/21.html
Regards,
Scott
From Wisconsin, a Packer fan
0 -
Ted Hans said:
I am with Grudem on this one.
Hmmm...I'll stick with Strauss.
And we'll have to all get along, regardless [:)]
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
Hmmm...I'll stick with Strauss.
And we'll have to all get along, regardless
Really? You think his criticisms of the ESV in the aforementioned article are helpful?
0 -
Well, really, I have no desire to get involved in a battle of translations. The TNIV is really a dead issue at this point. We'll have to wait for the NIV 2011 to advance any of this debate further. And although I would actually hope for no debate at all, I fear none of this is over yet.
Although I have a number of significant problems with the ESV (and I've mentioned some in the past on my blog) at the same time, I've tried to be generous because I know that it is a primary vehicle for God's voice for many people, including many people whom I greatly respect.
I had access to Mark's article before he presented it at ETS last year, and I was in the audience when he presented it as well. I was also in the audience when Mounce offered his rejoinder last month. Although Mounce offered brotherly criticism of both Grudem and Strauss, I feel that he ultimately gave Grudem a free pass considering Grudem wrote an entire book against the TNIV that has some of the most ridiculous criticisms I've ever read against a translation of the Bible, including criticisms that create a double standard when compared with the ESV.
So, were Strauss' criticisms helpful? I think he brought a number of issues to light that needed attention. But if it caused offense, I can't see how it even begins to compare to Grudem's entire book against the TNIV.
For what it's worth, I've been teaching from the HCSB again over the last few months. It, like the TNIV, is a good median translation. Those are the kinds of translations I like to use publicly. I wish the HCSB was a bit more gender accurate in some places, but I've found I can reasonably correct it on the fly.
0 -
MarkStevens said:
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]
0 -
R. Mansfield said:
Well, really, I have no desire to get involved in a battle of translations.
No desire for battle or translation war here.
Actually my surprise at your endorsement of Strauss is that I have found your comments in the past in this debate to be more measured and helpful than his.
I'm sure he is a great guy. I don't know him and I haven't followed the back and forth as close as you. My experience in the debate has really been limited to the specific issue of the translation of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2. And that was a number of years ago. But what I have noticed is that the intensity of the debate has caused normally careful scholars on both sides like Bloomberg, Carson, and Grudem to be occasionally sloppy in their critiques and defense of their various positions.
Of course, as my own comments have demonstrated in this thread, we are all susceptible to overstatement at times in these matters. As a result I would have a difficult time choosing sides regarding either a particular translation or a particular scholar who has contributed to the discussion.
0 -
Mark is a great guy. I was able to spend about 30 minutes or so privately talking with him at SBL last month, and we've corresponded via email a number of times in the past two or three years. Perspective colors everything, but I still feel he's been FAR more measured in the debate than some of the opposing rhetoric I've seen; but others may disagree, of course.
You mentioned Psalm 8/Hebrews 2. Way back in 2006 when I first reviewed the TNIV on my blog, I was critical of a similar passage: Psalm 34:20/John 19:36. While I understand what the translators were trying to do, I'm conservative enough to feel that the texts traditionally associated with messianic prophecies should be left alone. I took a lot of flack about that from other TNIV supporters over this, but I still stand by that conviction. But that conviction wasn't enough to make me reject the TNIV. The positive in the translation far outweighed the negative to me.
And as I mentioned in an early comment above in regard to the HCSB, I reserve the right to "correct" on the fly when necessary. If I've spent enough time in the original languages in regard to a passage, I feel I've earned the right to do this.
Although I have no inside track on the NIV 2011 (even Mark told me that he couldn't yet say at this point what the final product would look like), I did predict that many of these kinds of texts with Messianic references will end up looking more like the NIV than the TNIV (see the end of point #2 on my prediction post).
I would hope that the ESV-TNIV war will now die down and even go away, but I'm not holding my breath. Nevertheless, Bill Mounce is an interesting addition to the NIV Committee on Bible Translation. Having been the NT chair for the ESV committee, he has the opportunity to be a bridge (hopefully) between the two "camps."
Mounce was one of the original signers of the "Statement of Concern" against the TNIV, but many may not realize that he later had his name removed from it. At ETS, he commented that he had given copies of the TNIV to children at his church during Vacation Bible School. While I think the TNIV can (could have been?) used by far more than children, this use was certainly a far cry from his original "concern" about the translation.
0 -
Russ Quinn said:
No desire for battle or translation war here.
Actually my surprise at your endorsement of Strauss is that I have found your comments in the past in this debate to be more measured and helpful than his.
For a couple of guys who have no desire to get into a battle of translations you have certainly filled up the thread! [;)]
0 -
Ah, but we've done so in a civil manner without any nasty rhetoric or ad hominem attacks. [:)]
0
