Why the ESV Falters

[Rippon]

The NRSV is my favorite translation of the Bible. It translates Eph. 1:3-14 as though it includes six primary clauses, and thus breaks it up into six sentences.

You got it right here, but contradict yourself in another thread insisting the NRSV uses only one sentence for that passage.

 

[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 Biblefor 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).

The LEB is one of the very few contemporary translations of the Bible that translates Eph. 1:3-14 as a single sentence as it is in the Greek text that it is translated from. However, the practice of translating Eph. 1:3-14 as a single sentence was severely criticized by several BB members in another thread. How do the readers of this thread feel about that practice?

No, the NRSV translates it into six sentences.

You got it right here, but contradict yourself in another thread insisting the NRSV uses only one sentence for that passage.

The LEB and the NRSV are two entirely different translations, and their New Testaments are translated from different Greek texts! I have NEVER insisted, said, implied, or suggested that the NRSV uses one sentence to translate Eph. 1:3-14.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why the ESV Falters as a General Purpose Bible [LINK]
by Dr. Byron G. Curtis
Professor of Biblical Studies, Geneva College
June 8, 2013

By “general purpose Bible,” I refer to the Bible’s use in two essential tasks:

(1) Daily Bible reading for rank-and-file Christians.
(2) Pulpit Bible reading for preaching and teaching in Christian congregations.​

Translators typically agree that a general purpose Bible bears three features abundantly:

(1) Accuracy. It doesn’t do much good if the wrong message is eloquently stated.
(2) Clarity. It doesn’t do much good if an accurate message is obscurely expressed.
(3) Fluency. The translated text should “fit” the target language well, preferring its natural rhythms, forms, and phrases when possible.​

In this brief paper I shall show why the ESV, the “English Standard Version” (Crossway, 2001, 2006), fails to meet the “Standard of English” required for a general purpose Bible in English. I shall also show why the NIV 2011 (Zondervan) characteristically succeeds at this very task.

The main problem with this though is that the most important aspect for any translation is just how close that it is to what the original texts as given from God unto were, and think that the Esv scores quite well in that regards!

 

[Smyth]

In this brief paper I shall show why the ESV, the “English Standard Version” (Crossway, 2001, 2006), fails to meet the “Standard of English” required for a general purpose Bible in English. I shall also show why the NIV 2011 (Zondervan) characteristically succeeds at this very task.

HAHA, anyone recommending the NIV 2011 over the ESV has disqualified himself. I won't download the PDF because the download cite wants personal information.

 

[Smyth]

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. 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.

If the NIV disagrees with every good translation, it's a smoking gun showing the NIV is wrong. The NIV has a style of changing verses to make them look more agreeable to the casual reader. And, in fact, the NIV is wrong here. The intent Psalm 4:1 isn't to point out God is righteous, but to praise God for imparting righteousness.

 

[Van]

Hi Smyth, thanks for expressing your view. We differ, but that only means one or both of us are wrong.

Here is the issue, your view is that God imparted "righteousness" to David. My view is that He did not.

Here is the footnote supporting the NIV translation:

Psalm 4:1—“God of my righteousness” (ESV) is an old but serious error. The actual Hebrew word order is indeed “God–righteousness–my.” However, recent studies in Hebrew syntax show that when a “construct chain” (usually two adjacent nouns in a certain form, as here) is modified by a final possessive pronoun, the pronoun modifies the first noun in the chain, not the second noun, which often functions as an adjective; or else it modifies the entire chain. Hence, God+righteousness = “righteous God,” and “God+righteousness+my” = “My righteous God,” as in NIV 2011. It isn’t the Psalmist who is righteous; it is God, whose righteousness here consists in the fact that he attends to the prayers of the needy.

So much for the technical grammar support. Second, as I said, is that God is referred to over and over as our righteous God.

 

[Smyth]

Hi Smyth, thanks for expressing your view. We differ, but that only means one or both of us are wrong.

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, sorry to say, if we disagree, one of us must be wrong. Why should the footnote be trusted, when every good translation disagrees (all with their own Hebrew experts) and the NIV 2011 is produced by people I don't trust?

Greek is a much more detailed and understood language than ancient Hebrew. I consulted Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton's translation of the Septuagint, and it uses the phrase, "God of my righteousness". This bypasses the issue of Hebrew syntax.

 

[Van]

I sure have no idea if the Hebrew grammar assertion in the footnote is valid, but I have not seen anyone address it as error. NIV is not the only translation to go with "My righteous God", it is found in the ISV as well.

Edit: After a search, I found the NIV, NCV, CEB, ICB, and as mentioned before the ISV that the God who does right is in view.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is the issue, your view is that God imparted "righteousness" to David. My view is that He did not.

