Why the ESV Falters

[Rippon]

Form does not equal meaning,

Good, we agree.

but who would disagree with the fact that poetry must be interpreted differently that prose.

I do not disagree.

Moreover, in the Greek text, Ephesians 1:3-14 is one sentence with one independent clause and many dependent clauses. However, nearly all English translations of the Bible (the ASV is a notable exception) break up this passage into three or more sentences resulting in three or more independent clauses, substantially changing the meaning of the passage and resulting in a multitude of conflicting interpretations of it.

It is absurd for an English sentence to contain more than 200 words. Of course it has to be broken down into more manageable chunks.

The NIV ignores form to the point that it makes it unsuitable for Bible study.

That's another one of your absurd claims. You really need to provide evidence.

 

[Rippon]

Hi CraigbytheSea, you [sic]observations were spot on!

However, the NIV seems to be the only accurate translation of Psalm 4:1, with "My righteous God" rather than almost all others with God of my righteousness.

Craig was citing Isaiah 4:1 --not Psalm 4:1.

Craig, here is the NRSV's rendering for that passage:
Seven women shall take hold of one man on that day, saying, "We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes; just let us be called by your name; take away our disgrace."

Here is the reading from the NIV :
In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, 'We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!'

What is the reason for your objection to the NIV's rendering for this verse? I don't understand your reasoning.

It appears that one has to compare various translations sometimes giving the nod to the NIV and at other times the LEB or NET, or WEB or NASB, or ESV or HCSB.

Van, I commend you for that most astute observation.You may be coming around to my way of thinking in that regard.[/QUOTE]

 

[Craigbythesea]

Hi CraigbytheSea, you observations were spot on!


However, the NIV seems to be the only accurate translation of Psalm 4:1, with "My righteous God" rather than almost all others with God of my righteousness. The idea (as indicated in the link) is that God is righteous, not the Psalmist.

I disagree; the NIV has it wrong, and the standard translations have it right. Alexander Maclaren, in his commentary on Psalms in The Expositors Bible (1903 edition) writes on pages 31-32,

The cry for an answer by deed is based on the name, and on the past acts of God. Grammatically, it would be possible and regular to render "my God of righteousness," i.e., "my righteous God"; but the pronoun is best attached to "righteousness" only, as the consideration that God is righteous is less relevant than that He is the source of the psalmist’s righteousness. Since He is so, He may be expected to vindicate it by answering prayer by deliverance. He who feels that all good in himself comes from God may be quite sure that, sooner or later, and by some means or other, God will witness to His own work. To the psalmist nothing was so incredible as that God should not take care of what He had planted, or let the springing crop be trodden down or rooted up. The Old Testament takes prosperity as the Divine attestation of righteousness; and though they who worship the Man of. Sorrows have new light thrown on the meaning of that conception, the substance of it remains true forever: The compellation "God of my righteousness" is still mighty with God. The second ground of the prayer is laid in the past deeds of God. Whether the clause "Thou hast in straits made space for me" be taken relatively or not, it appeals to former deliverances as reasons for man’s prayer and for God’s act. In many languages trouble and deliverance are symbolised by narrowness and breadth. Compression is oppression. Closely hemmed in by crowds or by frowning rocks, freedom of movement is impossible and breathing is difficult. But out in the open, one expatiates, and a clear horizon means an ample sky.​

Franz Delitzsch, in the Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, writes,

Jahve is אֱלֹהֵי צֶדֶק, the possessor of righteousness, the author of righteousness, and the vindicator of misjudged and persecuted righteousness. This God of righteousness David believingly calls his God (cf. Psa_24:5; Psa_59:11); for the righteousness he possesses, he possesses in Him, and the righteousness he looks for, he looks for in Him. That this is not in vain, his previous experience assures him: Thou hast made a breadth (space) for me when in a strait. In connection with this confirmatory relation of בַּצָּר הִרְהַבְתָּ לִּי it is more probable that we have before us an attributive clause (Hitz.), than that we have an independent one, and at any rate it is a retrospective clause. הרחבת is not precative (Böttch.), for the perf. of certainty with a precative colouring is confined to such exclamatory utterances as Job_21:16 (which see). He bases his prayer on two things, viz., on his fellowship with God, the righteous God, and on His justifying grace which he has already experienced. He has been many times in a strait already, and God has made a broad place for him. The idea of the expansion of the breathing (of the stream of air) and of space is attached to the ח, Arab. ḥ, of רחב, root רח (Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xii. 657). What is meant is the expansion of the straitened heart, Psa_25:17. Isa_60:5, and the widening of a straitened position, Psa_18:20; Psa_118:5. On the Dag. in לִּי vid., on Psa_84:4.​

Many others are of the same, or nearly same, opinion—and I share that opinion.

