Why the ESV Falters

[Van]

Yes, you are right, Smyth, all translation translate the same Greek (or source language) word meaning into more than one word or phrase in English. This is not a good thing, this is a bad thing, and creates a lack of transparency.

Lets look at Philippians 1:17, where the ESV now says selfish ambition. An earlier version (my hard copyright 2006, has rivalry. So they changed rivalry to selfish ambition. However, at Galatians 5:20 we still find "rivalries" rather than selfish ambitions.

Next, let us look at 2 Corinthians 12:20, where the ESV renders the same word "hostility"rather than "selfish ambitions."

And to complete the list of flawed translations , we return to Romans 2:8, where. self seeking is used rather than selfish ambition.

So in these three cases, their translation lacks correspondence and transparency.

Now if we compare to the LEB, we find selfish ambition all seven times, so there does not appear to be any valid reason for the lack of transparency.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, you are right, Smyth, all translation translate the same Greek (or source language) word meaning into more than one word or phrase in English. This is not a good thing, this is a bad thing, and creates a lack of transparency.

Lets look at Philippians 1:17, where the ESV now says selfish ambition. An earlier version (my hard copyright 2006, has rivalry. So they changed rivalry to selfish ambition. However, at Galatians 5:20 we still find "rivalries" rather than selfish ambitions.

Next, let us look at 2 Corinthians 12:20, where the ESV renders the same word "hostility"rather than "selfish ambitions."

And to complete the list of flawed translations , we return to Romans 2:8, where. self seeking is used rather than selfish ambition.

So in these three cases, their translation lacks correspondence and transparency.

So are you willing to say the same thing regarding your favorite version --the NASBU?

Phil. 1:17 : selfish ambition
Gal. 5:20 : disputes
2 Cor. 12:20 : disputes
Ro. 2:8 : selfishly ambitious

 

[Smyth]

Yes, you are right, Smyth, all translation translate the same Greek (or source language) word meaning into more than one word or phrase in English. This is not a good thing, this is a bad thing, and creates a lack of transparency.

You don't know what you're talking about. There are no English words that mean exactly the same thing as Greek words, therefor not one English word is always the right translation. For a translator to use the same English word all the time for the a given Greek word would be absolute incompetence.

Transparency is a good thing, and that's what Greek study tools are for. Even better, learn to read biblical Greek.

[/quote]Now if we compare to the LEB, we find selfish ambition all seven times, so there does not appear to be any valid reason for the lack of transparency.[/QUOTE]

The LEB might in this one example translate the same Greek word the same seven times, but most Greek words the LEB translates to a number of different English words.

The LEB is also not as good as the ESV, and neither are as literal (accurate) as the KJV or NKJV.

 

[Van]

So are you willing to say the same thing regarding your favorite version --the NASBU?

Phil. 1:17 : selfish ambition
Gal. 5:20 : disputes
2 Cor. 12:20 : disputes
Ro. 2:8 : selfishly ambitious

LOL Mr. Rippon, what part of "all translations" do you not understand.

Here is the list for the NASB95,
Romans 2:8 selfishly ambitious
2 Cor. 12:20 disputes
Galatians 5:20 disputes
Philippians 1:17 selfish ambition
Philippians 2:3 selfishness
James 3:14 selfish ambition
James 3:16 selfish ambition

Thus we can say both the NASB and ESV fall short in the area of correspondence and transparency. But the ESV is slightly more egregious.

And to state the obvious, two or more wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Van]

Hi Smyth, I have said to translate the same Greek word meaning, repeat word meaning, repeat, word meaning,. using the same English word or phrase. Thus to address the fact that Greek words often have a range of meanings is to completely miss the point.

According to the ESV preface, it seeks to provide word for word "correspondence" and to be "transparent."

As I have demonstrated, it pays lip-service to these translation goals, but fails to deliver.

Finally, please provide examples where the LEB translation is inferior to the ESV. Just making the claim will not cut the mustard. I have come across a few poor translation examples in the LEB, but more often I have found excellent translation choices.

 

[Van]

Even the dreaded NIV has selfish ambition in 6 of the 7 places. It has self seeking at Romans 2:8.

 

[Smyth]

Van:

Consider 2 Peter 3:10b:

LEB: “The celestial bodies will be destroyed by being burned up, and the earth and the deeds done on it will be disclosed.” LEB

KJV “The elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

Here the LEB paraphrases στοιχεῖον to “celestial bodies”. The KJV is literal, “elements”. This is a word the Bible never uses to mean physical elements, let alone celestial bodies, but elements of principles. In other verses, the LEB translates this same word to “elemental spirits”, Gal 4:3,9; Col 2:8,20. Or just “elements”, Heb 5:12.

