Critique of the ESV

[TCassidy]

I do have a problem when so called "readability" weakens the translation. Those who are over the top supporters of certain translations are not willing to admit that does occur.

All translations are weakened simply by being translated. There no such thing as a "word for word" translation. Such a translation would be gibberish in the receptor language. But it is true that some translation display a greater tendency to weaken the original meaning of the text than others. There has to be a carefully outlined compromise between absolute fidelity to the Greek text and understandability in English. That can be a hard target to consistently hit.

The problem we have with the New Testament is that Greek is a Synthetic Language, using Synthetic logic to govern its grammar and syntax while English is an Analytical Language using Analytical logic to govern its grammar and syntax. That creates a great challenge to translators.

 

[Revmitchell]

All translations are weakened simply by being translated. There no such thing as a "word for word" translation. Such a translation would be gibberish in the receptor language. But it is true that some translation display a greater tendency to weaken the original meaning of the text than others. There has to be a carefully outlined compromise between absolute fidelity to the Greek text and understandability in English. That can be a hard target to consistently hit.

The problem we have with the New Testament is that Greek is a Synthetic Language, using Synthetic logic to govern its grammar and syntax while English is an Analytical Language using Analytical logic to govern its grammar and syntax. That creates a great challenge to translators.

Sometimes the so called readability is actually no more readable that what is replaced. And what is always meant by word for word is that the translators work to stay as close to a word for word as possible. Everyone understand this and no one expects any different.

 

[TCassidy]

Sometimes the so called readability is actually no more readable that what is replaced. And what is always meant by word for word is that the translators work to stay as close to a word for word as possible. Everyone understand this and no one expects any different.

An excellent example of that can be found in Job 6:6 in the RSV. The Hebrew reads
בריר חלמות׃ which is a bit obscure but most English versions engage in a little dynamic equivalency and translate it as the "white of an egg." As we all know, raw egg white is slimy and tasteless, which is the intent of the Hebrew. But the "easier to read" RSV translated it as the "slime of the purslane." Huh? Well, that made it a lot simpler to understand!

 

[Revmitchell]

I will have to look it up later but there are some examples where the ESV (for example) (and I use the ESV regularly and preach from it) weakens the wording.

 

[Revmitchell]

I like this graph in understanding the tranlslations and where they are at. Although I feel they are being far to generous to the NIV. It needs to move farther to the right.

 

[TCassidy]

I will have to look it up later but there are some examples where the ESV (for example) (and I use the ESV regularly and preach from it) weakens the wording.

The ESV, which I am sure you know, is a revision of the RSV. It tries to fix Job 6:6 but did not fully achieve that goal.

It reads "juice of the mallow." Now, if you have traveled extensively you may know that the mallow is a plant that grows in swamps and marshes and was once used as a medicine for sore throats. The slimy extract from the stem was mixed with sugar and allowed to semi-harden and when eaten would soothe the sore throat. This is the origin of the Marshmallow we now enjoy in our hot chocolate.

But as most people are not quite that widely traveled or read the ESV might have helped a bit but not much.

(And bear in mind I have no problem with the ESV. It is the bible our pastor preaches from.)

 

[Revmitchell]

I think the mistake in the whole readability thing is that there seems to be an attempt to take away the need for study in the words. It appears to be an attempt to just read it and then you will know exactly what is meant without having to do further study. Such attempts weaken meanings and would be a terrible mistake. We should not trying to be avoiding deep study.

Minus the study some things will just have to be explained to the average Christian no matter what.

 

[Rippon]

I like this graph in understanding the tranlslations and where they are at. Although I feel they are being far to generous to the NIV. It needs to move farther to the right.

Actually the NIV needs to be moveda few clicks to the left -- next to the HCSB. The NAB is to the slight left of the HCSB. The NJB needs to be moved a few spots to the right. The NLT needs to be put in place to the left of the NCV. The NRSV,RSV and ESV need to be clustered together where the NRSV is placed on this chart.

The chart is not accurate or helpful. It just adds to confusion.