It appears that one has to compare various translations sometimes giving the nod to the NIV and at other times the LEB or NET, or WEB or NASB, or ESV or HCSB.

I partially agree. I would not bother to consult the NIV or the HCSB.

 

[Craigbythesea]

It is absurd for an English sentence to contain more than 200 words. Of course it has to be broken down into more manageable chunks.

The whole of Ephesians 1:3-14 is a doxology, a type of eulogy; and like all eulogies, it is highly subjective, speaking exclusively of God’s part in our salvation, and leaving out our responsibility toward God. When it is broken down into more than one sentence, everything beyond the first sentence becomes a series of objective doctrinal statements rather than a continuation of the eulogy. The HCSB (2009 edition) not only breaks down the single-sentence eulogy into eight sentences each containing an independent clause—the HCSB breaks it down into four paragraphs!

The ASV preserves the basic structure of the Greek sentence and gives us,

3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:
4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
5. having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:
7. in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
8. which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
9. making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him
10. unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,
11. in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
12. to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ:
13. in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation—
in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14. which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.

If an English-speaking teenager or adult cannot easily understand this 280-word sentence, that teenager or adult has poor reading skills! Indeed, an English-speaking ten-year-old boy or girl should be able, with a little bit of effort, to clearly understand this sentence. However, a man or woman with a Ph.D. in English rhetoric from the University of Cambridge could not possibly understand Paul’s thought by reading the horribly mutilated sentence in the HCSB.

 

[Rippon]

You make a big deal about the supposed superiority of the ASV keeping twelve verses as a single sentence. Of course, that is a ridiculous position for you to take. How wise is it for the ASV to divide the "unit" up into twelve individual sections? Each verse is set off as a separate chunk. That, my friend, is silly.

 

[Van]

The cry for an answer by deed is based on the name, and on the past acts of God. Grammatically, it would be possible and regular to render "my God of righteousness," i.e., "my righteous God"; but the pronoun is best attached to "righteousness" only, as the consideration that God is righteous is less relevant than that He is the source of the psalmist’s righteousness. narrowness and breadth.

​

Franz Delitzsch, in the Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, writes,

Jahve is אֱלֹהֵי צֶדֶק, the possessor of righteousness, the author of righteousness, and the vindicator of misjudged and persecuted righteousness. This God of righteousness David believingly calls his God (cf. Psa_24:5; Psa_59:11); for the righteousness he possesses, ​

Many others are of the same, or nearly same, opinion—and I share that opinion.

I partially agree. I would not bother to consult the NIV or the HCSB.

We disagree, my righteous God is the most accurate grammatical translation, God, not David is in view. The Hebrew grammar is explained in the link footnote.

It is improbable that the NIV and HCSB never provide occasional insight into God's message.

 

[Craigbythesea]

You make a big deal about the supposed superiority of the ASV keeping twelve verses as a single sentence. Of course, that is a ridiculous position for you to take. How wise is it for the ASV to divide the "unit" up into twelve individual sections? Each verse is set off as a separate chunk. That, my friend, is silly.

The ASV is the American Standard Version; that is, the American Edition of the Revised Version of 1881-1885. This version of the Bible does NOT divide Eph. 1:3-14 into “twelve individual sections”; and each verse is NOT set off “as a separate chunk,” but rather this passage is correctly printed as one paragraph that begins with verse 3 and ends with verse 14. Here it is as originally printed by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1901,

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: 5 having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved: 7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him 10 unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,11 in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will; 12 to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ: 13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation—in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is an earnest of our inheritance,unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.

My point, however, is that the form and structure of sentences and paragraphs impacts the meaning of printed literature, and I used Eph. 1:3-14 in the ASV as an example. It is ridiculously absurd to disagree with objective, indisputable facts.

