Featured Another Verse Where I Think the ESV Fails

Appeal is how the ESV translates "parakaleo" at Romans 12:1. But at Romans 12:8 we get exhorts, at Romans 15:30 we get another appeal, ditto Romans 16:17 and 1 Cor. 1:10, but at 1 Cor. 4:13 we get entreat. You will also find urge, encourage, plead and beg among the ESV translation choices for the word. The ESV seems to stick with "comfort" for the other meaning of the word.
Basically the ESV seems to use any word in the dictionary having to do with entreating, with no regard for the strength of the exhortation.

The least powerful words, urge, encourage, call up, appeal probably are not the best choice when exhort, plead, beg and entreat are all available. Clearly the ESV fails to provide the best translation choice for "parakaleo" at Romans 12:1.

 

Compare 1 Corinthians 1:10; 4:16; 2 Corinthians 2:8; 10:1; Philemon 9 and 10; 1 Peter 5:1.

Some various commentary notes:

The first word of 12:1 is the verb parakalō, “I urge,” which has a fairly wide range of meanings including “to call to one’s side,” “to exhort,” “to implore,” “to encourage.” C. E. B. Cranfield says that it is a technical term for Christian exhortation, which he defines as “the earnest appeal, based on the gospel, to those who are already believers to live consistently with the gospel they have received.”
Mounce, R. H. (1995). Romans (Vol. 27, p. 231). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The English verb “exhort” captures well the nuance of the Greek parakaleō in contexts such as this. Its semantic range lies somewhere between “request” and “command”: an exhortation comes with authority, but the authority of a preacher who is the mediator of God’s truth rather than the authority of a superior issuing a command.
Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (pp. 748–749). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

παρακαλῶ has a wide range of usage (BGD, “summon, invite, exhort, encourage, request, entreat, comfort”), as is evident in Paul’s own usage (e.g., Schlier).
Dunn, J. D. G. (1998). Romans 9–16 (Vol. 38B, p. 708). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

The verb here rendered “I urge” (παρακαλῶ) is a favorite term with Paul (used about 50 times) and has been characterized as “one of the tenderest expressions in all the Bible.” The compound verb, which basically means “to call alongside of,” pictures someone calling another to his side and lovingly presenting his message to him. Depending on the content and purpose of the message, the verb may be rendered “appeal to, urge, exhort, entreat, or beseech.” Thus instead of simply asserting his apostolic authority, Paul preferred to appeal to the inner consciousness of his readers. In writing to Philemon, Paul told him, “Therefore, though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do that which is proper, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you” (Phile. 8–9). In thus presenting his message to his readers Paul avoided using external compulsion of an objective command and instead relied on their inner realization of the rightness of the appeal being made. Paul was well aware that “many are sooner wrought upon if they be accosted kindly, are more easily led than driven.” He knew that acceptable obedience to the appeals being made is always the grateful, voluntary response of the redeemed heart to the many mercies of God.
In saying, “I urge you” (παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς), Paul directly addressed the recipients of his appeal. In explicitly identifying them as “brothers” (ἀδελφοί) he gave expression to their inner identity as already members of the family of God. Because they were already believers and therefore members of God’s family, Paul was prompted and encouraged to present this appeal to them. The appeal Paul made here is directly applicable only to those who by faith have personally received Jesus Christ as their Redeemer.
Hiebert, D. E. (1994). Presentation and Transformation: An Exposition of Romans 12:1–2. Bibliotheca Sacra, 151, 311.

 

I knew I should have been clearer!

And

I love the way you both "quoted" me. Rev bolded one part so as to ignore the next sentence, and ITL omitted the most important line where I said "I'm sure you don't believe that" in reference to your pride. I also said that you were conveying something about yourself that you did not intend. Therefore, I wasn't saying I thought you to be prideful. In other words, I am saying that you are unintentionally conveying something about yourself, pride in this case. My point was, why use the strong word of "fails" with such a minor issue all staked on a subjective opinion?

But I have yet stated why I believe the ESV is right or wrong here. My case is that your case is overstated. And I think I have demonstrated that.

I do have a theory for you, ITL. You asked why the ESV is the only major translation with "appeal". That may be the answer. Copyright issues. There has to be enough distinction between translations for copyright purposes.

And Rev, just saying "no you're wrong" is not how you win a debate. The issue in the main or at the start is: what does the Greek word mean, especially in its context. Then and only then can you ask the question as to what English word conveys the correct sense of urgency, if indeed urgency is required from both the context and the semantic range of the word. Now if I'm wrong, please explain where my reasoning is faulty?

PS-ITL, Rev asserted that I personally attacked you. I can totally see how my post could have communicated that. It was not my intention to say you were prideful but only that you may be unintentionally communicating that. Nevertheless, you have my sincerest apologies for my poor choice in communicating my thoughts.

PPS-Rev, you asserted that I do have a personal disdain for ITL. I concede that I poorly portrayed myself to make a point. I apologize for that. However, I don't know that I've ever had any conversations with ITL in the past and currently have no negative personal feelings toward him.

 

This was the first time I have ever used it. And you make it as if it was sheer coincidence that you "dumbed" me shortly after I "dumbed" you as if the 2 were unrelated. Not buying it.

So when I "dumb" a post, I use it with caution rather than "cheap and easy".

And I accused you of being petty on 2 counts: (1) thinking that my post w/ 4 points was just a whining and listing what I don't like about the OP which is absolutely false but rather a reasoned argument for those with ears to hear & (2) AND THIS IS THE MAIN ONE, I accused you of being petty and giving me a dumb b/c I gave you one for a very childish post. It had to have been pettiness because you went back and made that post "dumb" after you had already commented on it. I see your true colors.

 

Probably the best argument I've heard so far.

I said it was a theory. And if so many translations already use that word, then the newer translations may not be able to. The only way to know is to ask someone on the ESV committee.

Except I didn't mean for you to have to withstand anything from me that would require chain mail. I really just wanted to push you to make a case. And you did above. Now Rev, on the other hand... I enjoy jousting with him. Knights need to unhorse squires from time to time