 

[JonC]

Before the foundation of the world refers to before creation, and thus would make sense if we had been chosen individually before the foundation of the world. If we had been chosen, then our names could/should have been entered then - before creation. However, if our names are being entered from or since the foundation of the world, that time period starts at creation and spans until the end of the age. Someone whose name was entered today, has his or her name entered "from the foundation of the world."

So the proper translation supports the idea that Ephesians 1:4 refers to our corporate election and not our individual election. Otherwise the text would read at Rev. 13:8, before the foundation of the world.

The word (apo) means out of, or from, or since, and it never means before. Note the ESV properly translates the same phrase (Rev. 17:8) as from the foundation of the world.

Consider Hebrews 12: 23 where born anew believers are enrolled in Heaven.

Thanks. I understand your point now. Basically you are saying the verse has no meaning in terms of time and only means to say everyone whose name was written whereas "before" specifies God's design worked out specifically in advance.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[Van]

That is right, thus the mistranslation appears to be agenda driven. Note that the RSV had before, but the NRSV has after or from. The early NIV had before, but now it reads "from." One group of believers thinks we were chosen individually before creation, and thus our names would have been written before creation. But most others understand Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 to say our names are entered when we are born anew, and not before. Hebrews says those whose names are enrolled have been made perfect.

 

[McCree79]

I like this graph in understanding the tranlslations and where they are at. Although I feel they are being far to generous to the NIV. It needs to move farther to the right.

Well, that image was released originally by Zondervan..... So of course they will put it in the middle

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

So of course they will put it in the middle

Well, think about it. When an interlinear is on the extreme left and The Message is on the extreme right --of course the NIV is positioned smack dab in the middle.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The problem we have with the New Testament is that Greek is a Synthetic Language, using Synthetic, Reflexive, logic to govern its grammar and syntax while English is an Analytical Language using Analytical, Inflexive logic to govern its grammar and syntax. That creates a great challenge to translators.

' alt="" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" unselectable=on v:shapes="_x0000_i1025">

It is obvious that Greek is a highly inflected language and is thus a synthetic language, while English, on the other end of the scale, has lost nearly all of the inflections that it once had and is thus now an analytical language. Greek uses prefixes and suffixes to express voice, mood, tense, number, person, case and gender. English expresses voice, mood, tense, number, person, case and gender by using additional words. Therefore, this difference between the two languages does not pose a significant problem for translators. Syntax is NOT a separate discipline from grammar—it is the part of grammar concerned with the way in which phrases, clauses, and sentences are constructed. The other principle parts of grammar are orthography and accidence.

I have in my personal library thirteen Greek grammars and twelve college-level English grammars, and the expressions “Synthetic, Reflexive, logic” and “Analytical, Inflexive logic” are not terms that I recall seeing in any of the grammars. Therefore, I ask in what context you have found the terms used, and please tell us how they “govern” grammar and how they “create great challenges to translators”.


However, translating the Greek New Testament is not just a matter of looking up words in an interlinear New Testament or even using the very best Greek-English lexicons and other studies of Greek lexicography. None of the seven tenses used in Koine Greek (only six of which are used in the New Testament) have in English an exact counterpart. Moreover, in the Greek verb system we have the aorist tense—a tense that does not include any reference to the duration or completion of the action, but is merely punctiliar and is a past tense when used in the indicative mood, but not when used in the other moods that we find in Koine Greek. When translating a Greek verb in the aorist tense in the indicative mood, the translator is often at a loss as to how to convey the distinction of the aorist tense from the Greek imperfect tense. And to greatly compound the problem, all of the Greek tenses emphasize the aspect of the action rather than the time of the action, and all of our English tenses emphasize the time of the action rather than the aspect of the action. (To better understand what is meant by the ‘aspect’ of action, see the subject of ‘verbal aspect’ in the most recent advanced Greek grammars).

Furthermore, Greek prepositions have a much broader range of usage than our English prepositions making their interpretation difficult and an exact translation impossible. Moreover, Greek syntax is much more flexible than our English syntax allowing the writers of the New Testament to use the order of the words in a sentence to express the degree of emphasis that they desired to convey. What is more, the writers of the New Testament used idioms for which we not have an equivalent in English.