The LEB paraphrases κατακαίω to “disclosed”. The KJV is literal, “burned up”. In the very same verse, 2 Peter 3:10a, the LEB translates the same word “burned up”. In other places, the word is translated burn, burned, or burned up.

If you want a literal translation, use the KJV or NKJV. And, if wish to complain about translations using different English words for the same Greek word, just know that the LEB is less an offender than other translations. For these two Greek words, the LEB even offends more than the KJV, which at least sticks to a literal translation for each use of these two Greek words.

 

[Van]

Thanks Smyth for your example. The LEB has celestial bodies and the ESV has heavenly bodies.

It seems this word has a range of meanings from elementry principles (of the world or of God) to basic things (elements). Heavenly bodies might well be what is in view, but if these translations would stick with translating with correspondence and transparency, we might find elementary things. That is what the word means in this context.

 

[Van]

A new thread identifies 52 changes to the ESV, and then asserts no more alterations of the ESV will be made. The first one, Genesis 3:16 caught my eye. Here is the "permanent" revision:

Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.

Here the revision is driven by interpretation, because the actual words seem to say the opposite. Some commentators think the idea that even though child-birth will hurt big time, the woman will desire her man and he will have his way with her - know her biblically.

But another view, perhaps held by the ESV folks, is that an additional facet of the curse is that women will desire to hen-peck their men, but their men will rule over them. Such a view is very paternalistic and disparages women.

A literal translation might read: Toward your man - your desire, and he will have his way with you.

 

[TCassidy]

The woman had also broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease (תְּשׁוּקָה from שׁוּק to run, to have a violent craving for a thing), and with subjection to the man. “And he shall rule over thee.” Keil & Delitzsch Commentary, Genesis.

 

[Van]

Thanks for agreeing, she had desire for or toward the man, thus the ESV translation is in error.

 

[Van]

Another verse gleemed from the 52 changes is Ephesians 1:5. Here the ESV translators moved "to himself" to make it clear the Father and not Christ adopts us as sons. So I think this change was not necessarily a mistake. But as I was evaluating the verse I noted the ESV said this was according to the purpose of His will. Most others say something like "good pleasure" of His will, or "kind intentions" of His will.

 

[Rippon]

Another verse gleemed from the 52 changes is Ephesians 1:5.

The word you are looking for is gleaned, not gleemed.

But as I was evaluating the verse I noted the ESV said this was according to the purpose of His will. Most others say something like "good pleasure" of His will, or "kind intentions" [sic] of His will.

Yes, that is a rather unique rendering. But I found that the old Wycliffe translation had "bi the purpos of his wille."

I prefer :"in accordance with his pleasure and will." as the NIV renders it.

 

[Van]

Agreed, the ESV falters in its translation of Ephesians 1:5.

 

[Rippon]

Agreed, the ESV falters in its translation of Ephesians 1:5.

What meaning is lost with the ESV rendering? None.

 

[rsr]

The ESV rendering, while not common, in not unheard of and falls within the range of the meaning of the phrase.

 

[Deacon]

Agreed, the ESV falters in its translation of Ephesians 1:5.

There are a couple of things going on in the translation of Eph 1.5, compare...

Ephesians 1:5 (ESV 2016)
he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.

Ephesians 1:5 (ESV 2011)
he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Ephesians 1:5 (AV 1873)
having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

I like the succinctness of Andrew T. Lincoln's personal translation,

Ephesians 1:5 (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 42, p 25)
he has predestined us for adoption as his own sons through Jesus Christ.

Rob

 

[Van]

Thanks Deacon. My 2006 copyright version read, 5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. Both "as sons" and "to himself" are missing as well as translating "kind intentions" or "good pleasure" as purpose. Three blunders in my hard copy.

The succinct version seems to be missing the last phrase. But I agree, "as His own sons" (or children) is a nifty way to deal with "to himself."

 

[Deacon]

The succinct version seems to be missing the last phrase. But I agree, "as His own sons" (or children) is a nifty way to deal with "to himself."

It's there, I just didn't include it.

Rob

 

[Van]

Hi RSR, since almost every translation group sees "good pleasure" or kind intentions, the choice of purpose is outside the contextually indicated meaning in this verse. Note that the ESV translators did use good pleasure at Philippians 2:14.

OTOH, the ESV translates several other Greek words as purpose, Luke 4:43 - houtos, Luke 7:30 - boule, Acts 9:21 - hina, etc. This obliteration of transparency and correspondence is without merit.