 

[annsni]

The ASV is the American Standard Version; that is, the American Edition of the Revised Version of 1881-1885. This version of the Bible does NOT divide Eph. 1:3-14 into “twelve individual sections”; and each verse is NOT set off “as a separate chunk,” but rather this passage is correctly printed as one paragraph that begins with verse 3 and ends with verse 14. Here it is as originally printed by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1901,

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: 5 having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved: 7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him 10 unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,11 in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will; 12 to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ: 13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation—in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is an earnest of our inheritance,unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.

My point, however, is that the form and structure of sentences and paragraphs impacts the meaning of printed literature, and I used Eph. 1:3-14 in the ASV as an example. It is ridiculously absurd to disagree with objective, indisputable facts.

Yet my question is: Why did they decide to make the sentence this long? Why not make it longer? The originals didn't have punctuation or even sentence separators so it was up to the translator to translate the words into useable language for it's target audience. There is absolutely no reason to make this one long run on sentence instead of breaking it up into useable parts. There is no change in meaning but it certainly makes it grammatical correct and easier to read breaking it up.

Honestly, reading it through right now, I see the punctuation doesn't even fit properly with the structure of the words.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Yet my question is: Why did they decide to make the sentence this long? Why not make it longer? The originals didn't have punctuation or even sentence separators so it was up to the translator to translate the words into useable language for it's target audience. There is absolutely no reason to make this one long run on sentence instead of breaking it up into useable parts. There is no change in meaning but it certainly makes it grammatical correct and easier to read breaking it up.

This is absolute nonsense! Every Greek sentence MUST include at least one independent clause (preferably only one, because if it includes more than one, it is a run-on sentence). The Greek text of Eph. 1:3-14, with or without punctuation, includes ONLY ONE independent clause. Therefore, it is ONLY ONE SENTENCE. This is an objective, incontrovertible fact! This same fundamental grammatical rule also applies to English sentences. That is why in EVERY English translation of the Bible in which Eph. 1:3-14 is broken up into more than one sentence, all of the sentences, excerpt for the first one, are reworded to make them include an independent clause (the first sentence does not need to be reworded to make it include an independent clause because it already has one).

Honestly, reading it through right now, I see the punctuation doesn't even fit properly with the structure of the words.

The punctuation is impeccable! If it appears to anyone to not be impeccable —that person is misunderstanding what is being said in the passage.

 

[Craigbythesea]

We disagree, my righteous God is the most accurate grammatical translation, God, not David is in view.

This is incorrect. “God of my righteousness!” is the most accurate translation of אלהי צדקי. Compare Psalms 24:4-5,

Psalms 24:4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood And has not sworn deceitfully.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the LORD And righteousness from the God of his salvation. (NASB)

Elohim imputed righteousness to David; and David is praying in Psalms 4:1 (Psalm 4:2 in the Hebrew text) to Elohim, the God of his righteousness (or 'right', as in the NRSV).

 

[Van]

This is incorrect. “God of my righteousness!” is the most accurate translation of אלהי צדקי. Compare Psalms 24:4-5,

Psalms 24:4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood And has not sworn deceitfully.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the LORD And righteousness from the God of his salvation. (NASB)

Elohim imputed righteousness to David; and David is praying in Psalms 4:1 (Psalm 4:2 in the Hebrew text) to Elohim, the God of his righteousness (or 'right', as in the NRSV).

First we can find lots of places in scripture that say God is righteous, so "my righteous God" is consistent. But lets turn the tables, did God make any OT saint (including David) righteous during their lives? Or did they have to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect? (Hebrews 11:39-40).

 

[Craigbythesea]

First we can find lots of places in scripture that say God is righteous, so "my righteous God" is consistent. But lets turn the tables, did God make any OT saint (including David) righteous during their lives? Or did they have to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect? (Hebrews 11:39-40).

Hebrews 11:39. και ουτοι παντες μαρτυρηθεντες δια της πιστεως ουκ εκομισαντο την επαγγελιαν
40. του θεου περι ημων κρειττον τι προβλεψαμενου ινα μη χωρις ημων τελειωθωσιν

Hebrews 11:39. And these all, having had witness borne to them through their faith, received not the promise,
40. God having provided some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. (ASV)

Compare Luke 13:32,

Luke 13:32. και ειπεν αυτοις πορευθεντες ειπατε τη αλωπεκι ταυτη ιδου εκβαλλω δαιμονια και ιασεις αποτελω σημερον και αυριον και τη τριτη τελειουμαι

Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go and say to that fox, Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected. (ASV)

The same Greek verb, τελειόω, is used in both Hebrews 11:40 and Luke 13:32. In Hebrews 11:40, the verb is in the passive aorist subjunctive; in Luke 13:32, the verb is in the passive present indicative but speaking of the future resurrection. I suggest that in Hebrews 11:40, the resurrection of the Old Testament saints is in view; and in Luke 13:32, the resurrection of Jesus is in view. Regarding the imputation of righteous in the Old Testament, please see again post #30.