Of course there are other major factors, including how to translate gender-specific words into gender-neutral words—if it is even appropriate! Translators also have to consider how their translation will sound when read allowed and the ability of the reader and the listeners to comprehend it.


Bible translation is extremely complex and requires many years of study of both the Biblical languages and the receptor (in our case, English) language. It also requires a firmly established target readership and a thorough knowledge and understanding of that readership. For example, the most suitable translation for a 5th grade Bible class may not be the most suitable translation for an adult Bible class made up of professional people with many years of post-high school education. And the most suitable translation for an adult Bible class made up of professional people with many years of post-high school education may not be the most suitable translation to use in the liturgical portions of a church service.


How good of a translation is the ESV? To answer that question fairly and objectively, all of the above factors—and others as well—must be taken into consideration, including weighing one consideration against another.

 

[Van]

List two verses where the ESV messes up the translation. To claim that is too complex a question to answer seems dubious.

Matthew 16:18, ESV reads "hell" but should read "Hades."

 

[Van]

The ESV goes with "the juice of the mallow" at Job 6:6. This is an example of relying on another text to arrive at the meaning (Syriac) rather than the rabbinic interpretation (white of an egg) of the uncertain meaning of the Hebrew.

 

[Van]

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (ESV)

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. (NASB)

Here, 2 Timothy 2:15, the ESV says try to present yourself as one approved, whereas the NASB says present yourself approved. If the ESV has watered down the command to accurately present God's word, then it should be added to the list.

 

[TCassidy]

They say exactly the same thing.

"Be diligent to present yourself . . . "

"Do your best to present yourself . . .

dil·i·gent
adjective
having or showing care and conscientiousness in one's work or duties.

 

[Van]

So you do not think the command to accurate present the Word of God has been watered down?

 

[evangelist6589]

to say that different translations do not change or weaken essential doctrines is absolutely not true.

This is not true.

 

[TCassidy]

This is not true.

It is true. Every translation weakens the English understanding of the Hebrew/Greek text in some areas and strengthens it in other areas.

Case in point. My English version of choice for my personal reading and study is the New KJV. (This is largely due to my "Byzantine Priority" textual position.)

1 Corinthians 1:18 in the NKJV reads "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

However, the same verse in the old KJV reads "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

The NKJV seems to be saying that salvation is a process but we know, from other passages dealing with salvation, that salvation is punctiliar in nature.

So, what is the problem? The problem is not with the Greek but with English.

In Greek the word σωζομενοις is a present, passive, participle. The first thing I learned in seminary in "bonehead Greek 101" class over 40 years ago was the non-temporal nature of Greek participles.

However, in English we indicate the participle by using the words "is being" or "are being." But that gives a false impression when read by an early 21st century English speaker that salvation is a process.

The NKJV employees the technically accurate way to translate the Greek participle, but due to the inexplicable vagaries of modern English, it gives a false impression.

The better (in my opinion) way to translate the word would be to treat it as a "state of being" verb. (And, to some extent the NKJV does that if you "read between the lines.") "(B)ut to us who are (in the state of) being saved . . ." etc.

The old KJV and the ASV (which I consider to be one of the most accurate English versions) both read "(B)ut unto us which are saved" treating it as a simple past tense which is technically inaccurate but does a better job of bringing the intent of the Greek into English.

So, yes, every version has its strong points and its weak points. That is unavoidable when translating from one language to another. It is part of the curse of sin (Babel). It is why, again in my opinion, that every pastor should have a good working knowledge of both Hebrew and Greek (and I don't mean listening to a tape from a diploma mill) if he is going to take the preaching and teaching of the word of God seriously.

However, on the other side of the coin, that exercise in the original languages of scripture rightly belongs in the study and not behind the pulpit or lectern. By constantly remarking that "the (English version of choice) is wrong here and should read" is contrary to good sense. All it does is destroy the confidence of the hearer in their English bibles. Statements should be in the sense of augmentation never contradiction. "What the phrase here means is something like "in the state of being saved." Never "the translators got it wrong here!" Never say from the pulpit or lectern that which will compromise the hearer's confidence in the word of God!