That is not necessarily the issue at all.
I notice first of all that my trusty NKJV translates as 'God of my righteousness.'
So does Dale Ralph Davis who is a leading expert on the O.T. and on the Hebrew language. In his recent book 'The way of the Righteous in the Muck of Life' (Christian Focus Books, 2010) which is a commentary on Psalms 1-12, he writes:

'Clearly David knows God's character- he calls Him, 'God of my righteousness,' that is, He is the God who will show me to be in the right, even though I am misjudged and persecuted. We would likely put our experience first but the Psalmist puts God's character first in his prayer.'

In other words, David has faith that God will vindicate him (against Absalom? See the ascription to Psalm 3) in due course despite present circumstances. The phrase does not necessarily suggest imparted righteousness.

 

[Yeshua1]

If the NIV disagrees with every good translation, it's a smoking gun showing the NIV is wrong. The NIV has a style of changing verses to make them look more agreeable to the casual reader. And, in fact, the NIV is wrong here. The intent Psalm 4:1 isn't to point out God is righteous, but to praise God for imparting righteousness.

Would say that the 1984 version of the NIV was a more reliable translation on what God meant for us to know and intended us to understand!
The revision seemed to be accomodating at times too much of a viewpoint that wants to demasculate God and the Bible!

 

[Van]

The 1984 version reads O my righteous God.

 

[Van]

You are quite right, the vast majority of translations go with God of my righteousness, Martin. I think they are wrong. Did you come across any articles that addressed the Hebrew grammar argument, and challenged it? Thus far, I have not.

 

[Smyth]

I sure have no idea if the Hebrew grammar assertion in the footnote is valid, but I have not seen anyone address it as error. NIV is not the only translation to go with "My righteous God", it is found in the ISV as well.

I didn't say NIV is the only translation that goes with "My righteous God". I said none of the good translations use that phrase. Not the ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV etc. The relative paraphrases (which includes the NIV) and the relatively amateur translations I don't take as reliable. I am also relatively skeptical of any very modern translation (now that faithfulness to Christ is less of a requirement for translation teams). It doesn't help the the ISV uses a satanic symbol, a hexagram, in their logo.

 

[Van]

Here is a blurb from Barnes:

O God of my righteousness - That is, O my righteous God. This is a common mode of expression in Hebrew. Thus, in Psalm 2:6, "hill of my holiness," meaning "my holy hill;" Psalm 3:4, "his hill of holiness," meaning "his holy hill." The psalmist here appeals to God as "his" God - the God in whom he trusted; and as a "righteous" God - a God who would do that which was right, and on whom, therefore, he might rely as one who would protect his own people. The appeal to God as a righteous God implies a conviction in the mind of the psalmist of the justice of his cause; and he asks God merely to do "right" in the case.

 

[Van]

There are many many places where i believe the NIV misses the mark, but sometimes they are spot on. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are quite right, the vast majority of translations go with God of my righteousness, Martin. I think they are wrong. Did you come across any articles that addressed the Hebrew grammar argument, and challenged it? Thus far, I have not.

I haven't looked for one. I don't consider it that important. Of course God is a righteous God; do you think David might thing He is unrighteous? I only note that Dale Ralph Davis, who is one of the foremost living authorities on Hebrew, doesn't think it worth addressing either. He's still very much alive. If you're that interested, why don't you drop him a line at Woodland Presbyterian Church, Hattiesburg, Miss.? I think that's where he still is.

 

[Smyth]

Would say that the 1984 version of the NIV was a more reliable translation on what God meant for us to know and intended us to understand!
The revision seemed to be accomodating at times too much of a viewpoint that wants to demasculate God and the Bible!

The 1984 version of the NIV is much better than the 2011, but the '84 still tries to smooth the Bible out to the casual reader. This makes the NIV and the paraphrases poor study tools.

 

[Van]

Hi Martin, the my expert is more expert than your expert assertion carries little weight. In addition to about a half dozen translations, we have a Hebrew expert, and a well known commentator all agreeing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hi Martin, the my expert is more expert than your expert assertion carries little weight.

I'm sorry! I though that was the very thing you were doing and I was just joining in.

In addition to about a half dozen translations, we have a Hebrew expert, and a well known commentator all agreeing.

'Nuff said, really.
The problem is that you have no knowledge whatsoever of Hebrew and nor have I, so all we can do is wave experts at each other.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I haven't looked for one. I don't consider it that important. Of course God is a righteous God; do you think David might thing He is unrighteous? I only note that Dale Ralph Davis, who is one of the foremost living authorities on Hebrew, doesn't think it worth addressing either. He's still very much alive. If you're that interested, why don't you drop him a line at Woodland Presbyterian Church, Hattiesburg, Miss.? I think that's where he still is.

Mississippi......OMG, a Davis in that place?!? Whats the Tribe coming to?!?