Critique of the ESV

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

This is not true.