 

[Rob_BW]

I wonder how English professors today would grade a 280 word sentence?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The 280 words means it's good Koine Greek but bad English. I've had the same sort of problem when editing my wife's translations from Russian to English. You can get away with a 280 word sentence when the language is as highly inflected as Koine Greek (or Russian). The same is unwieldy to impenetrable when a language's grammar depends on sentence position like English.

I wonder how English professors today would grade a 280 word sentence?

 

[Van]

The question was Did God make any OT Saint righteous (including David) before Christ died? The answer, from Hebrews 11:39-40, is no.

I am not sure what you are asserting, but Hebrews 10:1, 14, and 11:40 clearly indicate individuals are made perfect when washed by the blood of the Lamb, which was not available until Christ died.

David was not made righteous before Christ died. Therefore, my righteous God is the message.

I have provided the technical basis (footnote in link) and the basis of my thinking from scripture, and I can add nothing else on this topic.

 

[rsr]

First we can find lots of places in scripture that say God is righteous, so "my righteous God" is consistent. But lets turn the tables, did God make any OT saint (including David) righteous during their lives? Or did they have to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect? (Hebrews 11:39-40).

So Yahweh said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? Indeed, there is no one like him on the earth — a blameless man and upright and God-fearing and turning away from evil.” (Job 1:8, LEB).

 

[Rippon]

I wonder how English professors today would grade a 280 word sentence?

Not so well.

The thing is, the NRSV is Craig's favorite version. It divides that unit into five verses. While he is complaining about the travesty of modern versions his pet is no different. He's into double standards.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I wonder how English professors today would grade a 280 word sentence?

That, of course, would depend upon the sentence and the reason why it was so long. If the reason was to accurately translate a text in another language that included only one independent clause, such a long sentence would not only be desirable—it would be a necessity. If, on the other hand, the reason was to communicate to its readers a mere subject with its predicate, a 280-word sentence would be intolerable!

Translators of Eph. 1:3-14 find themselves in the predicament of having to choose between accuracy and what the reading public—and their customers—will find to be acceptable. The goal of the translators of the ASV* was to present to the public an edition of the Revised Version of 1881-1885 that reflected the choices of the late-coming American team working on the revision of the King James Version. The goal of both the American team and the British team was to present to the public a revision of the King James Version based upon major advances in biblical scholarship, and that would be as technically accurate as readability would permit. Its acceptance by scholars, both sacred and secular, was huge; but its acceptance by the clergy and their congregations was much less favorable. Therefore, years of research culminated in the publication of the Revised Standard Version—the New Testament in1948, and the Old Testament in 1952.


*For an explanatory history of ASV, please see here,

http://www.theopedia.com/american-standard-version

P.S. The British team also translated Eph. 1:3-14 as one sentence!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Not so well.

The thing is, the NRSV is Craig's favorite version. It divides that unit into five verses. While he is complaining about the travesty of modern versions his pet is no different. He's into double standards.

The NRSV is my favorite translation of the Bible for my own use. It is my favorite because of its unsurpassed technical accuracy (speaking of the Bible as a whole), and because its English is a model of near perfection. It translates Eph. 1:3-14 as though it includes six primary clauses, and thus breaks it up into six (not five) sentences (not verses). It does this in keeping with its literary style which is excellent, but at the loss of accuracy. However, I do not like the fact that the NRSV is a gender-neutral translation, but I do understand why the editors chose to go with that translation policy (which is supported by a multitude of scholars). SNIP

 

[Van]

So Yahweh said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? Indeed, there is no one like him on the earth — a blameless man and upright and God-fearing and turning away from evil.” (Job 1:8, LEB).

None of the OT Saints, including Job were made righteous, and they all sinned and fell short of the glory of God. Jesus said no one had ascended during His lifetime, so Job too appears to have been consigned to Abraham's bosom until he was made perfect through the blood of Christ.