SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : ESV ?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

HI Chancellor
welcome to the discussion...

I still use the ESV, and its linguistic style, no doubt derived from the RSV, is pleasant to read, but I don't trust it. I find myself constantly checking what it says. My main objection to it is that it is not literal or formal equivalence.

The blurb says "It sits in the classic stream of word for word Bible translations, using the Revised Standard Version as a base but incorporating all the most recent advances in scholarship and changes in modern language use". I fail to see how anyone can regard the RSV as a word for word translation, and the ESV is not 'word for word' (literal equivalence) to anything like the extant of the NASB. However it is very readible which was one of the strengths of the RSV.

The ESV claims to be an 'essentially literal equivalence' translation. It cannot be if it is based on the RSV.

As far as I know there are no conservative evangelical scholars who would prefer the Septuagint to the Masoretic text.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/7/14 4:29Profile
Chancellor
Member



Joined: 2004/7/13
Posts: 19


 Re:

The RSV was, so I've read, an update of the 1901 ASV (as is the NASB). The ASV is supposedly an update of the KJV. RSV, to my knowledge is not a dynamic equivalence translation.

As for having to check what the ESV says, I do that with any English translation. English is a rather impoverished language into which to translate scripture.

I have no doubt that the NASB is still the most literal of all the English-language Bibles but I would definitely recommend the ESV over any of the dynamic equivalence translations.


_________________
Chancellor Carlyle Roberts, II

 2004/7/15 19:41Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

Quote:

Chancellor wrote:
The RSV was, so I've read, an update of the 1901 ASV (as is the NASB).

The RSV, as I understand it, was done at least partly by theological liberals. Not that that conclusively proves it an inferior translation (there have been some staggeringly brilliant liberal theologians), but I wouldn't trust translation of God's Word to people who may or may not really believe it is God's Word.

Quote:
The ASV is supposedly an update of the KJV.

In the O.T., perhaps, but in the N.T. they use different manuscripts (unless I'm quite mistaken); the KJV uses the Textus Receptus (Received Text) as Erasmus put together, through Beza, and I think some other fellow before the 1611 translators went to work; the ASV uses one of the compiled texts (Westcott-Hort?), largely based on Aleph and B (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), two manuscripts that, if I recall correctly, the KJV translators made no use of if they even knew of them.

 2004/7/15 19:55Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
The RSV was, so I've read, an update of the 1901 ASV (as is the NASB). The ASV is supposedly an update of the KJV. RSV, to my knowledge is not a dynamic equivalence translation.

The RSV may have been marketed as such, but it certainly wasn't. It is dynamic equivalence in contrast to the ASV's literal/formal equivalence. The RV/ASV was supposed to be a 'revision' (hence its name) of the KJV. However, for the NT Westcott and Hort created an eclectic text based almost exclusively on the Vatican and Sinai Codices, this skewed the NT translation to an extent that it is a very flawed tool. However, the OT of the RV/ASV is based on the Masoretic text and is still the most 'accurate' translation readily available. (most online bibles will give it free)


Quote:
As for having to check what the ESV says, I do that with any English translation. English is a rather impoverished language into which to translate scripture.

In some senses the opposite is true. English is richer in its number of words; it is the concepts which are sometimes difficult to convey.


Quote:
I have no doubt that the NASB is still the most literal of all the English-language Bibles but I would definitely recommend the ESV over any of the dynamic equivalence translations.

The ASV is, by far, the most literal/formal equivalence translation. The ESV being based upon the RSV should not be regarded as a literal/formal equivalence translation.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/7/16 5:15Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: The ESV revisited

I thought I ought to modify my position on the ESV.

I have been using the ESV a little of late, and am growing in my appreciation of it. The translation philosophy calls it an 'essentially literal' translation. (ie literal equivalence as compared with dynamin equivalence) My objection to this has been that it is based on the RSV which was not. However it is much closer to literal equivalence than I had originally thought and I am particularly enjoying the narrative sections. It reads very smoothly and I would recommend SIers to try it where possible.

I still prefer the stricter literal equivalence of the KJV but I will report back on my reactions as I continue to read.

There is a free e-sword ESV module available.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/17 14:34Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Today I came across a pattern of the ESV which is likely to repeat often in the New Testament.

