ESV 2011 changes

Actually my stockings do have feet that run, but only when I'm wearing them! :tongue3:

 

Jhn 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love [agape -- godly absolute love] me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love [phileo -- brotherly love] you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."


Jhn 21:16 He [Jesus] said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love [agape -- godly absolute love] me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love [phileo -- brotherly love] you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."


Jhn 21:17 He [Jesus] said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love [phileo -- brotherly love] me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love [phileo -- brotherly love] me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love [phileo -- brotherly love] you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Jesus was asking Peter if Peter loved Him with the absolute love of God. Jesus asked again. Both times Peter responded with a lesser love -- love of a brother -- and could not respond that he loved Christ as Christ loved him. When asked a third time, this time, Christ asking if Peter even loved Him like a brother, Peter was rather dismayed. He knew that Christ had to soften His concept of love in order to meet Peter's ability, yet Christ gave the same command to Peter, "feed my sheep."

If we read this in plain English, we miss the nuances of the point Christ was trying to make to Peter and we end up wondering why Jesus had to ask the question three times -- often spiritualizing something about the thrice asked issue -- instead of seeing the real issue driven by the text.

 

How should we handle those nuances when traslating from the Greek into the English?

Outline it as you have, with bracketing around literal meaning of each "love" in the Greek?

OR translate the word"love" differently a bit, with words in English conveying the differences in greek?

 

Either way works. Depends on if one is preaching or teaching and how much time you have to make the point. Sometimes just sticking it out there makes it clear without much said, other times, when one of the Greek verb tenses that do not exist in English (for instance) are used, it may take some 'splainin'.

FYI, for those who are not familiar, Greek has 18 verb forms while English only has 12. That means that 6 verb forms used in Scripture need to be translated with additional English words to convey the actual usage of the Greek verb (but rarely are). An example are an action with on-going results or results that culminate in a particular action, neither of which translate readily into English and both of which can radically change the context of a particular pericope when outlined and applied correctly to the actual subject of the sentence (which are also often different in Greek than in English, in some cases, an entire chapter can be a single Greek sentence, and understanding the subject and the action applied to that subject makes a ton of difference in the understanding). That's why we send potential pastors to seminary to learn language and hermaneutics.

 

Kinda disappointed that those who were adamant towards the "slave" rendering didn't respond to my posts. Was my point taken? I really want to know your thoughts on the matter.

 

I think you already know my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not a scholar, but I do know how to research and I believe slave to to be the appropriate word. It seems as we all have our minds made up, so that's why I quit posting. I don't want to fight about it.
I will post one more thing. In the back of my HCSB there are definitions of certain words. Here is what it lists as the definition of slave.

"The strong Greek word doulos cannot be accurately translated in English by "servant" or "bond servant"; the HCSB translates this word as "slave", not out of insensitivity to the legitimate concerns of modern English speakers, but out of a commitment to accurately convey the brutal reality of the Roman empire's inhumane institution as well as the ownership called for by Christ."


Although I had formed my opinion before I even read the HCSB, this certainly helps to confirm it and at the least shows that the translators (who are truly very educated people) had this view as well.

 

I only quoted what was in the HCSB dictionary of my bible. You'll have to take it up with the translators.

 

I said it helped confirm my opinion, which apparently is not correct according most on this thread, but I'm entitled to it.

The HCSB translation team made it known that they believe the correct translation of doulos is slave and since they are scholars I feel that I can trust the translation. IOW, it's not just my opinion.

I also gave 2 links to a speech at Liberty University in which John MacArthur says doulos should be translated as slave instead of servant/bond servant. Again, not only my opinion. But I don't think anybody bothered to watch it.

 

Watching now here, and this is part 1 of 3. I believe your link gave the last 2 parts only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZX_fA885ow&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL3DAFFFB6DBB882FC

 

Misleading inclusive language in ESV

Posted on November 16, 2011 by Rod Decker
Since I’ve been working in Acts 14 of late, I was surprised to notice that ESV has an inclusive language note in Acts 14:2 but that NIV does not.

ESV, But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.*
*Or brothers and sisters
NIV, But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.
​

The question revolves around the referent of τῶν ἀδελφῶν.

οἱ δὲ ἀπειθήσαντες Ἰουδαῖοι ἐπήγειραν καὶ ἐκάκωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐθνῶν κατὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν.
​

It would appear that the only possible referent in this context is Paul and Barnabas. Unless someone can explain to me who the “sisters” are in this context, I’m afraid that I should conclude that the ESV has been a bit too enthusiastic (or “mechanical”?!) with their inclusive language at this point.

 

How Much of the Job Does Your Translation Do?

Posted on December 11, 2011 by Rod Decker
The ESV goes further in this regard, though not as far as their PR department (they would like you to think that the ESV is “NASB on English steroids”!) and some ESVO advocates would have you believe. The best parts of the ESV are those that use the most functional equivalence (and yes, there is a fair bit of functional equivalence in ESV); the clumsiest parts are those which are most NASB-like.