But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. (Luk 9:55 KJV)

But he turned and rebuked them. (Luk 9:55 ESV)
But he turned, and rebuked them. (Luk 9:55 ASV)
But he turned and rebuked them. (Luke 9:55 RSV)

The omission of the final phrase is because the ESV and ASV and RSV are relying heavily upon the Western Texts. The latter phrase is omitted in the Sinai and Vatican mss but is present in those known as the Majority Text. In this the ESV is clearly showing its pedigree.

The NASB which is more moderate in its veneration of the Sinai and Vatican mss has given due weight to the testimony of the Majority Text and has restored the fuller text, as can be seen below. The NASB put the fuller phrase into [brackets] with a marginal note.

But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; (Luk 9:55 NASB)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/18 6:43Profile
swsojourner
Member



Joined: 2003/10/3
Posts: 167


 Re:


Hello Philogos,

There is also McCheyne's reading program http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/devotions/one.year.tract/
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/devotions/

I'm pretty much Authorized all the way, but I swtiched over a month ago after reading and memorizing in the ESV.. Have some more thoughts also, about the "ommph" factor, and the Textus Receptus, etc

There is one thing that really, really suprised me about the ESV and and that is how easy it is to memorize and it layers well with the King James at the same time

I"m still working through it, but hands down
it beats any other modern version out there :)

(IMHO, of course)
KN


_________________
Karsten Nordmo

 2004/9/18 17:38Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

I'm not planning to make a daily habit of this report card, but todays readings were enlightening on the topic of the 'best' manuscripts.

After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
(Luk 10:1 KJV)

After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. (Luk 10:1 ESV)

Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come. (Luk 10:1 ASV)

After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. (Luk 10:1 RSV)

What is interesting here is that the ESV appears to be even more committed to the Western Text than were the British RV/ASV revisers. They put the 'extra two missionaries' into the footnotes, but the ESV sticks them straight into the text and puts its comments into the footnotes.

I think this is where the crunch is going to be with the ESV for me. As swsojourner says it is very readable and the flow makes it very easy to memorise. The movement of narrative passages is very smooth. But, and to me it is a big but, it is very heavily committed to the Western texts. The ESV preface comments "the ESV... is based on the Greek Text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed) published by the United Bible Societies (UBS) and the Novum Testamentum Graece (27th edition) by Nestle and Aland." The preface continues to comment that "in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV had followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition." On the present showing they are likely to be very few indeed.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/19 3:44Profile
Agent001
Member



Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 Re:

I am not sure this one verse reveals a stronger commitment to one MSS over another in general, or simply an exceptional case in which textual considerations have convinced the editors of ESV to favour one rendition over the other.

Quote:
There is a difficult textual problem here and in v. 17, where the number is either "seventy" (Í A C L W Q X Y Ë1,13 Ï and several church fathers and early versions) or "seventy-two" (Ì B D 0181 pc lat as well as other versions and fathers). The more difficult reading is "seventy-two," since scribes would be prone to assimilate this passage to several OT passages that refer to groups of seventy people (Num 11:13-17; Deut 10:22; Judg 8:30; 2 Kgs 10:1 et al.); this reading also has slightly better ms support. "Seventy" could be the preferred reading if scribes drew from the tradition of the number of translators of the LXX, which the Letter of Aristeas puts at seventy-two (TCGNT 127), although this is far less likely. All things considered, "seventy-two" is a much more difficult reading and accounts for the rise of the other. Only Luke notes a second larger mission like the one in 9:1-6.

(NET footnote)

P.S. I'm sorry the textual note did not come out right here, but I think most people don't care anyways.


_________________
Sam

 2004/9/21 11:44Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Sam
I'm sure you are right that not too many will want to delve into the intracacies of textual critcism but for those who might there is an interesting site run by Michael Marlowe

Michael has strong opinions and takes no prisoners but there is some excellent material on his site.

As a simplification I have studied quite a bit about Burgen and Scrivener and Christopher Wordsworth. I have a wonderful set of 2 volumes of Christopher Wordsworth on the Greek Text. He was a strong follower of Scrivener.

The Englishman's Greek New Testament was published by Bagsters and without credit to its author who was Thomas Newberry. It has an editors critical apparatus at the foot of the pages which is really quite simple to use. Generally I am happy to take Wordsworth's judgements.

I note that Michael Marlow has the followed textual notes on Luke 10:1
Luke 10:1. Add "two" after "seventy". Lt WHt NAt signifying that Lighfoot, Westcottp-Hort and Nestle-Aland. Of the older editors only Lachman added the extra 'duo'


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/21 13:49Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy